Sunday, July 31, 2005

Me and girls

I guess the problem is that I like Darkness, I like exploring the darker side of nature, but women can't, or, they need to know a person very well before taking that chance. What to men is seductive and a turn on is to women something else entirely. Women, to be quite frank, can't take the chance that darkness entails. There's so much violence and exploitation against and of women in this society that the traditional things which used to mean turn on now mean danger, danger which is real and which women are pretty smart to try to avoid. It's a matter of self protection. Macho guys? Bad boys? Sexual exploitation and chauvanism.

Trying to tap into some sort of primal urge for seduction and pleasure? We know where that's headed. No matter how you try to cover it up, no matter what inclusive language you use, there isn't equality between the sexes in this society. Men have the power and women have to deal with that power, with being the objects which that power fixates on.

The traditional ways reinforce that power dynamic.

It's different with men. Something which has been going through my mind for a long time is that the place of gay men in the vanguard of sexual liberation, which is where they've been for a long time, is both poignant and indicative of how society is. After all, men who deal with men have much less to worry about than women who deal with men. Although there are psychos in the gay world as well there's much less difference of psychology and of perspective. Usually there's not much ambiguity between two men who are circling each other trying to hook up, there's no sense of social coercion or issues of even if this is really what they want to do or is simply a role that training and social influence has thrust onto them. That gay men have been in the vanguard of sexual liberation has been a good enough thing but it's also telling about the society that we live in that only when two people from the dominant sex hook up can there truly be the kind of sexual freedom that people talk about ideally being built towards and ideally existing.


I'm just lost. And the comodity which would make something like I want happen is a commodity I don't have: long term friendships with women out here and the trust which comes with those relationships.

I hope that those will eventually manifest.

A beautiful day in Seattle

Today was amazing. The combination of clear skies with high temperatures made the day superb. I happened upon the Capitol Hill block party while in town today and heartily appreciated the mix of cool booths, offering everything from political bumperstickers and the sponsorship of nuns in Tibet to tarot reading and other esoterica, and good music. Although the cost to get in to the segregated music stage areas was around $12 I got around that by patronizing the Jones soda company tent which happened to be right next to a great DJ in the Vera Project area who was spinning techno which was probably the most authentic I've heard since I left the Detroit area. So I absorbed it for free while downing Jones soda, which was offered at a cheap price.

Then I made my way up and down Broadway. Ah, to be in a gay neighborhood again. There's just something about it. It makes me wonder, yet again, if my sexual identity is bisexual or whether I'm actually gay and just don't want to admit one of the people I knew in high school once said, there's a difference between being gay and just not being succesful with women.

Oh well.

I saw one of the spray paint stencilers in action. I'm very happy about this. Seattle , particularly the Capitol Hill area, has many examples of really creative art done with intricate stencils spray painted onto buildings and public property like mail boxes. It's really great stuff, everything from a picture of Darth Vader's head to more conventional political agit-prop. I really hope someone's documenting all of this stuff, at least taking pictures of the art, because it would really suck for all of this creativity to just be lost to the winds when the paint gets scraped off by the weather. Documentation documentation. Someone once said, and I think it was in relation to travel, that it's fine to do crazy things so long as you make a map and give a description of what you've done so that others might be able to follow up on it and experience it in the future.

So many interesting things going on.....I hope that records are being kept so that others might appreciate what's going on through reading accounts of it, and maybe imitate it themselves.

The painting of really artistic stencils on walls is just one example. There are experiments with collective living out there which are doing interesting things too. But if no one writes about them than what'll happen when, and if, they break up? All that knowledge about these experiments with living will just dissipate.

Documentation is really good.

Don't be paranoid.

Take the chance in order to promote what you're doing for posterity.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Social Justice vs. Liberty

Although the original post was written as a rant the more I think about it the more the distinction between the political culture of the United States and that of France as being one of liberty vs. social justice holds water.

The movements in the sixties in the U.S. went through all sorts of permutations regarding liberty before they got around to looking at the problem of social justice in a real serious way, which I reckon happened after '68. i.e. in the period of time regarded by Tom Gitlin as the 'bad sixties'. By '68 in Europe, as people should know, the question of social justice was already well entrenched, with '68 witnessing the linking up of student protestors, who started a strike at the Sorbonne which telescoped outwards, with workers who were persuaded to support the student strike with strikes of their own.

I know, people will argue that before '68 there was a whole lot attention paid to social justice in the United States, like in the civil rights movement, but the thing to remember about that is that for the most part the civil rights movement was about just that: civil rights, not social justice for blacks. It appears to be only in the later phase of the civil rights movement, starting a little before '68, coinciding with the rise of 'black power', that economic justice for blacks seriously got a hearing as an important issue.

It's striking to me anyways how many iterations of personal liberation were went through before social justice was gotten to, and even then it appears to be as a kind of extension of liberty, where it isn't reduced to a charicature because of the extreme inexperience of the people involved in thinking in terms of socialist theory, Marxist-Leninism and Maoism, which were the keys that social justice thought was expressed in at that time.

The paralells could be brought right up through the present: France has restrictive laws regarding what you can and can't say, with campaigns having been launched to silence people who the French populace doesn't agree with, for instance a holocaust denier a while ago who, in defence of his right to free speech, Chomsky wrote an introduction for, or Houellebecq, the author, who was charged with inciting racial hatred for making some cynical remarks about Islam in his books. On the other hand, when it comes to compensation, work week, and social benefits, the French are right there, very active, very willing to fight for their right to just shakes for all of these things. Witness the frequent mass strikes and farmers protests.

Here in the United States the situation is just the reverse. I'm not saying that life would be better if what prevailed in France was put into place here--I care too much about freedom of thought and liberty to suggest something like that--so don't misunderstand me. But. Here a person can say anything, get anything into print, without really having to worry all that much about formal censorship being instituted against him or her. True, this is starting to change because of the Bush administration, but so far the conservatives have largely worked through non-governmental means, like through public disapprobation, rather than full out governmental censorship. Of course some say that the right to speak isn't the same as the right to be heard and that many of these voices belong to figures crying out in the wilderness, unheard, so to speak, but that's not the point. We can say it and although there are incentives not to more often than not we do.

On the other hand it's almost impossible to raise issues of social justice which carry with them the assumption that some form of equity or justice in the distribution of wealth is just right, just an obvious truth which doesn't have to be justified. More often than not pleas for social justice are couched in terms of liberty--as in the redefinition of liberty to include the resources needed for effective liberty within a given society. That's just a fancy way of saying that in order to fully participate in society at a decent level a person needs a certain level of economic power. People who are totally destitute and dependant on their jobs can't participate as full citizens in this republic, according to the reasoning.

Effective liberty in order to be autonomous agents. That's another way of putting it. You need enough economic power in order to truly be an active agent in your own life, self directing, free.

But all of these ways of approaching the problem make it more complex than it needs to be. It would be easier just to say that extreme inequality between the richest and the poorest is just wrong and unjust for society rather than go through the philosophical contortions necessary to justify social justice by means of a type of liberty.

What the philosophical priorities of the United States, as well as France, create is a situation where the second priority can only get attention when the first priority has been adequately dealt with, which in the United States means that social justice only gets attention after gobs of it have been thrown at liberty in all its forms, even though we're probably already one of the freest societies in the world in terms of press freedom, although, like mentioned above, that's changing.

Social Justice looks to me like something which needs to get attention on its own terms and not as something which gets seconds after our major preoccupation has been treated well. Social Justice means people having the means to lead a decent life or not having the means to do so. I think that's subject matter which justifies a permanent interest, not just one which ebbs and flows with the times or with interest.

A solution would be to recognize these two areas of life, liberty and social justice, as being paralell to each other rather than arranged in a zero sum game where to give attention to one would be to take attention away from the other.

Then, we could resolutely address our social problems without sacrificing our tradition of liberty.

Getting in touch with my inner Southerner

Or, in translation, getting drunk on St. Peter's Cream Stout from England while listening to Jerry Lee Lewis...

Real beer, real cigarettes, real coffee: the Pacific Northwest is the rare area in the United States where you can find all three.

by the way
Contrary to popular belief I don't write many of these things intoxicated.

Link leads to the St. Peters' brewery in Suffolk.

Reason for drinking: dealing with depression.

Reason depressed: let's not go there, suffice it to say that seeing certain old friends sometimes brings on depressed moods. Not a friend made in the past year, btw, someone else. Yes, I did have a life before that fucking program. Which I liked a lot.

Chris Matthews, demise of secular tv journalism

The article recalls a Harball religious fest at a Baptist church in Nashville...maybe it's time to break out the Primo de Rivera...look it up. As this writer talking about catholicism and politics in Europe in the WWII era said about the Franco regime, any government which seeks to promote Christianity and Christian devoutness profanes itself by thinking that it can make judgements about religion which are the proper domain of the Churches themselves. Franco had declared that he wanted to make Spain more Catholic than any other country, the Church, or at least some members of the Church, said that's none of your business. It isn't the business of George Bush or any of his cronies to promote Christianity or to promote religiousness on the part of Americans, or on the part of America as some corporate entity, either and is in fact a tremendous act of arrogance.

Bush and the people who follow this type of activity, are, in effect, by this line of reasoning claiming for themselves the privilege of speaking for God.

Remember what the first sin is Christianity is?

Pride, folks, pride.

"the global struggle against violent extremism":

This is the new name for the 'global war on terror'. Violent, smashing a window at an anti-globalization protest is 'violent' and a work of 'extremists' and so some skinny anarchist could be put in the same category as Osama bin Laden.

This is about the only time I'd quote a Republican "Extremism in defence of liberty is no vice"--Barry Goldwater

The Grimas

Ok, this is a totally superfluous post in relation to what I usually write about but I have a bee in my bonnet over this. There's a pagan author who goes by the name of Raven Grimassi who writes on witchraft from an Italian perspective--Strega. I'm Italian so it has some interest. What Mr. Grimassi does, though, is basically endorse this kind of anthropolizing of religion which says that Diana was a goddess who was formed during hunter-gatherer times who was kept on as a cultural legacy, that other gods and goddesses were formed during agricultural times and where therefore adapted to that society, etc... The question is this: if you actually believe in this stuff as a religion how can you reduce the meaning of these figures to social adaptation based on a particular mode of economic organization? It's like, hey, your gods are fake, they don't really have any power or meaning apart from cultural adaptation to economics, but we'll believe in these 'fake' gods anyways and tell people we're following the 'old ways'. You can do one or the other but not both. By reducing religion to social adapation you invalidate the basis by which you could legitimately call yourself a follower of that religion. Believe that this is where religion comes from, fine, but don't dismantle your religious belief system and then declare your fealty to what is essentially an anthropological system which is vaguely constructed to make life more meaningful for you?

He makes weird comparisons and makes strange cases for things, like this idea of 'old Europe', pre-indo-european Europe, which he declares was matrilineal. Then he compares the beliefs of the Greeks to the Romans, basically using Greek material as if it's just as good for addressing what people in Italy believed as is Italian material. They aren't the same belief system. Period. End of story. And particularly when you're dealing with the beliefs of country dwellers in Italy, I doubt that the beliefs of these people had much in common with the beliefs of the citizens of Greece. If anything the difference between the two was more pronounced than the difference between the 'high culture' of Rome and the 'high culture' of Greece.

Then he goes on to conflate an Italian tradition with all of witchcraft. Really, the only case he tries to draw is between Roman traditions and the tradition that Gerald Gardner created, which can be explaining alternately by saying that Gardner got his ideas from the decades he spent in Malaysia surrounded by Hinduism and some animism. Particularly, the idea of two gods, duotheism, is so vague that there's no way that Grimassi can possibly prove that the duotheism of Gardner came from some Italic tradition as opposed to Hindu thought.

Then there's the thing about the concept of witch blood. Grimassi says that this concept is derived from a practice of sacred kings who were sacrificed, eaten, and then some sort of artificial insemination of virgins done in a kind of ceremony designed to reincarnate them. This is really funny, actually, because it's so fucking outlandish. He gets the idea of sacred kingship from Margaret Murray, who wrote in a later work that this was an underlying theme in the British monarchy. This book is looked at as being really fanciful, beyond 'The God of the Witches''s level, which is saying a lot. Then Grimassi connects it with some sort of artificial insemination ceremony, which is clearly a bowlderization of the authentic belief that people who serve ceremonial purposes, priests and magicians, are reincarnated within the same family. This is something which has been documented as a belief in northern European pagan belief systems, and so has historical value but it doesn't explain the artificial insemination part etc..

Then he goes on to relate the lore of the witches, which I was particularly interested in until I saw that most of the little stories he reproduced, which he was presenting as being authentic belief by witches, was taken whole from 'Aradia, the gospel of the witches', translated by Gerald Leland and available at pretty much any occult store worth its salt. Sort of a let down, considering that the stories recounted aren't clear at all and the significance of them is questionable, at least in the state that Leland leaves them in,sans explanation.

What else? That Italian witchraft was the basis for Wicca because the Romans had ceremonies which roughly correspond in yearly time period to Wiccan ceremonies. So eight ceremonies a year. The Romans had a lot more than eight ceremonies a year, and Grimassi conveniantly forgets to put the time period associated witih a few of his Roman ceremonies in...but, more significantly, there're many sources which indicate that witches in England only celebrated what are known as the cross quarter ceremonies, that equinoxs and solstices weren't celebrated by them at all. The fact that Romans had celebrations on equinox, solstices, and a thousand other days does not mean that that is how some sort of pan-european witchcraft organized itself, to say the least. It doesn't even prove that Gerald Gardner used this as a basis for his system. I think he probably used some of the ideas about the wheel of the year which Crowley established in his 'Rites of Eleusis' and other seasonal mystery tradition ceremonies which he tried to reconstruct.

Then there's this strange compendium in the back of the book about other figures associated with witchcraft where he lists people like Alex Sanders as being real witches from some sort of witch tradition. Well, I've seen Alex Sanders' writings and , if anything, they have more to do with ceremonial magic than with any sort of paganism or witchcraft and they most certainly were gotten through Gardner and not through any other transmission.

He very arrogantly asserts that the Italic tradition is the source for all witchcraft while remaining ignorant even of who is a fraud and who isn't in the witchcraft world.

If you can't see that Alex Sanders was inventing his own tradition how the hell can you declare that all witchcraft descended from Italinan roots? It's like saying Washington and Lincoln were best friends before going into a lecture on the history of the American political system. That amount of ignorance tends to discredit your argument.

I just can't believe that he's written something like this. It blows my mind.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

"Big Money Congress Doesn't Deserve a Pay Raise"

Actually, this post has nothing to do with the article it's linked to. You know, I've been surfing far right sites trying to get some sort of an idea of these people in order to find out how to combat them. Well, the phrase "Big Money Congress" reminds me of these clips of British Union of Fascists founder Oswald Mosley which are out there where, for the life of me, the guy sounds like a used car salesman on TV making a pitch:"Britain's problems come from the Big Money Interests! They say we can't win, but when we defeat the Big Money interests that are running our country for their Big Money agenda you'll see how Britain can get back on it's feet!" I'm paraphrasing, "With just no money down, no money, you, yes you too will be able to afford this brand new color TV. Are you with me!" That's what Oswald Mosley sounds like in these clips of him speaking, very enthusiastically, to the British far right... I thought that was entertaining since he sounds like a complete huckster and yet was trying to portray himself as above cheap capitalism (AND THE BIG MONEY INTERESTS!).

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Polanski wins Libel suit!

Allright. Roman Polanski has just won a libel suit against Vanity Fair, which said that he had tried to seduce a Scandinavian model on the way to his wife's funeral. His wife was Sharon Tate, who was murdered by the Manson family while eight months pregnant.

Polanski has been a consistant explorer of the darker themes of life, from "Rosemary's Baby" through to "The Ninth Gate" (with Johnny Depp), with stops in disturbing places in between which won't be mentioned by name...

Any ways, Polanski kicks ass.

One thing which isn't commented on is that the Manson family probably knew about the Polanskis because of their involvement with dark occultish organizations, particularly the Process Church of the Final Judgement. Don't quote me on this, I'm not sure, (and don't sue me!). But there's always more to a story than meets the eye.

Just like the true facts about Patty Heart's kidnapping. She's usually portrayed as being some random, up tight, rich girl, who was kidnapped by poor revolutionaries who wanted to extract justice on the upper class. In reality, Patty Hearst was a leftist who was politically active in her native San Francisco and as such was not some clueless rich kid but someone already, as with the above example, involved with the scene which would later kidnap her. William Randolph Hearst's lawyers pushed for the whole brainwashing/cultish manipulation angle, but at the time there were questions about whether or not she had willingly joined them. But, from what I understand, Patty Hearst does not comment on all of this publicly, so we're unlikely to have the definitive answer any time soon.

I don't know, I think I should mark things which are more rants in order to avoid confusion

I'd consider that post below about American and French revolutions to be more of an emotionally generated rant than something which I carefully and calmly put together. I'm not saying that the points I was trying to make aren't necessarily valid but complaining about the fucked up way American society is structured, who gets shut out of having decent lives, how it is that our basic myths which we tell ourselves about our country actually contribute to this country being less equal and less progressive....all that definitely had more of an emotional basis than it would have if I had carefully pieced it together. I'm not saying I'm wrong but...I wouldn't try to pass off that post in the state it's currently in as a decent, objective, article or even well constructed post.

So then what is the right response to the liberal's inability to answer crime questions?

I see it as two fold: there needs to be rehabilitation but the rehabilitation has to be complemented with some honest to god economic opportunity for these people so that they don't emerge from prison facing the same situations which they faced before and get back into the cycle. Rehabilitation, convincing a person why it's good to essentially be a good person, is a cynical joke when the job situation and the general economic situation of their community is terrible. On the other hand, pure economic opportunity without dealing with the the behaviors of people who have been convicted of crimes, who have criminal pasts and criminal records, is a fantasy which is bound to fail as well.
Together they could make a significant impact, but there has to be some sort of socialist inpsired economic leveling in order for it to be effectuated.y

French and American revolutions

It occurs to me that the French and American revolutions were conducted on different principles, for different aims; the French revolution being concerned most with social justice and the American revolution being concerned, at least superficially, with liberty. I say superficially because the theorists of the American revolution saw the American continent as being able to provide enough land and resources to guarantee equality but saw the deprivation of liberty which the crown was imposing through greater controls on the colonies as being something new. They thought social justice would take care of itself and that liberty wasn't something to be fought for but to be restored, something which was considered to have existed in lands in the countryside of England and in the Americas, something which was established by the puritan revolution in England and which was transferred to the Americas as well, and that therefore kicking England out of the colonies was a conservative measure, not a revolutionary one. To me that's not a real fight for liberty, which is why I put the word in quotations. A real fight for liberty is a real fight for establishing liberty for and by itself, not seeing liberty as being a fictional primeval state which has to be restored. No matter what the American colonists chose to believe the whiggish idea of a primeval world of liberty before the Norman invasion and before the rise of absolutism was probably a fiction created to justify their will to separate from England rather than anything which actually existed in the real history of England.

The Americans have always dodged the question of social justice; where it's been brought up it's always connected to the idea of liberty, i.e. social liberty or positive rights as opposed to negative rights. The French, being in the center of an absolutist system instead of on its fringes, couldn't dodge the question of social justice like the American colonists could. The situation in France was one of a small aristocratic minority monopolizing most of the land and holding people, still, in contracts which had their source in feudal times. There could be no avoiding the issue of the social question by suggesting that there was a new land out there where everyone would get rich. The emphasis was changed and with the change in emphasis liberty itself lost out.

But it's wrong, as many scholars do, to look at the French Revolution and condemn it because of its excesses without understanding what its fundamental goals and beliefs were. Which is more dishonest, to paper over serious differences in wealth with the language of primeval liberty and abundance in the American continent, thereby letting
the inequality of early colonial society remain intact (minus the holdings of loyalists) and tarnishing the United States from the start with the sickness of class difference, or fighting over social equality, even though in doing so you risk results which may, in their unpredictability, be harmful and injust.?

The consequence of dodging the class question in the United States is that no one has any sense of ownership in their society because eeveryone has presumably been given a chance and if you're not succesful it's your own fault. No need to appeal to the structure of society because obviously if you were meant to have wealth you would have wealth and besides, making appeals is trying to get something for nothing.

French society, where an agrarian revolution was accomplished with the radical revolution, is more a society where personal issues are social issues. There's no shutting people out of public life, and people feel a sense of ownership in the society they live in precisely because the question of social justice is a perfectly legitimate question to ask because of the Revolution.

America uses the excuse of abundance to commit inhumanity against its citizens, to support people being ground down to nothing with no glimmer of sympathy because of this primeval national myth. Those who have the money are those who constitute real citizens, like in the states of the old Holy Roman Empire where the only electors, people who could vote and who were considered full citizens were the aristocrats.

Society works, in the United States, for those who own it. Those who don't are considered offal to be discarded until the next presidential election where they'll be suddenly the center of attention for a few months, with false concern and false promises heaped on them until, after the election, they fall into familiar obscurity once again.

The cocktail party continues for those at the top while the voters are once again reduced to the status of servants.

And it's all their fault so there's no point in paying attention to them.

Not making stupid mistakes, or, how people can help decrease the power of the right wing.

All right, I've just gotten done surfing some hate websites, particularly British ones, seraching for some insight onto these groups and how to stop them and the theme of 'Political Correctness' seems to be coming up again and again. What this means in the above context is that hate sites and groups use irrational examples of PC to discredit the greater movement to tolerance and diversity within the United States and the United Kingdom. While it's not true that there's any cause and effect relationship between groups messing up in terms of going overboard with zealousness and people joining racist movements, in my opinion there has to be some other factor predisposing people to it in the first place, it certainly doesn't help out our cause that often the charicatures of PC are true.

I would argue that there's a rational reason why PC strategies which take knee jerk reactions to new heights exist in the first place and that, on top of it, that while this might have been somewhat rational in other decades that it's increasingly irrational in today's environment.

Basically, I see PC statements which go above and beyond the call of duty into the fanicful, knee jerk, and down right ignorant realms as coming from an exagerrated sense of a broad liberal agreement on fundamental social issues. Because this agreement is thought to exist there's less of an attempt to convince people than there is to harangue people with the expectation that they'll just follow along. It's irrational in that agreement behind liberal values cannot be automatically expected in today's environment. It was seriously being challenged in the '80s and it's under attack again today, with 9/11 probably providing much more of an immediate basis for opposition than Reagan was ever able to create.

But back to the assumed broad liberal agreement. Ideas like this tend to see the basic questions as already having been answered and the only job left to do is to act on this understanding in totally opposing those who have different ideas. While opposing extreme notions like biological racism genuinely makes sense as a no brainer the same cannot be said of much less intense ideas, for instance the assumption that all human beings are predisposed to be good. Where I'm going with this is the following: when people stupidly assert that members of minority X are always persecuted and so therefore any time a person asserts that he or she, in acting the way they did, for example in comitting a crime, was a victim of society they tend to support this without looking at the facts, based on the idea that people are basically good, it weakens the support that other, more established, liberal concepts have. Why? Because there are good and bad people of every race and color, there are dishonest people of every race and color, there are people who are hardened criminals of every race and color---to argue without even looking at the facts that person X is automatically a victim of circumstance is to go against common sense, even if indeed people of X extraction are structurally discriminated against. This is something that people who just assume that the liberal consensus is natural or guaranteed don't seem to understand---that in not applying basic observations about human nature to everyone and instead living in this fantasy land where no one ever tells a lie and the oppressed are always ennobled and righteous they therefore cast doubt on more established liberal ideas, which can lead right up and to that which says that racism is wrong.

The more shrill people condemn a person for pointing out simple facts of human life the worse they look and the more they look like they're just ideologues who are out of touch with reality.

The inability of liberal groups to recognize that the liberal arguments aren't automatically meeting with acceptance anymore and the related failure to change tactics in convincing people that there are serious problems related to race and economic power in this country are prime reasons why, in the face of more black men being arrested and thrown in jail on drug charges than ever before, with a staggering number of black men either having been in jail or on probation, we can't get public to oppose the policies which put them there.

It's not so much that potential support isn't there as it is that no one believes the idea that people convicted of crimes are automatically victims of circumstance. If people would simply say that there's both social responsability and individual responsability it would change so much but liberals don't seem to be able to see that allowing for the possibility that some drug dealers are some really bad characters does not negate the fact that a big reason why they probably are engaged in that activity is because of the racism experienced in their economic and social life because they're black.

And to say that liberals really don't say things like that all people accused of comitting crimes from certain groups doesn't really cut it. People in fact pay attention to crucial decisions and cases which they feel represent the real thinking of a group and generalize that case to other cases. An example of this is the "black rage" defense used by Communist Party associated lawyers in New York in defending a black man who brought a sawed off shotgun onto a subway car and deliberately shot and killed white people because he hated them. Saying that he's not guilty of premeditated murder, which he literally was, because society had driven him crazy because of the racism he experiences, makes people, who can picture themselves or people they know being randomly shot by this guy while riding a bus or a subway car, decide that the liberals are fucking crazy and that none of what they have to say is worth anything if someone who has taken the life of several people can be pressed to get off scot free because of his skin color.

No matter the effects of racism in this person's life, several people lay dead as the result of his actions, people with family, friends, children, parents.

To say that their suffering means nothing because this person was the member of a minority is an insult and an outrage.

But this is how opinions get formed.

Which is why people on the left and in liberal-leftist circles would do themselves a favor, in terms of credibility with regular Americans, if they adopted some basic realism on top of their liberal beliefs. If not they're going to be further and further marginalized and in the place of a culture which is fundamentally against exploitation and injustice will come one which is fine with both concepts.

If you want people to come around to your position and to believe you, start by stop making stupid mistakes which discredit your cause.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Disappearance of the Outside, a Manifesto for Escape, by Codrescu

This book, which is infinitely interesting, contains the illuminating paragraph:
For Kundera the real and the real-sounding are complete and perfect opposites. But unlike some Westerners he believes that a discerning, or merely awake, person is capable of telling the difference. Things that resemble each other superficially can be substituted for one another only so long as we sleep. And we sleep, in the East as in the West. In the East, imitation is more abstract, manifesting mostly in formulaic declarations of faith. In the West, imimtation is done in plastic. Part of one's ability to distinguish between simulacra is having a knack for metaphors that matter. Kundera's "laughter and forgetting," "lightness and heaviness" are of this order. Finding and staying with crucial metaphors is essential. The metaphor is both shelter and healer
Andrei Codrescu is on to something. Maybe he suggests a way to get back to reality through the poetic recreation of reality within the confines of a book or a series of stories which tell the truth about the world of the present which isn't officially recognized as the past yet.

The Trouble with Marxism

People on the far left, anarchists and other left libertarians, have had a pretty critical view of Marxism, with the difference being that anarchists tend to be critical of all of Marxism while others, who incorporate Marxism into their view of the world, are critical of particular types of Marxism than Marxism in general. I'm going to deal with the Anarchist critique of Marxism.

The way that I see it Marxism is opposed not because it's a bad doctrine or something which unrealistically reflects reality but, on the contrary, because it's all too good at explaining reality. What I mean by this is that Marxism, through the extraordinarily prolific writings of Marx, from the Communist Manifesto to the enourmous effort of Capital through smaller works on politics and economy and newspaper articles, presents a ready made, sophisticated, critique of society which, while valid, confers on the person who has gone through all these writings a power differential in relation to people who haven't.

Two people come into a room for a meeting: one is a progressive or an anarchist who has just been active in fighting for social justice on the local level and has his or her own ideas about society and capitalism; the other is a person well versed in Marx, who doesn't necessarily have that much experience actually taking on injustice but instead has amazing ideas about the causes of injustice, the way the system works, etc.. What has the potential of happening in that situation is that the Marxist, although he or she may not actually have been the most effective activist, will, because of the theoretical sophistication of the worldview which he or she brings with him/her will appear to be the better activist and will therefore be more likely to take over the meeting and use the meeting for his or her own purposes.

Marxism creates a power differential between people which is based on knowledge. The progressive or anarchist who has strong feelings for social justice but can't articulate them as well as the Marxists faces the possibility of looking stupid or looking inarticulate or irrelevant in comparison to the greater knowledge brought forward by the Marxist, even if, in terms of actual work being done in the community, the progressive or anarchist may be much more productive and much more effective in doing positive things for social change in their community.

You see?

It's not that Marxism is some sort of irrelevant doctrine but that because it has a theoretically sophisticate cannon, which is physically huge, what's right about it can be articulated easier than political traditions who don't have something like Capital at their disposal can. People who don't have Capital at their disposal will probably have a hard time of really answering the ideas of the Marxists in a convincing way. But that should not be the point. The point should not be who can give the best way of relating to society at large, the system which we live in, but who can work to change it most efficiently.

This goes double for Marxist-Leninists. Leninists will often make point that Leninism is a sort of guide for action while Marx deals more with theoretical issues. Leninism in this sense provides a ready made guide for action and strategy. Someone who has absorbed the most coherent parts of Leninism will be able to reel off strategies and ideas about tactics and action which mere mortals who just live in the real world aren't able to do. But in Leninism, because it deals with action in a pre-conceived way, the objection to it isn't only that it creates a power differential but that its power differential has the capability of sabotaging potential actions and campaigns for social justice by putting a decades old strategy from a country which has almost nothing to do with the U.S. in terms of political history in place instead of really reflecting on current situations and current issues within the U.S. and evolving something which actually fits with U.S. reality. To say it simply, the power differential in Leninism isn't just obstructionist, it's potentially the kiss of death because it substitutes old, albeit in their own way sophisticated, ideas of strategy which have nothing to do with the United States for actual, relevant, thought on how to change society right here, right now.

The organizer who studies things and tries to come up with what he or she thinks is a potentially effective way of organizing people for social change knows what the issues are; coming into a situation like the hypothetical one with the Marxists and the anarchists and progressives this organizer potentially faces the situation of being outmaneouvered by Leninists who, while they may have read Lenin, may have had no experience whatsoever in organizing but who who can present a sophisticated sounding analysis of what to do and why.

And that's the trouble with Marxism and Marx-Leninism: they create situations of privilege and power which marginalize sincere people who are working for social change.


Bifurcation is a fancy term for splitting in two, or two paths diverging and going their separate ways. I've made a decision, and it is this: that I'm no longer going to mix things going on in the town where I live with the other normal political and philosophical writings which I post on this website. Instead, this site is going to be strictly the political and philosophical things divorced from any immediate reference to where I live, people I come in contact with, or things going on in the place I live.

Mixing the two just doesn't work, and it's a recipe for trouble. I live where I live because I want to live there and there's no need to create friction as a byproduct of the writings from this site in the place where I've chosen to live. So instead of all that I'm going to do what people from time immemorial have done: wear my writer hat when addressing a greater audience across the nation and the globe and wear my community member hat when it comes to living my daily life. The two can get along together just fine, there's no reason why they shouldn't.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

From the "You Can't make this shit up" Department

Ok, so I'm walking up first avenue from Pioneer Square in Seattle. It's about 9:30 at night. I pass the "Lusty Lady" strip joint and what do I see but a man emerge with a large, wraparound, wicker chair. I think, ok, he's a barker, he's going to put the chair down and start trying to entice people to enter the strip club from it. But no, the guy just takes the chair, which is half as tall as he is, and starts walking up first avenue. Since I'm going up that way I, without any effort on my part to do so, follow him. He walks blocks with the thing before disappearing into a now closed Market.

The dude was a tall, upper middle class, middle aged, white dude.

So it can't be anything other than this guy, who isn't afraid to be seen exiting a strip joint on a major avenue in Seattle while people are still out, goes to the Lusty Lady enough so that he brings his own chair.

Think about that for a second.

He goes there, presumably to whack off (although I can't know this for sure), and he takes a fucking wicker chair in with him which he carts for blocks both ways from his car.

That takes some thought.

I'm just wondering: at what point do you decide to bring the chair?

Do you look around your apartment at your furnishings and one day say, you know, this would be good to bring along to the strip joint?

I'm just curious....

And the strip joint people let him do it. He probably spends beaucoup bucks there so they don't mind.

As Bill Murray said in one of the Ghostbusters flick, what's next, dogs and cats living together?


In other news, I think Michel Houellebecq is corrupting my morals.
I've gotten a bit further with "The Elementary Particles" and it's both viciously funny and totally immoral.

Really funny. Talks a lot about the character Bruno, who's a middle aged guy who's only concerned with pursuing casual sex. He's really comfortable with this as his main preoccupation, and seeing the world through his lens is really entertaining. One of the things is that he goes to this New Age retreat purely to hook up and Houellebecq skewers it mercilessly, unrelentingly, the whole New Age scene, and it's extraordinarily funny. And then there's Bruno, who just doesn't give a shit, who's just going through the motions of the workshops so he can get laid. The man is nothing if not possessed of a sense of purpose. Finally he finds an angel who's willing to have totally anonymous casual sex with him, and, ironically, this leads to something more than a casual relationship.

I can't give any more away.

I do have morals. I just like pleasure. Liking pleasure and having morals aren't mutually exclusive. Besides, I have a Libra Ascendant, which dooms me to be preoccupied with questions of justice no matter what the situation. Like the Lusty Lady. I'm not going to patronize it but the thought did go through my mind that, since it is the only worker owned strip joint in the U.S., that I'd be supporting social justice by paying these women to climb all over me nude.


I wonder if the guy is Belgian, or if his parents are; his last name sounds Belgian or Flemish.


Me, I'm more like the Beast in Jean Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bette" (Beauty and the Beast), I get all bristled and grizzled and then a single kiss redeems me. And after a while the same fucking thing happens again. But one can't get cynical about these things. I was listening to Gil's album "Quanta Ao Vivo" on the way back from Seattle, and he does a cover of Bob Marley's "Is this love?". I felt tempted to twist the lyrics into "Is this lust, is this lust, is this lust that I'm feeling? Oh oh oh oh, Lust is this lust is this lust is this lust that I'm feeling?" but I thought, I can't give up on love, so taking refuge in cynicism isn't an option.


Brazil. Maybe after a while I'll retire to Rio and become a beach bum. I have to find some sort of profession first.

Anyways, great movie out called Madame Satã (Madame Satan), about a homosexual prostitute and strong man who's also a cross dressing lounge performer who, after emerging out of prison on a murder charge, against someone who called him a nigger fagot, dresses up as Madame Satã and winds up winning the Carnival fancy dress competition, in what was the first of many times.

It's really, really, good. Takes place in pre-WWII Brazil. I'm sure my friend at Grocery Outlet would be able to find it, since I got it from one of the video stores which share the same lot with it.

Of course, "You might need a bigger cart" for it, right?

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Privilege--the inner meaning of the Iraq war for the United States

So I'm trying to think of what the climate which has enveloped the United States after 9/11 really feels, what purpose it plays, what are its real effects. I've come to the conclusion that there's an intrinsic link between the privilege experienced by the white, male, majority of this country and the war, including the 'global war on terror'. To me, it seems like the purpose of these things is to reinforce a sense of dominance in this group, to stroke its ego so that they're reassured that no matter what happens they'll still be #1. Objectively, Iraq makes this possible via resources, subjectively this amounts to reassuring the privileged that they won't have to make compromises with anyone about their status, not people from foreign countries, not minorities in their own country, not people who disagree with them, no one.

It's a movement against thought, but it's not a movement blindly against thought. Pushing the uncomfortable to the edges as the effect of allowing the people who make up the dominant group in the U.S. to continue on in their unthinking privilege without having to face responsability for the actions which the Bush administration does for them, effectively, and in their name.

The characteristic of privilege is never having to think about it, never having to react to or find strategies to counter oppression experienced---that a substantial majority in the U.S. still don't know or don't want to know the basic facts relating to 9/11 and the Iraq war is a demonstration of the enourmous global privilege that these people experience.

Only in the U.S. could people simply look away from reality and choose to believe whatever they want to believe, irresepective of the facts. No other country can afford to do this because the consequences of not apprehending the real situation which the citizens find themselves in would have swiftly bad consequences. They have to be in touch with reality because reality is usually on the other side.

But here in the U.S. we can spin stories, fantasies, about the world, about ourselves, about everything, live within them, prosecute two active wars, invade countries, rattle our sabres, without feeling any consequences.

And we say we're besieged?

What other country could invade another on demonstrateably false pretenses without serious economic and social sanctions coming from the world community.

If we were a third world country the first world would be slapping sanctions on us left and right, which would have a real impact on our quality of life, but instead we can go into a country, murder a bunch of people, occupy it, relax into our fantasies about the way the world works, and not face any serious challenge to our actions.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Alexander Cockburn: "Don't you dare call it treason"

Cockburn argues that saying Rove committed treason is a little bit hypocritical for lefties who would gladly unmask CIA people if they thought it would prevent people from getting killed in a war or some other situation where the cost is much less than the gain.

I have to admit that calling Rove guilty of treason is over the top; we shouldn't appropriate the methods of the other side, which include gratuitous accusations which are backed up by a self righteous sense of patriotism or patriotic duty.

But, and here's the thing: the law which Rove might be guilty of violating was put in place specifically because the magazine "Covert Action Quarterly", which was set up to report on the doings of the CIA and of the National Security State, had been publishing the names of undercover CIA officers who were engaged in subverting democracy in third world countries.

Taking that as the context I think that if the law ultimately gets Rove then that'll be a little bit of justice in this frequently unjust world of ours...

Sunday, July 17, 2005

The tipping point and media coverage of the President

The revelations about Karl Rove have provided a new window into media behavior and point to an opportunity for change. What I mean by this is that now, when Rove is mentioned, all those negative stories which were commented upon and swiftly forgotten have resurfaced. The press knew about them the whole time, the difference was that the basis of power was against bringing those things up. The President and the administration was considered to be the prime power broker in the political world and as long as that status was seriously unchallenged the press was content to not make the many revelations serious issues. With the outing of Rove the administration's status in the political world may be shrinking to the point of collapse. It may be approaching this. If the prestige and command of the administration falls far enough the press will stop relying on it to gain access and influence and will start looking for other bases of power. If this happens then the President is, quite frankly, in serious trouble because the press will have no interest in concealing the stories about the errors of his personal life and of his administration any more, and with the knowledge that their future no longer depends on keeping this stuff quiet will resurrect it and probably finish off the political career of President Bush. The capability was always there but the press looks out for itself; it fell in line after 9/11 because not to fall in line would seriously compromise its ability to do its job. But I can imagine the chafing going on within the media at the thought of having to cover for Bush time and time again and the joy which will come from finally being able to lay the truth down, in black in white, in front of everyone, for everyone to read.

If this happens, this will be the thing which bring impeachment or resignation down on the President: the media turning against him.

Hopefully this will happen soon.

There's actually historical precedent for this: after FDR was elected and he started the New Deal he enacted a program to enlighten reporters about the need for this sort of initiative. What this seems to have meant in practice is acknowlgeing that, yes, the socialists were right all along, even though they never referred to what they were doing as socialism, thereby saving face and allowing the media too to save face by not forcing them to admit that they were wrong for several decades in their coverage of politics.

If the tide turns against Bush there will likely be some sort of white lie enacted by the press to allow them to save face while they press stories that progressives have known about for years but which the mainstream media have either dismissed or consciously chose to not cover.

Maybe it would be good, when that time happens, to press for a general discussion about the structure of the media, media concentration, and how the centralization of media in corporate empires effects the quality of information which people receive?

And suggest ways to make that corporate structure serve the public interest first and foremost.

What I fear after the London bombings

You know, when I see pictures of people flying the British flag my automatic response is that the British National Party is going to have a field day over this. The BNP is a fascist party in Britain, which is anti-immigrant anti-asian anti-liberty anti-democracy, virtually down the line hard right.

And indeed they have capitalized on it: From the BNP website:"It's only a tiny minority"--or is it?
"It's only a tiny minority" is one of the phrases we're going to hear repeated over and over again in the days ahead as the liberal elite try to pretend that home-grown suicide bombers don't put the last nail in the coffin of their multiculti fantasy.

The trouble is that while this might appear believable in Islington or in a weekend cottage in Somerset, real life on the streets of places like Dewsbury, Bradford, Rochdale, Tipton, Luton and London tends to put things in a different light. Of course there is good and bad in every community, but look, for example, at just a few of the straws in the wind:

More than a tiny minority of young British Muslims delight in swapping al-Qaida snuff videos showing Western hostages having their throats slit on their mobile phones;

More than a tiny minority of young British Muslims dominate a huge proportion of urban martial arts clubs;

More than a tiny minority of young British Muslims stare aggressively at perfectly harmless whites who drive through "their areas," and stone fire engines and other symbols of authority;

More than a tiny minority of young British Muslims feel alienated from our society and identify more with Palestinian suicide bombers and Iraqi rebels than with Britain;

More than a tiny minority of young British Muslims are guilty of the low-level racist harassment, vandalism, intimidation and violence that is directed against white families (especially if they include teenage boys) in or on the edge of every mainly Muslim area in the country;


There's already been one person killed because he was Muslim in Britain.

Quite frankly, I don't feeling like genuflecting to the obvious truth that the London bombings were a terrible thing. Everyone with a brain knows that. To harp on it time and time again is to put the type of virulent nationalism which we see in this country into play, and I'm not interested in doing that at all. I'm sick and tired of it running our country and i don't want the Brits to suffer through it.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Yeah, if you want a look at Lenin

Track down a copy of Mikhail Agursky's book "The Third Rome". There, Agursky documents commitment to the idea that the ends justify the means by showing that Lenin collaborated with a) the German government, which was an aristocratic-military system, during World War I, with the aim of helping the Russia lose World War I b) collaborated with sections of the secret police for several reasons, taking money from them to fund the Bolshevik movement and receiving special treatment from them which the other political parties didn't receive. Agursky documents
membership in the Bolshevik party by agents of the secret police and speculates that pro-Russian patriotic forces who were anti-czarist in the secret police supported the Bolsheviks and that on some level the Bolsheviks, since in Agursky's analysis they tapped into Russian chauvanism, were considered to be safer in the long run by the Czar than other political parties, who were for liberal rights, which the Bolsheviks very conveniantly didn't believe in. c) that Lenin wasn't above recruiting members of the Black Hundreds right wing terror squads into the Bolsheviks. Why? The Black Hundreds saw the Czar as being illegitimate because his family was German and he was interested in westernization. After the Revolution Black Hundreds members were rehabilitated and welcomed into the Bolshevik party.

Agursky paints a striking picture of the burning of the files of the Okhrana, the secret police, during the Revolution, giving the opinion that this was done to conceal just how many members of the secret police were members of the Bolshevik party.

So, to recap, Mr. Socialist took money from a military aristocratic dictatorship, collaborated with ultra-rightwing terror forces and collaborated with the secret political police in Czarist Russia.

What a great exemplar of duplicity. This, from someone who parties around the world want to look on as a great leader of the socialist movement. This is where "ends justifies the means" gets you; collaboration with the worst reactionary forces in the interest of furthering your movement. As they say, when you lie down with dogs you should expect to pick up some fleas.

Looking at the extensive collaboration with ultra-rightwing forces which Lenin initiated, going from Agursky's account, it's not hard to see where Stalin's policies came from.

Leninist ethics: Victor Serge on Trotsky's "Their Morals and Ours'

Serge, a person who went from anarchism to some sort of leninism back to a anarchist like political position (after he was expelled from the soviet union), has this to say about the book Trotsky wrote, "Their Morals and Ours". The passage below encapsulates a lot of what Leninism is about.I don't know a whole lot about Victor Serge so don't take this as some sort of blanket endorsement...


It’s a question here of a book recently written.

For Trotsky there is no morality in and of itself; no ideal or eternal morality. Morality is relative to each society, to each epoch, above all relative to the interests of social classes.

At the current time, most countries live under bourgeois morality. In bourgeois democratic countries the interests of the bourgeoisie are masked under an ideal morality, in conformity with the well-understood interests of the bourgeoisie.

True morality should defend the interests of humanity itself, represented by the proletariat. Trotsky thinks that his party, formerly in power and now in opposition, has always represented the true proletariat, and himself the true morality.

From this he concludes the following: executing hostages takes on a different meaning according to whether the order is given by Stalin or by Trotsky or by the bourgeoisie. This order is morally valuable if it has for goal and tactical effect the revolutionary victory of the proletarian class. Thus, Trotsky defends the decree he issued in 1919 that authorized the system of hostages (wives and children of the adversary) but he judges abominable this same system when it is applied by Stalin (who, for example, when he wants to force a diplomat to return to Russia, threatens his family) because Stalin acts in this way in order to defend the bureaucracy against the proletariat.

Trotsky, leaning on Lenin, declares that the ends justify the means (as long as the means aren’t vain. For example, individual terrorism is in general vain). There is no cynicism in this attitude, rather, the author says, a simple statement of fact. Trotsky declares that he takes from these facts a heightened consciousness, which constitutes his moral sense.

The content of this work is doubtless not entirely new, but it has never been expressed with such clarity and so neatly formulated. For a whole category of intellectuals and writers of the Left ruse and violence are, in themselves, always bad and can only engender evil. For Trotsky ruse and violence, if they are put at the service of a justified goal, should be employed without hesitation and, to the contrary, represent the good in this case.

Just to add to that last one...

I don't have anything against anarchism; my only thing is academic, in that I think that the world is a little more complex than the anarchist vision, but, the world view that I believe in is a sort of anti-statist liberatory variant on marxian socialism, which, if anything, has much more in common with anarchism than with what's commonly called 'Marxism'. In terms of parties and the like I'm totally with the Anarchists. If I'd lived in a place where Marxist parties were actually living entities I'd probably have been turned off by Marxism myself. As it happened I was able to read the parts of Marx which are living and valid and draw my own conclusions, without associating all of that with some party claiming to be the voice of the working class etc...

I take it to be axiomatic that anyone who sets up particular party organizations in the typical Marxist Leninist fashion is full of it. I think people should stay as far away from those organizations as possible, because they're likely just cults, either of personality around some leader or just plain old cults which inculcate blind obediance for this somewhat abstract and vague ideal. The links I have on the right which go to somewhat Marxist orgs are to ones which aren't typical.

Look, when people see someone hawking a Marxist-Leninist newspaper they typically already know what the rigamorole is and quite reasonably stay away. There's not that much difference between the blank stares of LaRouchians and the blank stares of Revolutionary Communist Party people or some of the various Trotskyist organizations.

I could go on; in fact I will.

The thing is that, a) even when the Bolsheviks were really around virtually nothing Lenin wrote was intended to be read literally. Lenin stands as one of the most manipulative authors in history. Virtually everything he wrote was dictated by the moment and were not his real opinions, they reflect party struggles and struggles against other political parties before the Bolshevik revolution. The writings are basically what he thought people wanted to hear at the moment and what he thought people would respond to. It's not going too far to describe him as a liar and a consummate one at that. For the leftists on the spectrum he put out "State and Revolution", which is actually pretty anti-statist although it still puts the party in a controlling force. He wrote an article, "Will the Bolsheviks seize state power?" where his reply was No, they won't, even if they take over. After the Revolution, when the Bolsheviks had seized state power, Lenin put out "Left wing Communism, an Infantile disorder" where he described the people who he was trying to reach out to in "State and Revolution" as infantile activists who had no real ties with the people. Everything Lenin believed could be changed to fit the circumstances; he was in favor of various parties governing after the Revolution, some sort of coalition government. This lasted a short time, then the members of the other parties basically were forced to join the Bolsheviks or resign. Russia according to Lenin was either at an advantage because capitalism hadn't established itself and Russia was on the periphery, a victim of imperialism, or it was at an advantage because Russia had, in the short amount of time when capitalism was really allowed, made such progress that it was actually at the vanguard of the capitalist world.

You get the picture. This was Lenin in his own time. I think people then knew what was going on and were able to read between the lines; the Marxist-Leninist parties today take him at face value, which is pretty stupid to do and explains in part their dry as dust demeanor: what they believe doesn't even make sense on its own terms, so how could they possibly appear as if they represented something which was anything other than confused?

It's a shame that Lenin has come to define how Marx is viewed for a lot of people. Marx was much more honest, if more pedantic, than Lenin, and had some very interesting things to say about society, things which really are applicable for looking at the world today.

Friday, July 15, 2005

From the archives: an unpublished introduction to Nietzsche's lectures on education

Back in '99 I found these lectures by Nietzsche in my local university library. They were his first public works, the inaugural lecture series which a new professor in Basel was expected to give. They were about education. I scanned the copy I obtained from the university, set in PDF version in a format which could be readily turned into a book via the Xerox system of Print on Demand publishing, but was never able to get it
actually done because of non-clarity regarding the copyright of the translator. But I did write an editor's introduction to it. I think that Nietzsche's educational writings might be available via Stanford's issueing of his complete works, but I haven't looked into it. Anyways, this was something I wrote in '99. I don't completely subscribe to what I wrote then but I thought, looking through the archives, that it was at least interesting. As a young piece it suffers from an exuberance of youth that leads it over the top in places, but be that as it may, here it is (this is definitely copyrighted by me, by the way, although as usual you can use it in purely private and non-commercial, ways):

Instead, if you reader, don’t automatically block out any history philosophy and literature coming from Western Europe’s largest country, this book has the possibility of being very stimulating. Taken from the first English edition of his complete works, The Future of Our Educational Institutions, with the speech Homer and Classical Philology as clarifying material, has never been republished. Considering that Nietzsche critiqued so many societal institutions, and that in the form of education they all come together to make their mark on a young person, the topic of education would logically be something which Nietzsche would have very interesting opinions on, the absence of these essays from general circulation is a big loss. Not only because so many of Nietzsche’s interests converge in education, but also the fact

that education has become the one binding experience between people today makes these essays the work of his which has the greatest potential audience. Nietzsche always tried to be self reliant in his works; there aren’t any references to other philosophers, and he does not employ any outside technical terms while keeping the ones he himself generates to a minimum.Plus, he aims in all of his works for pure metaphysics, without any inconveniant labels like epistemology, ontology, or ethics, holding him down. Without the proper context his works can seem like a puzzle, where the words make sense but the concepts don’t follow; however here, because there is no way to talk about the future of education without focussing on the practical, there can be little misunderstanding about what he means. It also communicates directly the rich intricacies of the material consequences of his philosophy which he mostly implies ,usually concentrating on the bigger picture in his works. Lastly, here in a pseudo-dialogue form Nietzsche reveals his gift for writing. Here is a taste of the ideas which after one hundred and twenty five years feel current: Nietzsche suggests that the true organising force in society isn’t the government, or business, but culture, and that until recently the role of the state in a person’s life was minimal, letting cultural life go along as it pleased. (True, he didn’t think much of the culture of poor people; his idea of culture was culture in the sense of ‘cultured’, but at the same time he didn’t dismiss the problem, as the struggle between the advantages of an everlasting, unchanging present, and the will to change the situation to some unknown, different, high point, which occupied his later writing testify to. ) This provides the basis for a deconstruction of modern economic life, and also a suggestion for a self organising substructure for life, unchanged by either the agrarian revolution or the industrial revolution. If society is a machine, it must have some sort of proper functioning. Apart from questions like this which relate more to his later work, his critique of the state as an unaccountable legitamising force which can serve all the commercial interests that were once marginalised at the expense

of inherited culture rings true today. Here in a world where the architecture has moved from bleak modern, to bleak modern with window dressing (post modern), and where corporations sponsor schools, no one knows their neighbors, no one goes to parks(if there are any), reads, or is told to think of much besides making money and what it can buy, where being ‘capatalist’ is becoming less and less a choice and more of a matter of survival, as society turns it’s back on the arts and all nonprofitable activities, where we are approaching total deculturization, Nietzsche’s plea for culture and the non state/corporate parts of life rings true. Considering for example the inustrial wholesale housing, feeding, and buying, which go with the upscale housing of New York’s Battery Park City (the wave of the future), and that a fascist state in service of corporations, Singapore, is praised throughout the business world as a place that’s made society work, it strains my mind to think that any tiny, little, campaigns to grab back just a small amount of culture from the machine could be considered reactionary, or an action tending towards nationalism, or even fascism. In response ‘Haven’t we suffered enough?’ springs to mind. Indeed, haven’t the youth of today suffered enough without being told that the future will only pile on more? That Genetic engineering will take away the very basis for our individuality and our lives, making us truly part of the corporate machine?A person doesn’t need to know the intricacies of Nietzsche’s Will to Power to appreciate his remedies for modern life. I will leave you now with the thoughts of two French philosophers, Deleuze and Guattari: Capatalism is trying to destroy all of the structures and marks which constitutes society, built up over thousands of years, upon the smooth surface of basic existance. Either we take the initiative to reinscribe the surface consciously, or a radical reinscription will be done for us. No one, except possibly some seperatists in Idaho, wants that to happen.

A selection from "Getting Yourself Free", aka, why this is fucking great.

From the section "Ways to Begin Gutting Capitalism"

7. Ways to Begin Gutting Capitalism

1. Form a Neighborhood Association. Get together with some neighbors and form a Neighborhood Association. Hold regular meetings. These meetings will form the basis, later on, for Home Assemblies. This, together with Employee Associations and Household Associations (see items 2 and 3 following) are the three most important things anyone can do. It may seem pointless at first, since these associations will have no power or money. But they will begin to attract energy and will become focal points for siphoning power and wealth out of capitalism back into the communities from which they were originally stolen. (See also “What can neighborhood associations do?” below at #1 under Further Discussion.)

2. Form an Employee's Association. Get together with some co-workers at your workplace and form an Employee’s Association. Bypass unions. You will have to meet on your own time. Hold regular meetings. These meetings will form the basis, later on, for the Peer Circles of self-managed Projects (and part of the basis for escaping wage-slavery). There may be several such groups in one shop. It is only through face-to-face associations like these that an autonomous opposition culture can once again be generated. Even if you start with only half-a-dozen people word will get around that there is a meeting where the problems of the workplace are being discussed. This will become the focal point of a consciousness that is opposed to corporate culture. Without this counter consciousness there is no possibility of effective opposition. (See also “What can employee associations do?” below at #2 under Further Discussion.)

3. Form a Cooperative Housing Association. This can be done right now. Several families can pool resources and buy a building to form an extended household. Groups of people, single and married, already rent houses together and live cooperatively. Where buying is clearly out of the question form a Tenants Association in your building. Try to begin sharing resources and living cooperatively. These cooperative housing associations will form the basis, later on, for Households, as in our initial sketch. (See also “What can household associations do?” below at #3 under Further Discussion.)

4. Build a Meeting Hall. Pool resources with neighbors and build a place to meet. The first neighborhood to do this will go down in history as having launched a new civilization. Most neighborhoods, no matter how poor, somehow find money to build churches. If they wanted to they could build Meeting Halls. Obviously, they must first perceive a need for them. They must want to associate, want to begin to exercise control over their lives in cooperation with their neighbors. They must see the meetings as the linchpin of a new way of life.

5. Organize worker-owned businesses. Worker-owned businesses, in and of themselves, cannot destroy capitalism. As long as they are operating in a capitalist market they will face bankruptcy unless they pay attention to the bottom line. Actually, they merely replace the traditional capitalist owner with a shop full of capitalist owners. Thus worker-owners are merely joining the petty bourgeoisie. Which is what the New Left did in a big way in the early seventies. We created a multitude of what we thought of as “alternative institutions” (we were actually just going into business for ourselves). There were food coops, bookstores, day care centers, clinics, publishing houses, auto repair shops, community newspapers, psychedelic shops (with clothing, leather goods, music), and so forth. But the capitalists were not hurt by this at all. On the contrary, they benefitted greatly. They simply took over all our new creations and mass marketed them, making billions in the process.

Nevertheless, there are at least two very important differences between regular businesses and worker-owned ones. The latter can abolish internal hierarchies and self-manage the shop in a democratic way, and they have greater flexibility about using any extra wealth created. Instead of paying dividends to stockholders they can use income to support opposition movements, or they can simply raise their own salaries, shorten their work hours, or lower their prices. Actually, in real life most worker-owners end up working longer hours for less pay than they would in a traditional enterprise. They also tend to start out democratic but end up managerial, due largely I think to the pressures and temptations of the surrounding capitalist market, and not I hope to inherent flaws in human nature.

If there were dozens of worker-owned businesses in a community, providing needed services and making useful products, in addition to supporting anti-capitalist struggles, they could accumulate a wealth of experience and become the initial core, later on, for the self-managed Projects of democratic autonomous neighborhoods. They could become the basis for socially conscious, cooperative labor, democratically agreed upon labor, as opposed to labor that is bought and sold.

Worker-owned businesses are a growing movement in the United States (around 1500 majority-owned businesses so far I think). Some of them in the same trade are forming networks for mutual support and to share information. They can become revolutionary however only by becoming part of a movement to destroy capitalism and build something else, as sketched in this book, for example.

6. Try to convert local business families to the democratic autonomous way of life. That is, try to convince them to give up private ownership and switch to worker-managed projects controlled by the neighborhood Home Assembly. This may not be as hard as we at first imagine. The petty bourgeoisie (i.e., small business families) is one of the most desperate and miserable classes in capitalism. They work unbelievably long hours. Very few of them are getting rich. They go bankrupt by the thousands, losing everything they have, all their money and all their long years of labor. Those who do survive may still be on the verge of going under. They are constantly being gobbled up by chain stores and I doubt that the buyouts are all that wonderful. These people are on the fringe of the corporate world. They have been a shrinking class for over a hundred years. Maybe some of them are ready to throw in the towel. They have sought not only to get rich, but “to be their own boss.” That is, they have striven to escape wage-slavery by going into business for themselves. But there is another way to escape wage-slavery and be your own boss — participate in a worker-managed project. If we could convince even 10% of them to convert their properties to cooperatively owned and operated projects, this would provide a starting financial base for neighborhood autonomy. If we could convince 20, 30, or 40 percent, we would have a very substantial material base for transforming our neighborhoods.

7. Change jobs and move to worker-managed projects as opportunities emerge. We should shift our employment from the giant corporate world to worker-managed, neighborhood-controlled projects. The wealth that we produce in the former is siphoned off into the coffers of global capitalism. The wealth we produce in the latter can be retained in the neighborhood. There is a very big danger here though, namely that we will end up doing poverty level work. So we must never let up on our overall attack on capitalism, as described herein. We must not be content to live in the backwaters, barely subsisting in our impoverished neighborhoods, however autonomous they may be, while capitalism goes rolling on.

8. Set up local currencies. Most people don't even know that we don't have to use ruling class money (government or bank money) or that we can issue our own. Local currencies, of which there are many types, help us to get free from the world market, strengthen local markets, and thus build self-sufficiency and autonomy. They enable us to stop circulating the money of our oppressors, and thus escape, partially, the system of control based on that money. Local currencies also provide a way to stop wealth from being drained out of the community. Although local currencies are possible now (and many experiments are under way) they will probably be outlawed if the practice spreads.

9. Organize a Community Land Trust. These are not-for-profit corporations which acquire and hold land in the public interest. They are an existing legal form in the United States which autonomists should be using more than we are. They are a way of fighting the real estate industry, and of resisting the continuing concentration of land ownership. Like Community Development Corporations, they can easily become regressive, but if used properly they could become, later on, the basis for neighborhood control of all the lands upon which the neighborhood lives and works. Getting control of the land is always the first step capitalists take when beginning an attack on the autonomy of any people. With us, in the core capitalist countries, the land is long gone. But in many parts of the world the enclosure (expropriation of the land by the masters) is just now happening, and on a massive scale. Peasants and native peoples everywhere are being forced to register their holdings, which have traditionally been communally defined, thus turning the land into a commodity which can be bought and sold, under state and market rules. Another way of emptying the land is to make peasant farming unviable, by flooding the country with cheap, subsidized farm products from the rich countries. Sometimes peasants are simply driven off the land by force. Contemporary Colombia is a prime example, where the combination of death squads and toxic spraying have made millions landless, to become dwellers in the vast urban slums.

Community Land Trusts do not overcome the problem of land being treated like a commodity of course, since the land still has a title registered with the state. They are thus only a stop gap measure, but one which might be used now to start the process of re-appropriating the land.

10. Start switching to solar/wind energy. This will be easiest for people living in small towns and villages. There are already solar and wind units that can supply all the electrical needs of a small community. It will be hardest for people living in dense urban or suburban neighborhoods. Solar and wind power has gotten cheaper and cheaper. It is about ready to takeoff, so to speak, but under corporate control — vast solar and wind installations feeding electricity into the corporate-controlled grids. What communities, and even private households, must do is use the new technology to get free from the grid and thus achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and autonomy. There may come a time when this will make the difference between survival or death. For now though it is an essential step toward taking power, in both senses, back from capitalists and returning it to democratic communities where it belongs.

11. Start growing some of our own food. This will make sense only in the context of struggles to re-empower local communities and destroy capitalism. The objective is to regain a degree of self-sufficiency and autonomy in order to be able to abandon and hence gut and destroy the profit-system. Otherwise we play right into their hands. Capitalists no longer need vast millions of people. They couldn’t care less if we scurry around in our little vegetable gardens, garage workshops, and utility rooms trying to scrape together the bare necessities of life. As long as they control the major technologies, the governments, and markets sufficient for the continued accumulation of capital, they are happy, and can control the world. They would be happy to see millions of us simply die off. In fact they are talking about this already, all the time, and looking forward to it.

So the tactic of 'starting to grow some of our own food' stems not from any romantic illusion about mother earth or about working with our hands, but from our dire need to establish independence in order to survive. Today’s urban populations are unimaginably vulnerable to the disruption of food supplies. And don’t think for one minute that governments and corporations won’t block food shipments, if they have to, to protect themselves and the system they are devoted to. In fact, structurally induced famines have already reached epidemic levels in the contemporary world. So 'growing some of our own food' applies not just to first world neighborhoods, but also, and especially, to the poorer countries which have been forced into importing basic food stuffs while their own lands are given over to cash crops for export (e.g., coffee, sugar, bananas, beef).

We don't need farms to start growing food. We can do it in the backyard, or in roof top gardens. We can build solar powered greenhouses, and try aqua culture and hydroponics. There are many ways to start getting free from agribusiness.

Great reading list; the mother of all libertarian leftist reading lists

This was included as an appendix to the "Getting Free, Complete 3rd edition" essay, which is an essay about how to get yourself and the world in which you live free. I like it because it breaks out of the dichotomy which says you either have to have an entirely anarchist critique or an entirely non-anarchist critique. I like both, but I don't feel comfortable enough with anarchism to whole heartedly endorse it, which is why I call myself a left libertarian as opposed to just calling myself an anarchist.And I definitely do not agree with the traditional marxist or marxist-leninist ideas of socialism to identify with them, either. This is about the best reading list I've seen on the web, bar none. The essay which it's appended to is less intense than the books listed here would suggest, which basically means that you're not going to have a cereberal hemmorage trying to understand it. This is a good thing. I'll include links to the essay, which is huge, in the next post, but here is the best reading list available on the web:

Recommended Readings

There are thousands of must-read books. Just to list the main categories is fairly intimidating - classics of marxism, anarchism,
anarcho-syndicalism, council communism, the labor movement, the cooperative movement, the early utopian socialists, medieval
communists, surrealism, feminism, environmentalism, black classics, radical utopias, the Frankfurt school and critical theory,
classics of the anti-colonial movements, new left classics, radical histories of all sorts, classics from the single-issue campaigns, and
so forth (not to mention mainstream knowledge a person should be familiar with). One does what one can. This is not the place
however to offer these bibliographies. What follows is a list of books which are especially enlightening, provocative, or insightful,
or historically significant, and which are relevant, in the most general sense, to the concerns of this pamphlet (that is, to creating a
new social world, which in fact includes just about everything). Except for fifty one books (about one-quarter), they were written
after World War Two. Twenty-four of the prewar titles were not available in English until after the war, and most of the
twenty-seven titles written or published in English before the war were not readily available.

Ackelsberg, Martha A., Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for The Emancipation of Women. Indiana University
Press, 1991, 229 pages.

Anderson, Andy, Hungary '56. Solidarity (London), 1964. Black & Red, 1976, 138 pages.

Arato, Andrew, and Eike Gebhardt, editors, The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. Continuum, 1982, 559 pages.

Arms, Suzanne, Immaculate Deception: A New Look at Women and Childbirth in America. Bantam, 2nd printing, 1979, 398

Arrighi, Giovanni, Terence K. Hopkins, and Immanuel Wallerstein, Antisystemic Movements. Verso, 1989, 123 pages.

Arshinov, Peter, History of the Makhnovist Movement, 1918-1921 [1923]. Black & Red, 1974, 284 pages.

Ash, Timothy Garton, Polish Revolution: Solidarity. Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983, 388 pages.

Ashbaugh, Carolyn, Lucy Parsons: American Revolutionary. Charles H. Kerr, 1976, 288 pages.

Aston, T.H., and Philpin, C.H.E., editors, The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in
Pre-industrial Europe. Cambridge University Press, 1985, 339 pages.

Avrich, Paul, An American Anarchist: The Life of Voltairine de Cleyre. Princeton, 1978, 266 pages.

Babeuf, Gracchus, The Defense of Gracchus Babeuf Before the High Court of Vendome. Edited and translated by John Anthony
Scott, with an essay by Herbert Marcuse, and illustrations by Thomas Cornell, Gehenna Press, 1964. Schocken Books edition,
1972, 117 pages.

Bakunin, Michael, Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Edited, translated and with
an introduction by Sam Dolgoff. Preface by Paul Avrich. Alfred A. Knopf, 1972, 405 pages.

Balibar, Etienne, Spinoza and Politics [1985]. Verso, 1998, 136 pages.

Barbour, Floyd B., editor, The Black Power Revolt: A Collection of Essays. Porter Sargent, Boston, 1968, 287 pages.
Bay, Christian, Strategies of Political Emancipation. Notre Dame University Press, 1981, 247 pages.

Beauvoir, Simone de, The Ethics of Ambiguity [1948]. Citadel Press, 1975, 162 pages.

Bellamy, Edward, Equality. D. Appleton & Co., 1897, 412 pages.

Berger, John, The Success and Failure of Picasso. Penguin, 1965, 210 pages.

Berkman, Alexander, Life of an Anarchist: The Alexander Berkman Reader. Four Walls Eight Windows, 1992, 355 pages.

Berneri, Marie Louise, Journey Through Utopia. Routledge, 1950, 339 pages.

Bloch, Ernst, Atheism in Christianity: The Religion of the Exodus and the Kingdom. Herder and Herder, 1972, 273 pages.

Bookchin, Murray, Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future. South End Press, Black Rose Press, 1990, 222 pages.

Braudel, Fernand, Afterthoughts on Material Civilization and Capitalism. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977, 120 pages.

Brecher, Jeremy, Strike! Straight Arrow Books, San Francisco, 1972, 329 pages (in the 1984 South End Press edi tion).

Breggin, Peter R., Toxic Psychiatry: Why Therapy, Empathy, and Love Must Replace the Drugs, Electroshock, and Biochemical
Theories of the "New Psychiatry". St. Martin's Press, 1991, 464 pages.

Breines, Wini, Community and Organization in the New Left, 1962-1968: The Great Refusal. Praeger, 1982, 185 pages in the
Rutgers U.P. paperback edition of 1989.

Breton, Andre, What is Surrealism? Selected Writings. Edited and introduced by Franklin Rosemont, Monad Press, 1978, 389

Brinton, Maurice, The Bolsheviks & Workers Control 1917 to 1921: The State and Counter-Revolution. Solicarity (North
London), 1970, 89 pages.

Brown, Dee, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970, 487

Brown, Norman O., Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Wesleyan University Press, 1959, 366 pages.

Bourne, Randolph, The Radical Will: Selected Writings 1911-1918. Urizen Books, 1977. California U.P. paperback, 1992, 548

Buhle, Paul, editor (with others), Free Spirits: Annals of the Insurgent Imagination. City Lights Books, 1982, 223 pages.

Cabral, Amilcar, Revolution in Guinea: Selected Texts. Monthly Review Press, 1969, 174 pages.

Camatte, Jacques, This World We Must Leave, and Other Essays [1972-1980]. Autonomedia, 1995, 256 pages.

Carson, Rachael, Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, 1962, 368 pages.

Carsten, F.L., Revolution in Central Europe 1918-1919. California University Press, 1972, 360 pages.

Castoriadis, Cornelius, Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy: Essays in Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1991, 305

Cesaire, Aime, Discourse on Colonialism [1950, 1955]. Monthly Review Press, 1972, 2000, 69 pages.

Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S. Herman, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, 1988,
412 pages.

Chossudovsky, Michel, The Globalisation of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms. Zed Books, 1997, 280 pages.

Cipolla, Carlo M., Guns, Sails, and Empires: Technological innovation and the Early Phases of European Expansion 1400-1700.
Pantheon Books, 1965, 192 pages.

Cleaver, Harry, Reading Capital Politically. Texas University Press, 1979, 209 pages.

Cole, G.D.H., Guild Socialism Restated [1920]. Transaction Books, 1980, 224 pages.

Cooley, Mike, Architect or Bee: The Human-Technology Relationship. Introduction by David Noble. South End Press, 1980, 185

Cornu, Auguste, The Origins of Marxian Thought. Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957, 128 pages.

Debord, Guy, Society of the Spectacle [1967], Black & Red, 1970, 1977, no page numbers (about 110 pages though).

DeCleyre, Voltairine, Selected Works of Voltairine de Cleyre. Mother Earth Publishing, 1914, 466+ pages.

DeVore, Irven, editor, Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1965, 654 pages.

Dewey, John, The Public and Its Problems. Henry Holt, 1927, 224 pages.

Dolgoff, Sam, The Cuban Revolution: A Critical Perspective. Black Rose Books, 1976, 199 pages.

Domhoff, G. William, Who Rules America Now? A View for the '80s. Simon and Schuster, 1983, 230 pages.

DuBois, W.E.B., Black Reconstruction, Harcourt Brace, 1935.

Dunayevskaya, Raya, Rosa Luxemburg, Women's Liberation, and Marx's Philosophy of Revolution. Illinois University Press,
1991, 240 pages.

Duveau, Georges, 1848: The Making of a Revolution. Introduced by George Rude, Harvard University Press, 1967, 254 pages.

Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minnesota University Press, 1983, 244 pages.

Edwards, Stewart, The Paris Commune 1871. Quadrangle Books, 1971, 417 pages.

Engels, Friedrich, The German Revolutions: The Peasant War in Germany [1850] and Germany: Revolution and
Counter-Revolution [1851-52]. Chicago University Press, 1967, 246 pages.

Enzensberger, Hans Magnus, Critical Essays. Continuum, 1982, 249 pages.

Esteva, Gustavo, and Madhu Suri Prakash, Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures. Zed Books, 1998, 223

Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth [1961]. Grove Press edition, no date, 254 pages.

Feyerband, Paul, Science in a Free Society. New Left Books, 1978, 221 pages.

Frank, K. Portland, The Anti-Psychiatry Bibliography and Resource Guide. Second edition, revised and expanded, Press Gang,
1979, 159 pages.

Friedland, William, et. al., Revolutionary Theory. Allanheld, 1982, 248 pages.

Foner, Philip S., We, the Other People: Alternative Declarations of Independence by Labor Groups, Farmers, Woman's Rights
Advocates, Socialists, and Blacks 1829-1975. Illinois University Press, 1976, 205 pages.

Fotopoulos, Takis, Towards an Inclusive Democracy: The Crisis of the Growth Economy and the Need for a New Liberatory
Project. Cassell, 1997, 401 pages.

Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon, 1978, 333 pages.

Fourier, Charles, The Utopian Vision of Charles Fourier: Selected Texts on Work, Love, and Passionate Attraction. Translated,
edited, and with an introduction by Jonathan Beecher and Richard Bienvenu, Beacon Press, Boston, 1971, 427 pages.

Gelbspan, Ross, The Heat Is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate. Addison Wesley, 1997, 278 pages.

Gethin, Amorey, Antilinguistics: A Critical Assessment of Modern Linguistic Theory and Practice. Intellect Ltd. (Oxford,
England), 1990, 275 pages.

Getzler, Martov. Melbourne University Press, 1967, 240 pages.

Goad, Jim, The Redneck Manifesto. Simon and Schuster, 1997, 274 pages.

Goldman, Emma, Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader. Compiled and edited by Alix Kates Shulman, 1972. Expanded
Schocken edition, 1983, 460 pages.

Goldmann, Lucien, Lukacs and Heidegger: Towards a new Philosophy. Routledge, 1977, 112 pages.

Goodall, Jane, In the Shadow of Man. Houghton Mifflin, 1971, 297 pages.

Goodman, Paul, Drawing the Line: Political Essays. Free Life Editions, 1977, 272 pages.

Goodman, Paul and Percival, Communitas: Ways of Livelihood and Means of Life. Vintage Books, 1947, 1960, 248 pages.

Gorter, Herman, Open Letter to Comrade Lenin: A Reply to 'Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder' [1921]. Wildcat,
000200000F1500002875F0F,1989, 41 pages.

Gorz, Andre, Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work [1983]. Pluto Press, 1985, 120 pages.

Gottschalk, Louis R., Jean Paul Marat: A Study in Radicalism [1927]. University of Chicago Press, 1967, 225 pages.

Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and
Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971, 483 pages.

Green, Philip, Retrieving Democracy: In Search of Civic Equality. Rowman and Allanheld, 1985, 278 pages.

Guerin, Daniel, 100 Years of Labor in the USA. Ink Links, 1979, 252 pages.

Guevara, Ernesto Che, Venceremos! The Speeches and Writings of Ernesto Che Guevara. Edited, annotated, and with an
introduction by John Gerassi, Macmillan, 1968, 442 pages.

Haffner, Sebastian, Failure of a Revolution: Germany 1918-1919 [1969]. Banner Press, 1986, 211 pages.

Harris, Marvin, Cultural Materialism. The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Random House, 1979, 381 pages.

Heller, Agnes, On Instincts. Van Gorcum & Comp., 1979, 97 pages.

Herman, Edward S., Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media. South End Press, 1995, 276 pages.

Hightower, Jim, There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. HarperCollins, 1997, 308

Hill, Christopher, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. Maurice Temple Smith, 1972
(Penguin edition, 1975, 431 pages.

Hilton, Rodney, introducer, The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. New Left Books, 1976, 195 pages.

Hobsbawm, E.J., Echoes of the Marseillaise: Two Centuries Look Back on the French Revolution. 1990, 144 pages.

Hooks, Bell, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press, 1984, 174 pages.

Horkheimer, Max, Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Herder and Herder, 1972, 290 pages.

Illich, Ivan, Shadow Work. Marion Boyars, 1981, 152 pages.

Inch, Sally, Birthrights: What Every Parent Should Know About Childbirth in Hospitals. Pantheon Books, 1982, 236 pages.

Jacoby, Russell, Dialectic of Defeat: The Contours of Western Marxism. Cambridge University Press, 1981, 202 pages.

James, C.L.R., Facing Reality [1958], Bewick Editions, 1974, 174 pages.

Jay, Martin, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. Little
Brown, 1973, 382 pages.

Kautsky, Karl, Communism in Central Euorpe in the Time of the Reformation. Russell and Russell, 1959, 293 pages.

Knabb, Ken, editor and translator, Situationist International Anthology. Bureau of Public Secrets, 1981, 406 pages.

Kolakowski, Leszek, Marxism and Beyond: On Historical Understanding and Individual Responsibility. Pall Mall Press, London,
1968, 240 pages (U.S. edition, Toward a Marxist Humanism, Grove Press).

Kolko, Gabriel, Main Currents in Modern American History. Pantheon, 1976, 1984, 459 pages.

Kollontai, Alexandra, The Workers Opposition in Russia [1921]. Solidarity (North London), 1971, 70 pages.

Koning, Hans, Columbus: His Enterprise: Exploding the Myth. Monthly Review Press, 1976, 1991, 140 pages.

Kornbluh, Joyce L., editor, Rebel Voices: An IWW Anthology. Charles Kerr, 1988, 447 pages.

Korsch, Karl, Marxism and Philosophy [1922-1930]. New Left Books, 1970, 159 pages.

Kosik, Karel, Dialectics of the Concrete: A Study on Problems of Man and World. D. Reidel Publishing, 1976, 158 pages.

Kropotkin, Peter, Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets [1927]. Benjamin Bloom, 1968, 307 pages.

Kuron, Jacek, and Modzelewski, Karol, Solidarnosc: The Missing Link?: A New Edition of Poland's Classic Revolutionary
Socialist Manifesto - Kuron & Modzelewski's 'Open Letter to the Party ' [1965], Bookmarks, 1982, 88 pages.

Labriola, Antonio, Socialism and Philosophy [1897-99]. Telos Press, 1980, 223 pages.
Landauer, Gustav, For Socialism [1911]. Telos Press, 1978, 150 pages.

LeGuin, Ursula K., The Dispossessed. Harper & Row, 1974, 341 pages (Easton Press edition).

Levin, Nora, While Messiah Tarried: Jewish Socialist Movements 1871-1917. Schocken Books, 1977, 554 pages.

Levins, Richard, and Richard Lewontin, The Dialectical Biologist. Harvard University Press, 1985, 303 pages.

Lewontin, R.C., Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin, Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. Pantheon, 1984,
322 pages.

Lindsay, A.D., Karl Marx's Capital: An Introductory Essay. Oxford University Press, 1925, 128 pages.

Lukacs, Georg, Political Writings, 1919-1929. New Left Books, 1972, 257 pages.

Lummis, C. Douglas, Radical Democracy. Cornell University Press, 1996, 185 pages.

Lumumba, Patrice, Lumumba Speaks: The Speeches and Writings of Patrice Lumumba 1958-1961 [1963]. Introduction by Jean
Paul Sartre. Little Brown, 1972, 433 pages.

Lunn, Eugene, Prophet of Community: The Romantic Socialism of Gustav Landauer. California University Press, 1973, 434

Luxemburg, Rosa, Selected political Writings of Rosa Luxemburg. Monthly Review Press, 1971, 441 pages.

Lynd, Staughton, Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution. Bobbs-Merrill, 1967, 288 pages.

Macdonald, Dwight, The Root is Man [1946]. Autonomedia, 1995, 1987 pages.

Magon, Ricardo Flores, Land & Liberty: Anarchist Influences in the Mexican Revolution [1910-11]. Cienfuegos Press, 1977, 156

Makhno, Nestor, The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays. AK Press, 1996, 114 pages.

Malatesta, Errico, Errico Malatesta: His Life & Ideas. Compiled and edited by Vernon Richards, Freedom Press, 1965, 309 pages.

Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements. Merit Publishers, 1965, 226 pages (in Grove Press edition,

Malos, Ellen, The Politics of Housework. Allison and Busby, 1980, 286 pages.

Mander, Jerry, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. Quill, 1977, 371 pages.

Manley, John F., and Dolbeare, Kenneth M., editors, The Case Against the Constitution: From the Antifederalists to the Present,
M.E. Sharpe, 1987, 198 pages.

Marable, Manning, W.E.B. DuBois: Black Radical Democrat. Twayne Publishers, 1986, 285 pages.

Marat, Jean Paul, Writings of Jean Paul Marat, with a Biographical Sketch. Voices of Revolt, Volume II, International Publishers,
1927, 78 pages.

Marcuse, Herbert, Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. Humanities Press, 1954 (2nd edi tion), 440

Martov, J., The State and the Socialist Revolution. International Review, 1938, 64 pages.

Marx, Karl, and Engels, Frederick, Selected Works. In one volume. International Publishers, 1968, 800 pages.

Mattick, Paul, Anti-Bolshevik Communism [1935-1967], M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1978, 230 pages.

McNally, David, Against the Market: Political Economy, Market Socialism, and the Marxist Critique. Verso, 1993, 262 pages.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, The Visible and the Invisible [1964]. Northwestern University Press, 1968, 282 pages.

Mett, Ida, The Kronstadt Uprising [1938]. Black Rose Books, 1971, 93 pages.

Midgley, Mary, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature [1979]. Routledge, 1995 (revised edition), 377 pages.

Midnight Notes Collective, The New Enclosures. Autonomedia (distributor), 1990, 100 pages.

Minter, William, King Solomon's Mines Revisited: Western Interests and the Burdened History of Southern Africa. Basic Books,
1986, 401 pages.

Mitchell, Juliet, Womn's Estate. Pantheon, 1971. Vintage edition, 1973, 182 pages.

Morris, William, Political Writings of William Morris. Edited and with an introduction by A. L. Morton, International Publishers,
1973, 248 pages.

Muste, A.J., The Essays of A.J. Muste. Edited by Nat Hentoff, Bobbs-Merrill, 1967, 513 pages.

Negri, Toni, Revolution Retrieved: Selected Writings on Marx, Keynes, Capitalist Crisis and New Social Subjects, 1967-83. Red
000200000BE50000470ABDF,Notes, 1988, 274 pages.

Nizan, Paul, The Watchdogs: Philosophers and the Established Order [1960]. Monthly Review Press, 1971, 185 pages.

Noble, David F., Progress Without People: In Defense of Luddism. Charles H. Kerr, 1993, 145 pages.

Nomad, Max, Aspects of Revolt: A Study in Revolutionary Theories and Techniques. Noonday Press edition, 1961, 311 pages.

O'Brien, Mary, The Politics of Reproduction. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981, 240 pages.

Odent, Michel, Birth Reborn. Pantheon, 1984, 123 pages.

Orwell, George, Homage to Catalonia. Secker and Warburg, London, 1938, 314 pages.

Paine, Thomas, The Thomas Paine Reader. Edited by Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick, Penguin Books, 1987, 536 pages.

Pankhurst, Sylvia, A Sylvia Pankhurst Reader. Edited by Kathryn Dodd, Manchester University Press.

Pannekoek, Anton, Lenin as Philosopher: A Critical Examination of the Philosophical Basis of Leninism [1938]. New Essays,
New York, 1948, 80 pages.

Parenti, Michael, Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment. St. Martin's Press, 1992, 241 pages.

Pateman, Carole, The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critique of Liberal Theory. John Wiley & Sons, 1979, 222 pages (in the
California U.P. paperback edition, 1985).

Pauling, Linus, How to Live Longer and Feel Better. W.H. Freeman, 1982, 322 pages.

Perlman, Fredy, The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism. Black and Red, 1985, 58 pages.

Petegorsky, David W., Left-Wing Democracy in the English Civil War: A Study of the Social Philosophy of Gerrard Winstanley.
Victor Gallancz Ltd., London, 1940, 254 pages.

Piercy, Marge, Woman on the Edge of Time. Ballantine Books, 1976, 376 pages.

Platt, Tony,, The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: An Analysis of the U.S. Police. Center for Research on Criminal Justice,
1975. Third edition, revised and expanded, 1982, by the Institute for the Study of Labor and Economic Crisis, 232 pages.

Pleasants, Henry, The Agony of Modern Music. Simon and Schuster, 1955, 180 pages.

P.M., Bolo'Bolo. Semiotext(e), 1985, 198 pages.

Prakash, Madhu Suri, and Gustavo Esteva, Escaping Education: Living as Learning within Grassroots Cultures. Peter Lang, 1998,
147 pages.

Proudhon, P.J., Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon. Anchor Books, 1969, 276 pages.

Rahv, Philip, Essays on Literature & Politics 1932-1972. Houghton Mifflin, 1978, 366 pages.

Reich, Wilhelm, Sex-Pol: Essays 1929-1934. Edited by Lee Baxandall, Random House, 1966, 378 pages.

Richards, Vernon, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution. Freedom Press, 1972, 240 pages.

Robinson, Paul A., The Freudian Left: Wilhelm Reich, Geza Roheim, Herbert Marcuse. Harper and Row, 1969, 253 pages.

Rocker, Rudolph, Anarcho-Syndicalism [1938]. Pluto Press, 1989, 166 pages.

Roediger, Dave, and Rosemont, Franklin, editors, Haymarket Scrapbook. Charles Kerr, 1986, 255 pages.

Rose, Gillian, Hegel Contra Sociology. Athlone Press, London, 1981, 261 pages.

Rosemont, Franklin, Arsenal: Surrealist Subversion. (No. 4, 1989), Black Swan Press, 224 pages.
Rowbotham, Sheila, Women, Resistance and Revolution: A History of Women and Revolution in the Modern World. Pantheon,
1972, 288 pages.

Said, Edward, Orientalism. Random House, 1978 (Vintage edition, 1979, 368 pages).

Salerno, Salvatore, editor and introducer, Direct Action & Sabotage: Three Classic IWW Pamphlets from the 1910s (by Elizabeth
Guley Flynn, Walker C. Smith, and William E. Trautman). Charles Kerr, 1997, 121 pages.

Sartre, Jean Paul, Search for a Method. Vintage, 1968, 181 pages.

Schecter, Stephen, The Politics of Urban Liberation. Black Rose Books, 1978, 202 pages.

Schmidt, Alfred, The Concept of Nature in Marx [1962]. New Left Books, 1971, 251 pages.

Schmidt, James, Maurice Merleau-Ponty: Between Phenomenology and Structuralism. St. Martin's Press, 1985, 214 pages.

Serge, Victor, Memoirs of a Revolutionary 1901-1941 [1951]. Oxford University Press, 1963, 401 pages.

Shanin, Teodor, Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and 'the peripheries of capitalism'. Monthly Review Press, 1983, 286

Sharp, Gene, Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System. Princeton University Press, 1990, 165 pages.

Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for the Treatment of Animals. New York Review, 1975, 321 pages.

Soboul, Albert, The Sans-Culottes: the Popular Movement and Revolutionary Government 1793-1794 [1968]. Princeton
University Press edition, 1980, 279 pages.

Sorel, Georges, From Georges Sorel: Essays in Socialism and Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1976, 388 pages.

Spence, Thomas, Pigs' Meat: The Selected Writings of Thomas Spence, Radical and Pioneer Land Reformer [1793- 1803]. With
an introductory essay and notes by G. I. Gallop, Spokesman, 1982, 192 pages.

Spooner, Lysander, An Essay on the Trial by Jury [1852]. Legal Classics Library, Gyphon Editions, 1989, 224 pages.

Spriano, Paolo, The Occupation of the Factories: Italy 1920 [1964]. Pluto Press, 1975, 212 pages.

Storing, Herbert J., ed., The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution, Selected by Murray Dry from the
Complete Anti-Federalist. Chicago University Press, 1981, 374 pages.

Storing, Herbert J., What the Anti-Federalists Were For: The Political Thought of the Opponents of the Constitution. Chicago
University Press, 1981, 111 pages.

Taber, Ron, A Look at Leninism. Aspect Foundation, New York, 1988, 104 pages.

Tawney, R. H., The Acquisitive Society. Harcourt, Brace, 1920, 188 pages.

Taylor, Michael, Community, Anarchy, & Liberty. Cambridge University Press, 1982, 184 pages.

Thomas, Paul, Karl Marx and the Anarchists. Routledge, 1980, 406 pages.

Thompson, E.P., The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 1978, 404 pages.

Tifft, Larry, and Dennis Sullivan, The Struggle to be Human: Crime, Criminology, and Anarchism. Cienfuegos Press, 1980, 208

Tristan, Flora, The Workers' Union [1843]. University of Illinois Press, 1983, 159 pages.

Wallerstein, Immanuel, After Liberalism. New Press, 1995, 278 pages.

Ward, Colin, Anarchy in Action. Allen and Unwin, 1973, 152 pages in the Freedom Press edition, 1982.

Weil, Simone, Oppression and Liberty [1933-43]. University of Massachusetts Press, 1973, 195 pages.

Wertz, Richard W., and Dorothy C., Lying-In: A History of Childbirth in America. The Free Press, 1977. Expanded edition by
Yale University Press, 1989, 322 pages.

Williams, Raymond, The Long Revolution. Columbia University Press, 1961, 370 pages.

Williams, Roger J., Nutrition Against Disease: Environmental Prevention. Pitman Publishing, 1972, 319 pages.

Williams, William Appleman, The Contours of American History. World Publishing, 1961, 513 pages.

Winstanley, Gerrard, Law of Freedom and Other Essays. Edited by Christopher Hill, Cambridge U.P., 1973.

Wolff, Robert Paul, In Defense of Anarchism. Harper and Row, 1970, 118 pages (1976 edition).

Wolin, Sheldon S., The Presence of the Past: Essays on the State and the Constitution. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, 227

Wood, Ellen Meiksins, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. Cambridge University Press, 1995, 300

Woodcock, George, Power To Us All: Constitution or Social Contract? Harbour Publishing, 1992, 191 pages.

Zagorin, Perez, A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954, 208 pages.

Zinn, Howard, SNCC: The New Abolitionists (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee). Beacon Press, 1964, 286 pages.