- No upcoming events available
« August 2026 »
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|
| | | | | | 1 |
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | | | | | |
|
s0metim3s writes:
"Wombling Free? Anarchists and the European Social Forum"
Geoffrey Brown
The 2004 European Social Forum, held in London on 15-17 October, attracted more than 20,000 participants. The event featured 500 plenaries, seminars, workshops and cultural events, with more than 2,500 speakers representing every shade of opinion within the global justice movement. The ESF concluded with a 70,000-strong demonstration calling for an end to war, racism and privatisation, and for a Europe of peace and social justice. Hundreds of volunteers gave their services for free. The whole event was made possible by financial support from the Greater London Authority, who also provided free travel for the participants and cheap accommodation at the Dome.
The following article is from exquisite magazine, Mute. Check it out.
Commercial Commons
by researchers at the Economic Observatory of the University of Openess
Creative Commons advertise their licenses as the best-of-both-worlds between copyright and the public domain. But is the word 'commons' then a misnomer, and can such licensing be subjected to the same abuse as copyright? Saul Albert raises the question and a discussion within the University of Openess Wiki follows
The Creative Commons licenses have become a kind of default orthodoxy in non-commercial licensing. Every unpunctuated half-sentence spilled into a weblog, every petulant rant published by 'Free Culture' pundits, every square millimetre of Lawrence Lessig's abundant intellectual property is immediately and righteously staked out as part of the great wealth of man's 'Creative Commons'.
Read the rest of the article"
ah-zf writes:
"A local alternative Rock band in Ithaca, NY was just recently approached by coca-cola to appear on a commercial spot, shot in Ithaca, while performing one of their original songs. The band is made up of 3 girls, all Ithaca highschool students. And, of course, they accepted.
In accordance to this 'big break' they'll be signed to one of the many record companies whom coca-cola supports, get to be on TV, perhaps gain a national fanbase, and live happily ever after...
*click*
Oh, wait a minute, this scenario seems vaguely familiar somehow. Maybe even some of that philosophical shit is involved. You think?
hpwombat writes: "Why We Desire Destruction and Not Socialism"
Heretic and High Priest Wombat, KSC What is Socialism?
The movements for socialism cannot exist without capitalism and their logic is that of civilization. Critiques of the totality cannot develop within the framework of these movements, only certain things are of value to be critiqued and these movements always have an alternative. If they are not utopian, which to some socialists is desirable, but not necessary, then they are progressive. Reduce pollutants but don't question the logic of work and the technology that drives it. We must put socialism to the question and its ultimate strategy for complete domination, rather than for the end of it.
First there is state socialism, a name we give to the movements and their strategies for achieving progress through state power. All of socialism is justified by some method or appeal to democracy and so participating in a democratic process, such as the election of representatives is just a move towards expanding democracy. According to many socialists, if the majority were given democracy, they would choose progressive policies and may even choose socialism over capitalism, should such a thing ever come to the ballot. Some state socialists are wary of democracy as it stands for one reason or another and opts instead to lead, as a vanguard, the movements for socialism towards their ascension over the state through undemocratic means, but not because they reject democracy but rather they fight for the future of democracy.
Local, Islamic and Global
The Petroleum Commons
George Caffentzis, Counterpunch
1. All land and natural resources (including mineral resources) within the Ijaw territory belong to Ijaw communities and are the basis of our survival.
2. We cease to recognize all undemocratic decrees that rob our
peoples' communities of the right to ownership and control of our lives and resources, which were enacted without our participation and dissent. These include the Land Use Decree and The Petroleum Decree. — The Kaiama Declaration (December 1998)
Introduction: Oil and Water
The struggles over the ownership of the two most important political liquids of this era, petroleum and water, have had different fates. Though water has been proclaimed to be either private, state or common property throughout history, the novel feature of this neo-liberal period has been the move by corporations to totally privatize it. The powerful struggles waged against the corporate privatization of water from Cochabamba (Bolivia) to Soweto (South Africa) have focused world attention on the question: Who owns water? The consequent efforts to keep water as a common property on a local and global level are now among the most important initiatives of the anti-globalization movement.
Petroleum, on the other hand, has in the last hundred and fifty years been considered exclusively as either private or state property. Thus, the pages of the history books on the petroleum industry have been filled with "magnates" like John D. Rockefeller or government "leaders" like Saddam Hussain and Winston Churchill. Similarly, the "struggle over oil" has been largely seen as a struggle between oil companies and governments, since its beginnings in the mid-nineteenth century.
"Marxist-Lessigism"
Dan Hunter, Legal Affairs
Computer users of the world have united behind Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig — and what they're doing is much more important than his critics realize.
At Swarthmore College, the crowd is mostly students, and maybe a few professors and interested outsiders. It's a typical turnout for a public lecture by a well-known law professor.
But there is something different and a little odd about this group. Swarthmore doesn't have a law school, so the audience includes no young men in suits that still have the label attached, and no young women with high-heeled shoes so new the soles aren't scuffed. And there is something else, something funny about the T-shirts. Everywhere you look, there are T-shirts with slogans, not logos. No "Tommy Hilfiger" and "Ralph Lauren" here. Just shirts with references too obscure to parse. What is "Downhill Battle"? Or "Grey Tuesday"? One kid has a shirt with the picture of a skull and crossbones on it, and written boldly across it are the words "Home Taping is Killing the Music Industry." Look closer, and you'll see, in tiny type, "(And it's fun)."
"Internal Intifada: Workers' Struggle in Occupied Iraq"
Ewa Jasiewicz, Mute Magazine
In order to understand the present state of workers’ resistance in occupied Iraq we have to begin with the old regime. The Ba’ath dictatorship exterminated workers – both literally and ideologically. In 1987 Saddam liquidated all trade unions, transforming all workers into civil servants – state employees. Fake Ba’athist unions were set up, functioning in effect as tools of surveillance, repression and murder. But this denial of the existence of workers and repression of labour organisation did not end with the fall of Saddam. In June 2003 the US occupation administration passed its infamous ‘Public Notice on Organisation in the Workplace’. This innocuous sounding document effectively perpetuated the 1987 law: unions were still illegal and would not be recognised until ‘The Iraqi people’ – i.e. the puppet Governing Council – passed its new labour law. The Ba’athist managerial class, restored to their posts by the occupation, implemented the ‘Public Notice’ like an order: organisation in the workplace was still illegal. Bosses would look smarmily baffled when asked about workers’ rights and workers’ organisations, responding ‘But we do not have workers, only employees.’
Workers across Iraq ignored the notice and began forming unions and collectives while taking direct action against their recycled Ba’athist bosses.
"After the Empire — What?"
Kirkpatrick Sale and Thomas H. Naylor
[A call to a Radical Consultation in Middlebury, Vermont, to discuss issues involving secession, November, 2004.]
No empire has ever survived the test of time — Greek, Roman, Chinese, Ottoman, French, British, or Soviet. Is there any reason to believe that the United States will prove to be an exception to the rule?
Our government's dogged, mean-spirited, zero-surn pursuit of the war on terrorism, and a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch, appear to be leading us into a death spiral. So too is its unwavering commitment to globalization and environmental degradation at any cost. There is resounding evidence that it is only a matter of time before corporate behemoths implode and then the fragile house-of-cards economy and its otherworldly stock market collapses.
"An Independent State of Mind"
Joel Senesac, Vermont Guardian,
[Special to the Verrnont Guardian, November 5—11, 2004. Tom Naylor of Charlotte is one of the founders ot the Second Vermont Republic, an organization that is promoting the idea of having Vermont secede from the US.]
CHARLOTTE — Throughout history, every great empire has eventually met its demise. According to economist Thomas Naylor, the United States may soon prove to be no exception because it has grown too big to sustain itself. That's why Naylor helped form the Second Vermont Republic, an organization dedicated to the peaceful dissolution of the country, starting with the secession of Vermont.
"The Constitutionality of Secession"
Thomas H. Naylor, Second Vermont Republic
Few words are perceived to be more politically incorrect in America than the s-word, secession. Thanks mostly to Abraham Lincoln, secession is considered to be a complete anathema by liberals and conservatives alike. Although most Americans believe the Civil War proved once and for all that secession is illegal and unconstitutional, nothing could be further from the truth.
|
|
