1. Neither an emerging capitalist economy nor an increasing secular culture could create the sense of political obligation that a democracy required from its citizens; loyalty to the nation-state filled the void, uniting individuals around a common cause and a higher purpose;
2. The nation and the state: the nation is distinct from the state: nationalism refers first and foremost to a people’s living and active corporate will, to their felt sense of community;
3. Superpatriotism and real patriotism: After the war torn twentieth century, the idea that patriotic nationalism could be a positive force in international politics may seem naïve; yet, according to Michael Parenti, real patriots are internationalists; they feel a special attachment to their own country but not in some competitive way that pits the United States against other powers; they regard the people of all nations as different members of the same human family;
4. Charles Nusser: superpatriotism involves the tendency to place nationalistic pride and supremacy above other public consideration, the readiness to follow our leaders uncritically in their dealings with other nations, especially confrontations involving the use of military force and violence; Love: superpatriotism is nationalism gone terribly wrong;
5. Benito Mussolini: Fascism as an idea, a doctrine, a realization, is universal; it is Italian in its particular institutions, but is universal by reason of its nature.
Symbolic politics
1. Murray Edelman: political scientists’ standard definition of politics as “who gets what, where, and how” is one-sided; in emphasizing resource allocation, it neglects the symbolic functions of politics, the myriad ways the state arouses and addresses its citizens’ hopes and fears;
2. Edelman: politics is obsessional, mythical, and emotional, as well as rational and strategic; political forms come to symbolize what large masses of men need to believe about the state to reassure themselves; it is the needs, the hopes, and the anxieties of men that determine the meanings; but political forms also convey goods, services, and power to specific groups of men;
3. Referential symbols and condensation symbols—Edelman: referential symbols represent the objective elements in objects or situations, the elements identified in the same way by different people; condensation symbols evoke the emotions associated with the situation; they frequently condense into one symbolic event, sign, or act patriotic pride, anxieties, remembrances of past glories or humiliations, promises of future greatness, some one of these or all of them;
4. Referential symbols help individuals know and control external reality; condensation symbols help individuals adjust to society and address their ambivalence about politics; they perform the latter function by allowing citizens to externalize their unresolved inner problems—that is, to displace and/or project their fears and hopes on other objects;
5. Adversary and enemy—Edelman: adversaries are legitimate opponents who engage in limited struggles over tactical issues; to defeat an adversary, we require the relatively accurate information that referential symbols provide;
6. An enemy is fundamentally flawed, a morally depraved person or persons (a leader, nation, or race) who poses a continuing threat to the survival of our state; in opposing an enemy we unite against them;
7. Although referential and condensation symbols are analytically distinct, symbolic politics often includes aspects of both;
8. Edelman: there are two ways in which these symbols pervade politics: as rituals and as myths; rituals: motor activity that involves its participants symbolically in a common enterprise, calling their attention to their relatedness and joint interests in a compelling way. It thereby both promotes conformity and evokes satisfaction and joy in conformity;
9. Myth: functions to account for extraordinary privileges or duties, for great social inequalities, for severe burdens of rank, in short for sociological strain;
10. As myth and ritual, symbolic politics takes on aesthetic qualities that increase as empirical reality fades; Edelman: condensation symbols are artistic creations, and their expressive power depends on their distance from ordinary experience; Walter Benjamin’s aura;
11. At first glance, the symbolic politics of modern democracies seemingly follows the same trend; the aura that surrounds gods and kings has been replaced by the selling of the president;
12. Autocratic remnants persist in mass democracies: the sovereign people of a liberal democracy worship themselves when they express patriotism toward their nation-state;
13. In modern democracies, aura is used to shape public opinion for a variety of purposes: to gain reelection, to maintain legitimacy, to reaffirm loyalties, to mobilize for war, and so on; yet autocratic art in its pure form has no external goal; it is an end in itself;
14. Within this aesthetic frame, Michael Parenti describes superpatriotism in similar terms: the nation-state is transformed into something more than an instrumental value whose function is to protect other social values. For the superpatriot, the nation becomes an end in itself, a powerfully abstracted symbol that claims out ultimate loyalty, an entity whose existence is taken as morally self-justifying;
15. Aura, an aesthetic quality suggests that the fascist state, especially its leader, is a form of pure art. Love: nationalism goes terribly wrong when politics abandons its ties to reality and becomes an end in itself.
Masses, Leaders, and the State
1. The two international reasons for the rise of Italian Fascism and German Nazism: WWI, especially the Versailles Treaty; and the Great Depression;
2. Other reasons were specific to Germany and Italy: the absence of a civic culture to support constitutional government; the strain of late, state-supported economic modernization; political fragmentation, complicated by weak middle class parties and strong right- and left-wing opposition; proportional representation electoral systems resulting in coalition governments; and, in Germany, a constitutional provision for emergency powers;
The masses
1. Seymour Martin Lipset: The ideal-typical Nazi voter in 1932 was a middle-class self-employed Protestant who lived either on a farm or in a small community, and who had previously voted for a centrist or regionalist political party strongly opposed to the power and influence of big business and big labor;
2. The Italian Fascists’ self-portrait as the party of “law and order” had gained them the support of civil servants, army officers, business and industrial leaders, and skilled tradesmen;
The Leaders
1. Hitler and Mussolini offered their charismatic leadership as an escape from liberal democracy;
2. Yet the people can neither recognize nor appreciate genius; Hitler: the revulsion of the masses for every outstanding genius is positively instinctive; sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be discovered by an election;
3. The Führerprinzip, or leadership principle, is Hitler’s alternative: in it there is no majority vote on individual questions, but only the decision of an individual [the Führer] who must answer with his fortune and his life for his choice;
4. Thus, in terms of aestheticized politics, Führer embodies the essence of the people; in his person, the individual, the nation, and the race converge;
1. The Führerstaat, or leader-state, transcends liberals’ social contract based on individual rights; fascism has more spiritual goals: the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind; in such a state, liberty again takes on a positive meaning—it involves self-sacrifice, not self-interests;
2. Mussolini argued that liberal politics wrongly subordinates the power of the state to the individual; his slogans: everything within the state, everything for the state, nothing outside the state; Fascism is Mussolini; Mussolini is always right; Mussolini’s Fascist state is an unique and original creation. It is not reactionary but revolutionary;
3. Mussolini—everything depends on that: to dominate the masses as an artist;
The state
1. Gleichschaltung (synchronization) was the Nazi’s term for their top-down penetration of all aspects of society; Hitler: responsibility towards above, authority towards below;
2. The Nazi Party became a state within the state and a part of citizens’ daily lives;
3. In 1927, Mussolini declared the creation of a “corporate state;” according to Mussolini, the state was the dictatorship of the state over many classes competing;
4. Why did Germans and Italians elect Fascist governments? Theodor Adorno: mass society leads modern men to revert to patterns of behavior which flagrantly contradicts their own rational level and the present stage of enlightened technological civilization; to overcome their emptiness, loneliness, and powerlessness, the democratic masses identify with a charismatic leader and embrace a totalitarian state;
5. Hannah Arendt: the problems of tribalism, of racism, and of conceiving of the other with hatred, is an understandable response to the tremendous moral burden placed upon people by the claims that all share in the rights of man;
6. Many citizens may ultimately find a liberal-capitalist society intolerable because of the tremendous responsibility that real freedom requires of them;
Corporatism
1. Societal corporatism evolves alongside a liberal democratic welfare state, as the requirement of maintaining economic prosperity and political loyalty begin to exceed the coordinating capacities of freemarkets;
2. State corporatism is more often imposed from above as part of a revolutionary program to facilitate industrial development;
3. Mussolini: corporatism solves the crisis of capitalism by (re)directing human energies toward the nation-state; economic needs are better served when classes are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of state;
4. Italian Fascism brought classes together as a nation but it did so without abolishing capitalism and its attendant inequalities;
5. Hitler: the Aryan no longer works directly for himself, but with his activity articulates himself with the community, not only for his own advantage, but for the advantage of all;
6. German corporatism was less extensive than that in Italy; hitler implemented his labor and social policies with the cooperation of relatively autonomous agricultural, business, and industrial elites;
7. From a Marxist perspective, fascists’ call for class compromise or conciliation is bourgeois ideology; under fascism, the capitalists continue to claim that their class interests really serve the whole of society; to support those interests, Adam Smith’s once invisible hand must become a highly visible state;
8. For socialists, symbolic politics remain a means to a future society; for Fascists, they are an end in itself.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
WEEK 11: ANARCHISM
WEEK 11: ANARCHISM
1. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: the meaning ordinarily attached to the word “anarchy” is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with disorder;
2. George Woodcock: the stereotype of the anarchist is that of the cold-blooded assassin who attacks with dagger or bomb the symbolic pillars of established society; anarchy, in popular parlance, is malign chaos;
3. Proudhon: anarchism reflects a natural harmony among freely associated individuals that renders political rule superfluous;
4. To create anew, anarchists must destroy; to promote harmony, they foment revolution; to reorder society, they free individuals; to realize freedom, they stress moral law;
5. Emma Goldman: it [anarchism] is the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of social harmony;
6. Ulrike Heider’s Janus-face anarchism: one face represents the extension of liberals’ principle of individual freedom to its furthest point where personal integrity supersedes government authority; the other refers to nonauthoritarian socialists who refuse to impose a proletarian dictatorship during the transition from capitalism to socialism; when seen together, they suggest that anarchism offers an alternative to liberal capitalism and to authoritarian socialism;
7. AccordinG to John p. Clark anarchism is:
1. A view of an ideal, noncoercive, nonauthoritarian society;
2. A criticism of existing society and its institutions based on this authoritarian ideal;
3. A view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal;
4. A strategy for change, involving immediate institution of noncoercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralized alternatives;
8. Emma Goldman: anarchism stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein, lays the salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits, for “man who are men, and who have a bone in their back which you cannot pass your hand through.
Individual Anarchism
1. Although anarchists’ emphases on the individual and society vary, their common concern is with individual freedom as “moral self-direction;”
2. Following Berlin: since positive liberty opens the door to authoritarianism, anarchism can only fall on the negative liberty side of Berlin’s conceptual dichotomy;
3. Crowder: Yet, behind anarchists’ attack on authority is the principle of the inviolability of self-direction by the authentic rational and moral will; anarchists hold a concept of positive liberty for which negative liberty is a necessary precondition and which precludes all authoritarian impulses;
4. Anarchists’ attack on the notion of government: according to William Godwin, governments
1. protect inequalities of property that sustain an economically dependent class—such dependence undermines moral freedom;
2. governmental laws undermine citizens’ moral capacities—the fear of punishment is a demeaning one;
3. when citizens grant authority to government, they also agree to suspend their judgment;
5. Godwin’s ideal individual is subject only to the “coercion” of consistence; society has a right to require everything that is my duty to do, and it, in turn, is bound to do everything that can contribute to its members’ welfare;
6. Rational persuasion takes the place of legal codes; this internal corrective suffices unless society corrupts reason, obscuring the nature of virtuous action and undermining human motivation to pursue it;
7. Max Stirner stresses individual independence to an even greater extend, at time denying any reality beyond the self: I start from a hypothesis by taking myself as hypothesis; I use it solely for my enjoyment and satisfaction; I exist only because I nourish myself;
8. Stirner: family, church, party, and nation are ghosts that haunt us from birth, and all of us fight a lifelong battle to assert ourselves against them;
9. Henry David Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience: that government is best which govern least, that government is best which governs not at all;
10. When they are not directly serving the state, people continue to support its authority indirectly through numerous acts of habitual conformity;
11. Thoreau: the only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think truly right;
12. Yet, the question is: how will the free individuals combine to form a harmonious society? According to individualist anarchists, social harmony is part of the natural order of things and is accessible to human reason; individualist anarchists tend to give moral principles a foundation in reason;
13. Proudhon: in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; he proposes mutualism as a principle of reciprocal respect that bases economic exchanges on equal value, as a viable alternative, because it adequately balances individual freedom and natural or moral law.
Social Anarchism
1. Marx and Mikhail Bakunin disagreed in four related issues:
1. The relationship between politics and economics: Bakunin praises Marx’s historical materialist method; yet, he disagrees with Marx on which between the economic revolution and the political revolution will precede the other; Bakunin attacks Marx’s “people’s State;” so long as political power exists, there will be ruler and ruled, masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited;
2. Bakunin’s doubts about the “people’s State” should be seen in the historical context—that of tsarist Russia—The question: if the proletariat is to be the ruling class, over whom will it rule? The answer: over the peasant rabble;
3. Bakunin defends the peasantry against “learned” Socialists’ claims to possess superior knowledge; Bakunin places his faith in the people themselves; scientific theories cannot predict when the revolution will occur; nor can it be organized from above; anarchist revolution arises spontaneously in the hearts of the people; it comes like a thief in the night; it is often precipitated by apparently trivial causes; it creates new forms of free social life which arise from the very depth of the soul of the people;
4. Bakunin wants to diffuse science among people, not to impose it upon them; the revolutionary leaders are invisible pilots or the midwifes to the people’s self-liberation, not a Marxist communist party or Leninist party vanguard; Bakunin’s revolution: masses organize a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers’ associations first into a commune, then a federation of communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into an international fraternal association;
5. Petyr Kropotkin (challenging Darwin) argues that the evolution of species occurs via the mutual aid between them; Kropotkin: the modern state destroys “particular bonds” and absorbs “social functions” in order better to control its citizens; thus, the unbridled, narrow-minded individualism is an effect rather than the cause of the modern liberal state;
Anarchist Organization in Practice
1. Anarchist acts are less prominent today since anarchists have recognized their limitations;
2. Anarcho-syndicalism, rather than settle for social democratic reforms, they are willing to engage in direct action, including general strikes and industrial sabotage, to gain control of factories and cities;
3. Most anarchists today advocate nonviolent, direct action and stress the need for changes in everyday life, especially work and family relations;
4. They no longer advocate senseless violence; instead, they hope with a dramatic act—a clear direct NO to authority—to inspire the masses to revolution;
5. Three examples:
1) the Iroquois Confederacy;
2) Spanish Civil War; and
3) Anarcho-feminism from the Sixties.
The future of anarchism
1. The cases of the Iroquois Confederacy provides evidence that, under certain circumstances, nonhierarchical organization can persist alongside authoritarian institutions;
2. Anarchists today are transforming the philosophical and political assumptions of classical anarchy whose two questionable philosophical assumptions about human nature, according to Crowder were: 1) human beings actualize an innate potential historically; and 2) humanity evolves through mutual aid institutions;
3. Since many people now question whether moral virtues are knowable through human reason as well as whether humanity is progressing toward any predetermined goal, Crowder claims that these anarchist commitments require reconsideration;
4. Todd May identifies postmodern critiques of representation as the latest extension of anarchist philosophy; anarchists’ own principles require that no one speak or act on behalf of anyone else—let alone Mankind;
5. The rise of global capitalism suggests a need to rethink anarchist politics, especially the relationship between anarchism and socialism; Mark Rupert: contemporary transnational protests of global capitalism and culture often draw on anarchist as well as socialist principles;
6. Rupert shows how during the 1999 protests of the WTO meetings in Seattle anarchists’ decentralized and pluralistic networks of resistance can join socialists’ theory of the emancipatory possibilities in the concrete circumstances of contemporary capitalism;
7. According to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the Seattle protests marked the emergence of a new proletariat, who will conduct the new—and continuing—struggle for global citizenship and global justice; they name this political subject THE MULTITUDE to distinguish it from Marxists’ industrial working class and liberals’ rights-bearing citizens, both of which are confined to particular historical contexts;
8. Unlike a more orthodox concept of an international proletarian class whose mutual goal and primary purpose is the overthrow of capitalism, the multitude is a fragmented, heterogeneous, and spontaneous series of movements that emerge on behalf of a global humanity;
9. These various popular movements are not opposed to globalization itself, but to the nondemocratic character it currently takes due to the dominance of capitalist interests.
1. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: the meaning ordinarily attached to the word “anarchy” is absence of principle, absence of rule; consequently, it has been regarded as synonymous with disorder;
2. George Woodcock: the stereotype of the anarchist is that of the cold-blooded assassin who attacks with dagger or bomb the symbolic pillars of established society; anarchy, in popular parlance, is malign chaos;
3. Proudhon: anarchism reflects a natural harmony among freely associated individuals that renders political rule superfluous;
4. To create anew, anarchists must destroy; to promote harmony, they foment revolution; to reorder society, they free individuals; to realize freedom, they stress moral law;
5. Emma Goldman: it [anarchism] is the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of social harmony;
6. Ulrike Heider’s Janus-face anarchism: one face represents the extension of liberals’ principle of individual freedom to its furthest point where personal integrity supersedes government authority; the other refers to nonauthoritarian socialists who refuse to impose a proletarian dictatorship during the transition from capitalism to socialism; when seen together, they suggest that anarchism offers an alternative to liberal capitalism and to authoritarian socialism;
7. AccordinG to John p. Clark anarchism is:
1. A view of an ideal, noncoercive, nonauthoritarian society;
2. A criticism of existing society and its institutions based on this authoritarian ideal;
3. A view of human nature that justifies the hope for significant progress toward the ideal;
4. A strategy for change, involving immediate institution of noncoercive, nonauthoritarian, and decentralized alternatives;
8. Emma Goldman: anarchism stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein, lays the salvation of man. Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits, for “man who are men, and who have a bone in their back which you cannot pass your hand through.
Individual Anarchism
1. Although anarchists’ emphases on the individual and society vary, their common concern is with individual freedom as “moral self-direction;”
2. Following Berlin: since positive liberty opens the door to authoritarianism, anarchism can only fall on the negative liberty side of Berlin’s conceptual dichotomy;
3. Crowder: Yet, behind anarchists’ attack on authority is the principle of the inviolability of self-direction by the authentic rational and moral will; anarchists hold a concept of positive liberty for which negative liberty is a necessary precondition and which precludes all authoritarian impulses;
4. Anarchists’ attack on the notion of government: according to William Godwin, governments
1. protect inequalities of property that sustain an economically dependent class—such dependence undermines moral freedom;
2. governmental laws undermine citizens’ moral capacities—the fear of punishment is a demeaning one;
3. when citizens grant authority to government, they also agree to suspend their judgment;
5. Godwin’s ideal individual is subject only to the “coercion” of consistence; society has a right to require everything that is my duty to do, and it, in turn, is bound to do everything that can contribute to its members’ welfare;
6. Rational persuasion takes the place of legal codes; this internal corrective suffices unless society corrupts reason, obscuring the nature of virtuous action and undermining human motivation to pursue it;
7. Max Stirner stresses individual independence to an even greater extend, at time denying any reality beyond the self: I start from a hypothesis by taking myself as hypothesis; I use it solely for my enjoyment and satisfaction; I exist only because I nourish myself;
8. Stirner: family, church, party, and nation are ghosts that haunt us from birth, and all of us fight a lifelong battle to assert ourselves against them;
9. Henry David Thoreau’s Essay on Civil Disobedience: that government is best which govern least, that government is best which governs not at all;
10. When they are not directly serving the state, people continue to support its authority indirectly through numerous acts of habitual conformity;
11. Thoreau: the only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think truly right;
12. Yet, the question is: how will the free individuals combine to form a harmonious society? According to individualist anarchists, social harmony is part of the natural order of things and is accessible to human reason; individualist anarchists tend to give moral principles a foundation in reason;
13. Proudhon: in a given society, the authority of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of intellectual development which that society has reached; he proposes mutualism as a principle of reciprocal respect that bases economic exchanges on equal value, as a viable alternative, because it adequately balances individual freedom and natural or moral law.
Social Anarchism
1. Marx and Mikhail Bakunin disagreed in four related issues:
1. The relationship between politics and economics: Bakunin praises Marx’s historical materialist method; yet, he disagrees with Marx on which between the economic revolution and the political revolution will precede the other; Bakunin attacks Marx’s “people’s State;” so long as political power exists, there will be ruler and ruled, masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited;
2. Bakunin’s doubts about the “people’s State” should be seen in the historical context—that of tsarist Russia—The question: if the proletariat is to be the ruling class, over whom will it rule? The answer: over the peasant rabble;
3. Bakunin defends the peasantry against “learned” Socialists’ claims to possess superior knowledge; Bakunin places his faith in the people themselves; scientific theories cannot predict when the revolution will occur; nor can it be organized from above; anarchist revolution arises spontaneously in the hearts of the people; it comes like a thief in the night; it is often precipitated by apparently trivial causes; it creates new forms of free social life which arise from the very depth of the soul of the people;
4. Bakunin wants to diffuse science among people, not to impose it upon them; the revolutionary leaders are invisible pilots or the midwifes to the people’s self-liberation, not a Marxist communist party or Leninist party vanguard; Bakunin’s revolution: masses organize a society by means of a free federation from below upward, of workers’ associations first into a commune, then a federation of communes into regions, of regions into nations, and of nations into an international fraternal association;
5. Petyr Kropotkin (challenging Darwin) argues that the evolution of species occurs via the mutual aid between them; Kropotkin: the modern state destroys “particular bonds” and absorbs “social functions” in order better to control its citizens; thus, the unbridled, narrow-minded individualism is an effect rather than the cause of the modern liberal state;
Anarchist Organization in Practice
1. Anarchist acts are less prominent today since anarchists have recognized their limitations;
2. Anarcho-syndicalism, rather than settle for social democratic reforms, they are willing to engage in direct action, including general strikes and industrial sabotage, to gain control of factories and cities;
3. Most anarchists today advocate nonviolent, direct action and stress the need for changes in everyday life, especially work and family relations;
4. They no longer advocate senseless violence; instead, they hope with a dramatic act—a clear direct NO to authority—to inspire the masses to revolution;
5. Three examples:
1) the Iroquois Confederacy;
2) Spanish Civil War; and
3) Anarcho-feminism from the Sixties.
The future of anarchism
1. The cases of the Iroquois Confederacy provides evidence that, under certain circumstances, nonhierarchical organization can persist alongside authoritarian institutions;
2. Anarchists today are transforming the philosophical and political assumptions of classical anarchy whose two questionable philosophical assumptions about human nature, according to Crowder were: 1) human beings actualize an innate potential historically; and 2) humanity evolves through mutual aid institutions;
3. Since many people now question whether moral virtues are knowable through human reason as well as whether humanity is progressing toward any predetermined goal, Crowder claims that these anarchist commitments require reconsideration;
4. Todd May identifies postmodern critiques of representation as the latest extension of anarchist philosophy; anarchists’ own principles require that no one speak or act on behalf of anyone else—let alone Mankind;
5. The rise of global capitalism suggests a need to rethink anarchist politics, especially the relationship between anarchism and socialism; Mark Rupert: contemporary transnational protests of global capitalism and culture often draw on anarchist as well as socialist principles;
6. Rupert shows how during the 1999 protests of the WTO meetings in Seattle anarchists’ decentralized and pluralistic networks of resistance can join socialists’ theory of the emancipatory possibilities in the concrete circumstances of contemporary capitalism;
7. According to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the Seattle protests marked the emergence of a new proletariat, who will conduct the new—and continuing—struggle for global citizenship and global justice; they name this political subject THE MULTITUDE to distinguish it from Marxists’ industrial working class and liberals’ rights-bearing citizens, both of which are confined to particular historical contexts;
8. Unlike a more orthodox concept of an international proletarian class whose mutual goal and primary purpose is the overthrow of capitalism, the multitude is a fragmented, heterogeneous, and spontaneous series of movements that emerge on behalf of a global humanity;
9. These various popular movements are not opposed to globalization itself, but to the nondemocratic character it currently takes due to the dominance of capitalist interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)