The recent events throughout the Middle East certainly demonstrate the usefulness of social media. Protesters are able to take their case beyond their borders, and tell their story in their own words without having it subject to governmental or media spin. This is something new and very useful that social media offers: it gives activists communicative powers on a level that has never been possible before. But the importance of tools like Facebook and Twitter has been overstated in many ways. And, more importantly, the nature of this overstated importance tells us a great deal about the actual practice of successful political activism.

Social media, by providing a loose network of links that can quickly spread information from friends, to friends of friends, and eventually to total strangers, does not supplant or replace many of the most essential elements of any successful social movement. More than weak links between activists, successful social movements require a well-organized structure and comradery based on face-to-face contact and shared experience. Social media is simply a new tool that can spread ideas. The basic methods of successful political activism remain unchanged.

In a 2010 article for The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell makes a similar point. Using the lunch counter sit-ins of the 1960s civil rights movement as his main example, Gladwell argues that the secret to that campaign’s success came from the interpersonal connections between the participants, as well as the carefully structured organizations, such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), that helped direct the action. Without strong personal ties or a system for disciplined action, the systemic racism of the south would almost certainly have prevailed. However interesting his essay is, Gladwell actually overstates the unimportance of social media in social activism, and it is worthwhile to take a moment to distance ourselves from certain elements of his argument. Somewhere between the increasingly popular notion that social media has changed everything and Gladwell’s belief that it changes nothing, lies the truth of the matter.

Social media can spread information faster and more efficiently than anything that has previously existed, and is thus a very useful tool for rapidly spreading the news of an injustice or quickly mobilizing large groups of people. What social media does not change, however, is the best way to utilize these mobilized individuals. The relatively weak personal ties established on the Internet simply cannot provide the sense of solidarity with one’s peers required to face the violence and repression that is almost inevitably created when an established power structure is challenged or provoked. In the south in the 60s, activists were kidnapped and killed, churches were burnt, and the local police looked the other way. Logging in to Facebook or Tweeting about it cannot provide the wherewithal to withstand similar dangers. Word can be spread, but the required bravery comes from elsewhere.

The Fused Group

So, if social media does not change the mechanisms of social change, but merely acts as a new tool for activists, it seems fitting to ask, how does social change come about? How does it get started, and how does it get realized? There are at least two distinct mechanisms of social change. First, there are parliamentary methods that attempt to work within the confines of a given system to get laws and bills passed that will ameliorate particular problems. Secondly, there are those moments when people take to the streets and demand immediate, radical change through protests and direct action. Granted, there are many examples of overlap between these two types of social change, but for the purposes of this short essay, we will avoid unpacking this bit of complexity, and will, in fact, focus entirely on the second type. After all, it is these moments of massed protest and direct action that have led to so much discussion of the role of social media in political activism.

So, what is the mechanism behind this latter type of social change? Jean-Paul Sartre, in his Critique of Dialectical Reason, introduces the notion of the “fused group.” When a situation compels a number of people into a public place in the knowledge that many others will be gathered in response to the same situation, a fused group has formed. The fused group’s exact objectives may remain indeterminate, but a common danger has provoked a gathering. For example, when rampant unemployment and social unrest gripped Russia in 1917, people took to the streets and formed a fused group. They knew they were unhappy, but they did not have a commonly-held, specific program in mind for addressing their unhappiness. And they almost certainly were not clamoring for the formation of the Soviet Union.

But whatever a fused group is clamoring for, its aims cannot remain inchoate indefinitely. The energy of the initial gathering will inevitably dissipate, and the fused group will either give up and go home, or ossify. However disheartening this ossification may sound, it is actually necessary for the realization of a fused group’s goals. Yelling in the streets will just wear out one’s voice. Demands for something concrete, and plans for making these demands a reality will eventually need to be made. In Russia, people were out of work and out of food. The most well-organized political group was able to take control of the situation, and attempted, or at least claimed, to fulfill the common clamor for jobs and food. The Bolsheviks were thus able to take a demand for basic rights and turn it into one of the most brutal and ruthless regimes in human history. The lesson here is twofold. First, popular discontent needs organization and direction if it is to accomplish anything. A fused group will not remain fused for long. Second, the nature and philosophical outlook of political organizations matters immensely.

Systems Have Consequences

But wait, have we digressed? What does this have to do with Facebook or Twitter? Sartre never had a Facebook account, and Lenin never used Twitter. How are they relevant to the Internet age? Don’t worry. We are still on topic. As was argued above, social media does not fundamentally change the nature of social change. Rather, these new tools are just that: new tools. Social media can spread the news of an injustice or the meeting point for a potential fused group with incredible efficiency, all while sidestepping governments and mainstream news outlets. But even with these new tools, fused groups are still prone to the same dissipation and ossification. In the event of ossification, when a fused group transforms from an agitated gathering into a social movement, then the traditional methods for conducting a successful social campaign remain intact. A strong organization with strong personal ties remains the key to success.

In his New Yorker article, Gladwell makes similar points about the need for well-maintained organizational structures and strong personal bonds, but brings this point to a strange and erroneous conclusion. He claims, with SNCC as his main example, that a hierarchical structure is essential to a successful political organization. Apparently, according to Gladwell, it is impossible to have an effective organization and strong interpersonal bonds – his criteria, as well as mine, for a successful social movement – without a top-down pyramid scheme of an organization, complete with overlings, underlings, kings, and serfs. Gladwell’s assertion here is a bit absurd. It almost seems as if he is reaching for something counterintuitive and attention getting, as if once he makes the-currently-out-of-the-ordinary-but-hopefully-soon-to-be-widely-accepted claim that social media doesn’t really change everything about how we do every single thing, that he needs to then do himself one better and proclaim that things get done better when a few people assume control and boss everyone else around.

One need only recall the organizations that sprang up throughout Catalonian Spain during the Spanish Civil War in order to determine that hierarchy is not essential to efficiency. A system for assigning tasks and determining goals is necessary, but that system does not need a top-down chain of command. In fact, there are historical instances, such as the Bolsheviks’ rise to power, that suggest that an increase in more egalitarian, collectively run political organizations could work in humanity’s favor. The Bolsheviks represented the strongest alternative organization at a moment when a fused group had rendered the existing power structure obsolete. An authoritarian political sect with a distrust of open dialogue thus moved into a position of power, which really didn’t work out all that well for the peasantry, or really anyone outside the Politburo. But one should not expect a hierarchical organization to institute egalitarianism. Gladwell’s example of SNCC is actually much more the exception than the rule. SNCC used a centralized command structure, but its aim was the equal rights of an oppressed and marginalized group. To say that SNCC’s structure was essential to the realization of this aim is erroneous. To further impute that such a structure is essential to the realization of all other political goals is downright dangerous.

We still need to meet

The role of social media in political activism has been overstated. The excitement of the new has brought on an outbreak of hyperbole. But we need not join Malcolm Gladwell in declaring social media an irrelevant development in political activism. Twitter, Facebook, and whatever we will be using in five years are all useful tools for spreading information in our own words and gathering activists. These are new and exciting technological developments. But the steps required for a social movement to succeed remain unchanged. Activists need to meet face-to-face in order to build the solidarity and organizational strength required to confront entrenched power. The weak ties forged on the Internet have their role, but they do not supply the solidarity required to succeed.

And just as importantly, the nature of our political organizations matters immensely. In the recent events in Egypt, for instance, the existing power structure was not only left with no choice but to relinquish power, but it may have had no real power left to relinquish. In such instances, when people are yelling in the streets while disempowered politicians pack up their desks, there exists a need for someone to provide direction. The nature of this direction depends entirely on the types of organizations that already exist. Authoritarian organizations cannot be expected to become egalitarian when handed power. It is therefore important that our political organizations mirror the society we would like to see. And organizations like this can only be built the old-fashioned way – by meeting, talking, and building solidarity on a person-to-person basis. Sure, the meetings can be announced on Facebook, but we still need to meet.

Adam Michael Krause

source: http://new-compass.net

The post You Can’t Just Tweet Oppression Away- by Adam Michael Krause appeared first on Void Network.

“Trojan Horses” appeared at the height of the Reagan years in the U.S., a highly charged political period that saw a heavy backlash against progressive and feminist ideas in the so-called culture wars waged by the Right. Lippard reported from the trenches, not only providing context and arguments, but also offering contemporary examples of activist art and cultural resistance. My interest here lies less in retelling those stories—for that one doesn’t need to look any further than the essay itself—than in focusing on Lippard’s central argument. Yet it should be mentioned that one aspect of the examples is particularly striking now: the sheer number of engaged practices fusing art and activism in a decade most commonly understood in art historical terms as a postmodern, object-based, commodity-oriented and even apolitical decade—and often either derided or commended for those very features. However, as Lippard’s survey and other sources point out, there is also another history, a counter-history. Moreover, the 1980s now appear to have witnessed a much larger movement of artistic activism than, say, the 1990s and its often heralded return to the social and political in art, not to mention our present decade . . .

Lippard’s argument is not merely historical, though, but also offers something resembling ontology, or even “hauntology,” and it does so from the outset, from its very title and its invocation of an example that is not so much historical as it is mythological: the Trojan Horse. Like the Trojan Horse, activist art enters hallowed halls where it does not properly belong by way of a disguise—by being an alluring aesthetic object, it pushes into the institution of art, both concretely and metaphorically. But unlike the Trojan Horse, activist art is not instrumental in the violent overthrow of a regime, but works rather by subverting the very idea of an aesthetic object. Obviously, in (art) activist circles and beyond, the debate continues as to whether this subversion is merely a masquerade—a purely strategic universalism that pretends to be “art” in order to gain access—or whether we are dealing with a Janus-faced identity: at once activist and aesthetic. And then there is the possibility of activist art masquerading as a Janus!

Crucial to the idea of the Trojan Horse is the possibility of movement from the outside of a stronghold to the inside by means of artistic production. Indeed, for Lippard, the foremost characteristic of activist art is that it moves between art institutions and local, political communities and contexts—sometimes engaging so significantly in the latter that visibility in the former becomes secondary, irrelevant, even obsolete. Activist art, then, is not a genre, not an ism, but is rather an engagement in social issues and social change through a great variety of methods and mediums. It is pragmatic rather than idiomatic. Therefore, the question of whether or not it is art, and whether artistic production is a useful platform for political change, does not come up. Politics is seen in terms of how one acts in the situation one is in—a question of how one engages. Rather than maintaining a dichotomy between art and activism or between aesthetics and politics, another strategic, albeit tentative distinction is established between political art and activist art, between social concerns and commentary on the one hand, and community involvement and organizing on the other.

These two approaches are united by the concept of power: the power of art and the power of the people. As Lippard duly notes, no one can achieve change alone—not even famous artists. Change can only be realized as part of a movement, hence the focus on community building and consciousness-raising found in much art activism. But artists also have access to power through their framing and reframing of the visible and seemingly invisible, through subversion of rather than subservience to dominant discourses of visibility and representation. Furthermore, according to Lippard, artists have among producers a uniquely high degree of control over their production, if not their post-production and distribution. While there certainly are employers in the art world, in its wider context of cultural production, and in the knowledge economy, an initial control over the means of artistic production is taken for granted; and to whatever degree, and, crucially, to whom, this control is then relinquished—be it to institutions, collectors, collaborators, or communities—this comprises a political decision paralleling those that govern the initial production of images themselves. In other words, the struggle today is not only over the production of images and ideas, but also over their dissemination and distribution, a struggle that cannot be endured alone, but always with, as well as against others: embedded and expanded.

× introduction written by Simon Sheikh

Read the essay at the Void Network library:

Lucy Lippard:

Trojan horses activist art and power pdf

The post Trojan Horses- Activist art and power by Lucy Lippard- a historic essay positively revisited appeared first on Void Network.

“The parliamentary regime leaves everything to the decision of majorities; how shall the great majorities outside parliament not want to decide? When you play the fiddle at the top of the state, what else is to be expected but that those down below dance”?

– Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, IV (1852)

If we take as reliable evidence the anxiety (verging to panic) that spread over the social media among supporters of Remain once the results of the British referendum were made known, it would seem that a real tragedy has been played out on the 23^rd of June. Or was it a ‘triumph of democracy’, as the celebrations of some leftists, who saw in the result a vindication of their own anti-EU agenda, would have us believe? Without adopting an imaginary middle road, it is advisable to distance oneself from both attitudes; neither the mix of fear with self-righteous indignation against those who voted “Leave”, nor the hasty projection of one’s own wishes add anything to a critical understanding of the referendum, of its driving forces, its context and its outcome. A drama no doubt unfolds, but what is its nature? Arguing that Brexit, in its immediate manifestations, has more farcical elements than tragic, is not meant to suggest that the referendum was an insignificant event; far from it. A farce can be deadly serious in its consequences, so much so if it is part of an unfolding tragedy.

Given the dominant presence of nationalist and anti-immigration ideas in the “Brexit” camp, it is difficult to claim that the result of the referendum was good or positive from a leftwing (or more specifically anarchist, or communist) perspective. It is certainly a political no less than a theoretical mistake to equate the putatively largely working-class composition of those voting for “Leave” with a “victory of the working class”, as some anti-EU left forces have done, both in Britain and abroad. In sharp contrast, taking into account the broader rise of the far-right and nationalism in Europe (manifested in their more vulgar and violent form during the Euro competition taking place in France), Brexit should be a cause of worry. If it is indeed true that considerable parts of the working-class voted for Brexit, this shows that they tend to associate the recovery/protection of their labor rights and the regaining of their “lost dignity” with the fantasy of a recovered national sovereignty which will allow “their state” to protect them from foreign dangers, whether these are posed from “above” (the EU bureaucracy) or from “below” (the immigrants). Such is a worrying trend in much of (‘north’ but also ‘east’ and ‘south’) Europe.

But if there was very little ‘Lexit’ in ‘Brexit’, no less problematic were the hegemonic political forces on the other camp, the “Bremain” campaign. Even if parts of British capital may find in Brexit an opportunity for profit or were even directly supportive of the Leave campaign, Remain was still the predominant strategic choice of Britain’s ruling elite. It is indeed strange to hear claims that the victory of Remain would have kept Britain an open and hospitable country for immigrants, especially if we widen the gaze from educated professionals to the poor and proletarianized masses. Remain in practice would lead automatically to the implementation of the agreement made between the British elite with its European counterparts, which would not only allow the British state to impose further restrictions on immigration flows, but which had also earned further exemptions of Britain from EU policies and regulations. The major spokesman of “Bremain” was Cameron, not Corbyn; no more than in the Brexit camp, did the Left set its own agenda in the Bremain camp. At least from the point of view of an outside observer, there is a sad impression that in both sides the Left was simply a supporting cast, with the more radical (including antiauthoritarian and anarchist) voices being entirely marginal. From our perspective, this is the crucial problem.

It is understandable why middle-class professionals (whether ‘left’, ‘right’ or ‘center’) who have benefitted from the opening of the labor market that the EU has brought, would be in favor of Remain. On the other hand, what cannot be accepted is the self-evidence with which this choice has been represented, an uncritical attitude that ends up identifying interests stemming from a concrete class position with a supposedly ecumenical “imperative of reason”. As if it was only lack of education and parochial bias that could make someone vote for Brexit. No wonder that the article which supposedly proved that those who voted for Leave “did not really know what they were doing” became viral in the social media. This attitude tends to blind to the fact that for a growing number of people, especially those coming from the lower classes, the EU is not appealing at all. No matter its further evaluation, the fact to reckon with is that in all too many cases where the vox populi was called upon, the results of the referendums were negative for the EU. Can this possibly be only for the wrong reasons?

Like the last year referendum in Greece, there is one very positive element in the recent referendum in Britain: it verified the decline of polling as a technique of power, meant not to reflect public opinion but to control and shape it. It is certainly a sign of dignity to vote what you believe is the right choice, and not let all this cacophony of “warnings of doom”, which were accompanying polls, influence you. In that context, silly as it sounds, Donald Tusk’s claim that Brexit would threaten “western political civilization” (!) must not be taken lightly. It expresses the deep “hatred of democracy” and the underlying “fear of the masses” felt by the governing elites of Europe. Sadly, much of the sentiment among the professional middles-classes condones, even unwittingly, this anti-democratic bias. The poor it seems cannot be relied upon.

If the discourse deriving from dominant media, even at its more liberal and moderate shapes, was annoyingly pedantic and dystopian, much of the representations of EU coming from left intellectuals were depressingly idealist, one of them going as far as to claim that “if the EU did not exist it would have to be invented”. There is certainly something noble in the bourgeois cosmopolitanism that stands as a historical foundation of the EU. It is extremely doubtful however that the ghost of Kant is enough to redeem the neoliberal logic that pervades the architectonic of the “actually existing EU”. The EU that is said by supporters of “Bremain” to stand as the only protective net for labor and democratic rights is none other than the institutional apparatus which imposes austerity on whole peoples and which consistently promotes laws and policies that attack not just specific labor rights, but subvert the very idea of collective right as a basis for organized labor struggle. The EU may continue to draw its legitimacy from a vision of cosmopolitan democracy as an organic counterpart to market induced prosperity, but it consistently moves closer to a bureaucratic, authoritarian and internally divided imperium.

Equally problematic is the representation of nationalism to be found in much of the modern Left. Nationalism is neither an inexplicable evil affecting the uneducated, nor a barbaric force invading the EU from outside. It is generated by the dynamics and expresses the contradictions of the EU itself. Thus, while it may be a force of subversion, it is immanent to the historical process of European integration. In fact, nationalism not only subverts European completion by leading to fragmentation, but it also augments the solidification of ‘Fortress Europe’.

The contradictions of this process will be played out even more now, in the attempt to manage “Brexit”. The EU elite, under the auspices of Germany, may well try to give to the “real” Brexit a punitive dimension, so that no political paradigm will be set. Yet, they will hardly want to instigate a full-scale breakdown of economic and political relations with Britain. Likewise, the national-populist political forces prevailing in the Brexit side –following here their European counterparts, like the National Front in France and the Freedom Party of Austria- seem hardly keen to challenge British capital, or indeed to attempt any serious subtraction of the British economy from its European (much less international) setting. If “Brussels” appear to want or indeed to afford of a punishment that does not really punish, national-populists fantasize over a change that will not change much. Thus, from the tragic showdown of Brexit we have been led to the farcical spectacle of technocrats and politicians who preached doom now saying that there is no cause for worry; of Johnson, Farage et co who preached salvation taking back their promises (indeed, literally taking them down from the online site) or even quitting; of viral videos with regretted voters of Leave; of intentional bureaucratic forestallments; of spreading hopes and mounting suspicions that Brexit may somehow not be implemented.

The crucial point to insist upon here is that the farcical aspects of Brexit do not cancel its seriousness. For as the dust raised by the result settles down, a genuine contradiction appears: if “reclaiming Britain” does not mean protectionism, an organized labor market along national lines, channeling of money-flows into public investment and public institutions, a different set of economic policies (etc.), what “leaving the EU” means? If it is simply a more closed off and xenophobic political structuring of the nation-state, while maintaining key interstate agreements with the EU, how can this bring any real solutions to the multifaceted problems that generate “EU-exit” as a mass desire? On the other hand, if leaving the EU does not have any serious cost on the existing geopolitical and economic configurations, if one can be in the EU without also becoming integral part of it (as the agreement achieved by Cameron had determined) what does it mean to “be in the EU”? If, ultimately, the dominant forces in both camps dance to the rhythms of “the markets” how do we thus assess the meaning of the referendum? If the tragic denotes a conflict between two forms of right or justice, perhaps then, there was no real tragedy staged in the 23^rd of June.

It is not a question of proving that the referendum was a “pseudo-dilemma” that will have no consequences. Still, it is something to reflect upon that a referendum took place over an issue –exit of the British state from the EU-, whose implementation no one exactly has worked out, and more fundamentally, who very few want to have far-reaching, thus destabilizing, effects. There may have been political opportunism behind the British referendum, just like there may have been opportunism behind the Greek referendum last year. But, there would be no polarization and mobilization, no mass anxieties and mass fantasies, no elite fears and intense elite negotiations, if it was just that. As a historical product, the referendum of the 23^rd expresses much more than political opportunism, much more even than the problem of Britain’s status in the EU. While in its immediacy Brexit is more farcical then tragic, there may still be a dimension of tragedy inscribed into it, which pertains to the referendum’s character as an act of a wider drama: the ‘EU project’.

Whatever other historical lines of meanings it may embody, the EU founded in 1993 is at its most basic the form that the internationalization of capital takes during the “era of neoliberalism” in Europe. In this respect, Brexit is but one expression of the deep crisis of this process, which is also a project carried out by concrete social and political forces. This crisis certainly manifests itself as a series of functional short-circuits in the institutional apparatus of the Union, but it does not mean only “dysfunction”. It is a moment of truth that opens up EU to its political presuppositions and to conflicting political positions that bear different potentials. “We” are certainly not into this “all together” and there was nothing problematic in the division that the referendum brought. The problem was that it divided for the wrong reasons. But, we are not quite as yet caught into an inescapable battle between nationalist fragmentation and European completion. Indeed, it is far from coincidental that national-populists side with the political establishment whenever a popular movement appears to become threatening to order, as it happened recently in France. Stark as their difficulty may be to block austerity or pose a political alternative that is able to operate on the same level of totality as neoliberal governmentality does, we must not underestimate the dynamic of the lines of flight and change opened up by recurring popular movements and uprisings around Europe. It is certainly in their lines that we stand.

The recent demonstration in London, whereby antifa banners flown side by side with EU flags, has verified the contradictions that we are caught into and the inescapable political confusion. The complex dynamic that the crisis of the EU project generates continues to accelerate, creating a rather fluid situation which belongs and adds up to the generalized instability that spreads around the world. In this context, any rounded assessment would be premature. Brexit may have serious long-term consequences, but no referendum ever brings the end of the world and the apocalyptic tone of some Remain supporters should not be taken at face value. It is, for sure, as understandable as its pro-EU sympathies, why the international middle class of educated professionals fears instability and uncertainty. But while not all change is for the best, is there ever any meaningful change that is not accompanied by uncertainty and instability? Given indeed its structure and architectonic, is it possible to conceive of a meaningful reform of the EU in terms of a smooth process, without mass popular insurrections? However that may be, investing too much on the electoral result of Brexit (either positively or negatively) is ill-advised. Given the present configuration of powers, expressed after all in the terms of the debate, Brexit in itself will not bring any cataclysmic change. It will especially not put a direct end to the dominant policies and logic of austerity, either in Britain or in the EU. In the end of the day, however far-reaching effects the result of the referendum may prove to have, the important things are not decided in voting ballots, but in and out of well-guarded and secluded offices, in their corridors and underneath their tables, in the streets outside, in squares, in workplaces, in neighborhoods; in all these places where the real problems of power and justice are being played out.

VOID NETWORK

[Theory, Outopia, Empathy, Ephemeral Arts]
est.1990 // Athens, London, New York, Rio De Janeiro
http://voidnetwork.blogspot.com

The post VOID NETWORK “On the tragic and the farcical of the British referendum” appeared first on Void Network.

VOID NETWORK
[Theory, Utopia, Empathy, Ephmeral Arts]

KENO ΔΙΚΤΥΟ
[Θεωρία, Ουτοπία, 
Συναίσθηση, Εφήμερες Τέχνες]
http://voidinternational@gmail.com

BLACK PANTHER Party
Το Κοινωνικό Πρόγραμμα των
Μαύρων Πανθήρων για την ανατροπή της Κυριαρχίας
 
BLACK PANTHER PARTY 
The social Programme of the 
Black Panthers against domination
a lecture and open talk by
GEORGE KATSIAFICAS 

ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗ 17 ΑΠΡΙΛΙΟΥ 2015
ΩΡΑ ΕΝΑΡΞΗΣ 20.00
friday 17/4/2015 starts at 20.00
the talk will be in English with Greek translation

ΔΙΑΛΕΞΗ/ANOIXTH ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΗ:
GEORGE KATSIAFICAS (U.S.A.)
Καθ. Κοινωνιολογίας, μαθητής του Χερμπερτ Μαρκούζε, συγγραφέας-ερευνητής κοινωνικών κινημάτων αντιεξουσιαστής ακτιβιστής από την δεκαετία του ‘60 έως σήμερα.
 Έργα του: «Η Φαντασία της Νέας Αριστεράς» (Παγκόσμιος Μάης ‘68), «Η Ανατροπή της Πολιτικής» (κινήματα αυτονομίας στην Ιταλία και την Γερμανία το ’70), «Απελευθέρωση, Φαντασία και το Κόμμα των Μαύρων Πανθήρων», «Οι Άγνωστες Ασιατικές Εξεγέρσεις»

* George Katsiaficas, a student of Herbert Marcuse, and long-time activist, he is the author of The Imagination of the New Left: A Global Analysis of 1968. His book, The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life. Among his edited volumes are Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party (with Kathleen Cleaver) and Vietnam Documents: American and Vietnamese Views of the War. George Katsiaficas is currently living in Gwangju, South Korea. A visiting professor of sociology at Chonnam National University, he is finishing research on East Asian uprisings in the 1980s and 1990s.
 
ΤΙ ΕΧΟΥΜΕ ΝΑ ΔΙΔΑΧΘΟΥΜΕ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΤΙΚΗ
ΑΥΤΟΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΜΑΥΡΩΝ ΠΑΝΘΗΡΩΝ?
ΠΟΙΑ ΤΑ ΟΡΙΑ ΕΝΟΣ ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΟΣ
ΚΑΙ ΜΕ ΠΟΙΟ ΤΡΟΠΟ ΤΑ ΚΙΝΗΜΑΤΑ ΜΠΟΡΟΥΝ ΝΑ ΥΠΕΡΒΟΥΝ ΤΟΥΣ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΥΣ ΜΗΧΑΝΙΣΜΟΥΣ? ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ ΤΡΟΠΟΣ
ΝΑ ΖΗΣΟΥΜΕ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΙ
ΜΕΣΑ ΣΕ ΕΝΑ ΚΟΣΜΟ- ΦΥΛΑΚΗ? 

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE SELF-ORGANISED REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE OF THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY? WHICH ARE THE LIMITS OF A REVOLUTIONARY POLITICAL PARTY AND WHAT IS THE WAY FOR THE MOVEMENTS TO OVERPASS THE LIMITATIONS CREATED BY THE STRUCTURE OF A POLITICAL PARTY ?
IS THERE A WAY TO LIVE FREE IN A PRISON-WORLD? 

Ελεύθερο
Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενο
Θέατρο ΕΜΠΡΟΣ
Ρήγα Παλαμήδη 2 Ψυρρής

Occupied Self-Organised 
Free Theatre Embros
Riga Palamida 2 / Psiris area 
Athens Greece

Μετά τις 23.30 ακολουθεί ΠΑΡΤΥ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗΣ ΕΝΙΣΧΥΣΗΣ του 1ου LGBTQI+ Pride Κρήτης
(Φεστιβάλ Ορατότητας και Διεκδικήσεων για την Απελευθέρωση Φύλου, Σώματος και Σεξουαλικότητας)
περισσότερες πληροφορίες:
https://www.facebook.com/events/671228829689756/

Intro by Yiannis Raouzaios from Void Network “Communities of Struggle”

The movement of the Black Panthers, the successes and the failures, the limitations of the centralism and the radical contribution of the everyday life people in struggle was some of the understandings offered to us by the talk of George Katsiafikas in Athens. 
The video of the talk will be uploaded here soon. 
We publish here photos from the event and the following queer party of the same night as also a text of comparison between the Black Panther Party Platform and Programme of 1966 and the far more radical announcements of the Revolutionary Peoples’ Constitutional Convention in 1970 proving that when people liberate themselves from the limitations of a political party and self-organize the resistance can bring much more radical and beneficial results than their own political party. 

Solidarity Party in Occupied Theatre Embros for the preparations of the first self-organised LGBTQI Festival in Crete-Greece

The post BLACK PANTHER Party: Το Κοινωνικό Πρόγραμμα των Μαύρων Πανθήρων για την ανατροπή της Κυριαρχίας OMIΛΙΑ: GEORGE KATSIAFICAS ΠΑΡ.17/4 ΕΜΠΡΟΣ The social Programme of the Black Panthers against domination at Occupied Theatre Embros in Athens Greece appeared first on Void Network.

Occupy Planet Earth 2011

“Μετά το Αποκορύφωμα / Ο Κύκλος Ζωής των Κοινωνικών Κινημάτων” 
 

The post ΜETA TIΣ ΣΥΓΚΡΟΥΣΕΙΣ; Aνοιχτή Συζήτηση με την συλλογικότητα CRIMETHINC (Η.Π.Α.) / θέατρο ΕΜΠΡΟΣ Δευτ. 22/9/2014 AFTER THE CREST Open Assembly with the collective CRIMETHINC in Athens Greece appeared first on Void Network.

Living for Today / Fighting for Tommorow
(Athens Anarchist student’s demo DEC.2013) 

The post Wolfi Landstreicher (Feral Faun) talks with Void Network / Συζήτηση του Wolfi Landstreicher (Feral Faun) με την συλλογικότητα Κενό Δίκτυο appeared first on Void Network.

ΚΕΝΟ ΔΙΚΤΥΟ[ΘΕΩΡΙΑ, ΟΥΤΟΠΙΑ, ΣΥΝΑΙΣΘΗΣΗ, ΕΦΗΜΕΡΕΣ ΤΕΧΝΕΣ]
http://voidnetwork.blogspot.com

The post ΑΝΟΙΧΤΟ ΚΑΛΕΣΜΑ ΣΥΜΜΕΤΟΧΗΣ ΣΤΗΝ ΚΑΤΑΛΗΨΗ ΕΜΠΡΟΣ! // OPEN CALL FOR PARTICIPATION AT OCCUPIED THEATRE EMBROS appeared first on Void Network.

Void Network as part of the Open Public Assembly of Occupied Self-Organized Theatre Embros in Athens invites the friends and comrades of our group to participate at the all day event “LAMBEDOUSA, FARMAKONISI, ATHENS: Control Politics of Immigration Flows, Human Rights and Solidarity” in Saturday 15 February 2014 from 12 o clock in the morning until midnight

Το ΚΕΝΟ ΔΙΚΤΥΟ στα πλαίσια της σταθερής συμμετοχής του στην Ανοιχτή Συνέλευση του Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενου Θεάτρου Εμπρός καλεί τους φίλους του να συμμετάσχουν στην Ημερίδα “ΛΑΜΠΕΝΤΟΥΖΑ, ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΝΙΣΗ, ΑΘΗΝΑ Πολιτικές Ελέγχου των Μεταναστευτικών Ροών, Δικαιώματα & Αλληλεγγύη” που διοργανώνεται από το Εμπρός το Σάββατο 15 Φεβρουαρίου 2014 από τις 12 το πρωί έως τα μεσάνυχτα     



Με αφορμή τον πνιγμό 11 ανθρώπων, οκτώ παιδιών και τριών γυναικών στο Φαρμακονήσι, το Ελεύθερο Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενο Θέατρο ΕΜΠΡΟΣ (Ρήγα Παλαμήδη 2, Ψυρρή) διοργανώνει το Σάββατο, 15 Φεβρουαρίου 2014, από τις 12 το μεσημέρι ώς τα μεσάνυχτα, ημερίδα αφιερωμένη στο μεταναστευτικό ζήτημα στην Ευρώπη και την Ελλάδα.

Σκοπός της διοργάνωσης είναι να αναδείξει πολύπλευρα όχι μόνο τις πτυχές της πρόσφατης τραγωδίας στο Φαρμακονήσι, αλλά και να ευαισθητοποιήσει ένα ευρύτερο κοινό σχετικά με τα μεγάλα διακυβεύματα που θέτουν στον αιώνα μας οι μεταναστευτικές ροές και οι πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των εθνικών κρατών.

Η ημερίδα περιλαμβάνει εργαστήριο μεταξοτυπίας-παραγωγής αφισών, video-προβολές, καλλιτεχνικές δράσεις και περφόρμανς, εργαστήριο για τις Πρακτικές αυτοοργάνωσης των μεταναστών–προσφύγων και τα κινήματα αλληλεγγύης, καθώς και δύο κεντρικές συζητήσεις, η πρώτη επικεντρωμένη στις Πολιτικές ελέγχου των μεταναστευτικών ροών: το ελληνικό παράδειγμα, η δεύτερη με τίτλο Μετά τη Λαμπεντούζα: προς ένα νέο δόγμα επιτήρησης και ελέγχου των ευρωπαϊκών συνόρων;. 

Στις συζητήσεις και στα εργαστήρια συμμετέχουν με εισηγήσεις ή/και παρεμβάσεις, μεταξύ άλλων, οι:

Javied Aslam, Πρόεδρος Πακιστανικής Κοινότητας Ελλάδας «Η Ενότητα»

Ashraf Hasno, Γενικός Γραμματέας του Συλλόγου Αποδήμων Ελεύθερων Σύριων Ελλάδας

Nasim Lomani, Δίκτυο κοινωνικής υποστήριξης προσφύγων και μεταναστών

Lauretta Macauley και Ester Oku, Ένωση Αφρικανών Γυναικών

Kazim Rooish, Γενικός Γραμματέας της Κοινότητας των Αφγανών Μεταναστών & Προσφύγων στην Ελλάδα

Νίκος Γκιωνάκης, ψυχολόγος, επιστημονικός υπεύθυνος Κέντρου Ημέρας Βαβέλ

Θανάσης Κούρκουλας, Κίνηση “Απελάστε το Ρατσισμό”

Γιάννα Κούρτοβικ, Δίκτυο για τα Πολιτικά και Κοινωνικά Δικαιώματα

Βασίλης Παπαστεργίου, Ομάδα Δικηγόρων για τα Δικαιώματα Προσφύγων και Μεταναστών

Δημήτρης Παρσάνογλου, ερευνητής, κοινωνιολόγος της μετανάστευσης

Δήμητρα Σπαθαρίδου, συντονίστρια δράσεων και ακτιβισμού της Διεθνούς Αμνηστείας

Ελένη Τάκου, Δίκτυο Καταγραφής Περιστατικών Ρατσιστικής Βίας / μέλος Ελληνικής Ένωσης για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου (ΕΕΔΑ)

Γιώργος Τσαρμπόπουλος, επικεφαλής του Γραφείου της Ύπατης Αρμοστείας του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες

Αποστόλης Φωτιάδης, δημοσιογράφος

Συμμετέχουν και στηρίζουν την ημερίδα: 
Αφγανική κοινότητα, Ελληνικό Φόρουμ Προσφύγων, Ένωση Αφρικανών Γυναικών, Πακιστανική Κοινότητα Ελλάδας , Σύλλογος Σύρων – Συριακή κοινότητα, Ανοιχτή Πρωτοβουλία Ενάντια στα Κέντρα Κράτησης, Δίκτυο Καταγραφής Περιστατικών Ρατσιστικής Βίας, Δίκτυο κοινωνικής υποστήριξης προσφύγων και μεταναστών, Κίνηση “Απελάστε το Ρατσισμό”, Κίνηση Ενωμένοι Ενάντια στο Ρατσισμό και στη Φασιστική Απειλή (ΚΕΕΡΦΑ), «Τα Πίσω θρανία» – Πρωτοβουλία για εκπαίδευση χωρίς διακρίσεις, Πρωτοβουλία ενάντια στα κέντρα κράτησης, Υ.R.Ε./Anti nazi zone

Κατά τη διάρκεια της διοργάνωσης θα συγκεντρωθούν χρήματα που θα κατατεθούν σε τραπεζικό λογαριασμό για ενίσχυση των επιζησάντων της τραγωδίας στο Φαρμακονήσι και για να καλυφθούν τα έξοδα μεταφοράς των νεκρών τους στον τόπο προέλευσής τους.

Οι συζητήσεις θα μεταδοθούν ζωντανά στο Διαδίκτυο (real streaming) από το ThePressProject (http://www.thepressproject.gr/)

Κείμενο πλαίσιο ημερίδας



ΠΡΟΓΡΑΜΜΑ ΗΜΕΡΙΔΑΣ

12:00 – 5:00 μ.μ. (φουαγιέ)
Εργαστήρι μεταξοτυπίας-αφίσας 

12:00 – 00:00 (φουαγιέ)
video-προβολές

4:30 – 7:00 (κεντρική σκηνή)
Εργαστήριο: Πρακτικές αυτοοργάνωσης μεταναστών-προσφύγων και κινήματα αλληλεγγύης 

Συμμετέχουν, μεταξύ άλλων:
Ελληνικό Φόρουμ Προσφύγων
Nasim Lomani, Δίκτυο κοινωνικής υποστήριξης προσφύγων και μεταναστών Lauretta Macauley και Ester Oku, Ένωση Αφρικανών Γυναικών
Θανάσης Κούρκουλας, Κίνηση “Απελάστε το Ρατσισμό” 
ΚΕΕΡΦΑ (Κίνηση Ενωμένοι ενάντια στον Ρατσισμό και τη Φασιστική Απειλή)

7:00 – 9:00 μ.μ. (κεντρική σκηνή)
Πολιτικές ελέγχου των μεταναστευτικών ροών: το ελληνικό παράδειγμα. Πολιτικές συνόρων, Έβρος, Λευκάδα, Αιγαίο, Φαρμακονήσι. Μηχανισμοί επιτήρησης και καταστολής, πρακτικές επαναπροώθησης, «Ξένιος Δίας», κέντρα κράτησης. Μύθοι και πραγματικότητες για το μεταναστευτικό «πρόβλημα». Ο ρόλος των ανθρωπιστικών οργανώσεων και οργανισμών.

Ashraf Hasno, Γενικός Γραμματέας του Συλλόγου Αποδήμων Ελεύθερων Σύριων Ελλάδας 
Kazim Rooish, Γενικός Γραμματέας της Κοινότητας των Αφγανών Μεταναστών & Προσφύγων στην Ελλάδα
Νίκος Γκιωνάκης, ψυχολόγος, επιστημονικός υπεύθυνος Κέντρου Ημέρας Βαβέλ
Βασίλης Παπαστεργίου, Ομάδα Δικηγόρων για τα Δικαιώματα Προσφύγων και Μεταναστών
Δήμητρα Σπαθαρίδου, συντονίστρια δράσεων και ακτιβισμού της Διεθνούς Αμνηστείας
Ελένη Τάκου, Δίκτυο Καταγραφής Περιστατικών Ρατσιστικής Βίας / μέλος Ελληνικής Ένωσης για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου (ΕΕΔΑ) 

9:00 – 11:00 μ.μ. (κεντρική σκηνή)
Μετά τη Λαμπεντούζα: προς ένα νέο δόγμα επιτήρησης και ελέγχου των ευρωπαϊκών συνόρων; To παράδειγμα της Μεσογείου. Ευρωπαϊκές, κρατικές και διακρατικές στρατηγικές. O ρόλος της Frontex. “Ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα” για όλους; 

Javied Aslam, Πρόεδρος Πακιστανικής Κοινότητας Ελλάδας «Η Ενότητα»
Γιάννα Κούρτοβικ, Δίκτυο για τα Πολιτικά και Κοινωνικά Δικαιώματα
Δημήτρης Παρσάνογλου, ερευνητής, κοινωνιολόγος της μετανάστευσης
Γιώργος Τσαρμπόπουλος, επικεφαλής του Γραφείου της Ύπατης Αρμοστείας του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες
Αποστόλης Φωτιάδης, δημοσιογράφος

Συμμετέχουν και στηρίζουν την ημερίδα: 

Αφγανική κοινότητα, Ελληνικό Φόρουμ Προσφύγων, Ένωση Αφρικανών Γυναικών, Πακιστανική Κοινότητα Ελλάδας , Σύλλογος Σύρων – Συριακή κοινότητα, Ανοιχτή Πρωτοβουλία Ενάντια στα Κέντρα Κράτησης, Δίκτυο Καταγραφής Περιστατικών Ρατσιστικής Βίας, Δίκτυο κοινωνικής υποστήριξης προσφύγων και μεταναστών, Κίνηση “Απελάστε το Ρατσισμό”, Κίνηση Ενωμένοι Ενάντια στο Ρατσισμό και στη Φασιστική Απειλή (ΚΕΕΡΦΑ), «Τα Πίσω θρανία» – Πρωτοβουλία για εκπαίδευση χωρίς διακρίσεις, Πρωτοβουλία ενάντια στα κέντρα κράτησης, Υ.R.Ε./Anti nazi zone 

Κατά τη διάρκεια της διοργάνωσης θα συγκεντρωθούν χρήματα που θα κατατεθούν σε τραπεζικό λογαριασμό για ενίσχυση των επιζησάντων της τραγωδίας στο Φαρμακονήσι και για να καλυφθούν τα έξοδα μεταφοράς των νεκρών τους στον τόπο προέλευσής τους.


Οι συζητήσεις θα μεταδοθούν ζωντανά στο Διαδίκτυο (real streaming) από το ThePressProject (http://www.thepressproject.gr/)

The post “ΛΑΜΠΕΝΤΟΥΖΑ, ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΝΗΣΙ, ΑΘΗΝΑ Πολιτικές ελέγχου των μεταναστευτικών ροών, δικαιώματα, αλληλεγγύη” Hμερίδα στο ΕΜΠΡΟΣ Σαββ. 15. 2. 2014 “LAMBEDOUSA, FARMAKONISI, ATHENS: Control Politics of Immigration Flows, Human Rights and Solidarity” at Occupied Theatre EMBROS appeared first on Void Network.

ΚΕΝΟ ΔΙΚΤΥO
[Θεωρία, Ουτοπία, Συναίσθηση, Εφήμερες Τέχνες]
http://voidnetwork.blogspot.com


Σαββατο 
07 / 09 / 2013 

RECLAIM THE BEACH Party! 
στην Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενη ΠΑΡΑΛΙΑ ΒΟΥΛΑΣ* 
για την υπεράσπιση 
της ελευθερίας της έκφρασης στον Δημόσιο Χώρο 

έναρξη 18.00


20.00
Ανοιχτή Συζήτηση:
“Δημόσιος Χώρος
& Κοινωνικές Αντιστάσεις”




2 STAGES 
for all underground cultures: 


1. PsyTrance Experience 

CRYSTAL ZERO
http://voidnetwork.blogspot.com

MINDPHASER
http://naturalhighfamily.blogspot.com

EL MAHICO
http://www.amorphia.gr

NIKOS LIQUID LOVE
http://womb-records.com/

CONFO
http://parvati-records.com/

RISING GALAXY
http://risinggalaxy.wordpress.com
CACTUS ARISING
http://voidnetwork.blogspot.com

2. Reggae/Dub/Drum ‘n Bass 

THC Sound System
http://www.thcsoundsystem.gr
SOUNDHOLIC
RAGGAPRINCESS
https://www.facebook.com/raggaprincessm
+
ENEMIES OF THE STATE
drum ‘n bass athens underground d.j.s dream team
https://www.facebook.com/ENEMIESOFTHESTATEDNB


+ προβολές, συζητήσεις, 
μπάνιο στην θάλασσα 
(ένα από τα τελευταία του καλοκαιριού) 
*για όσους αναρωτιούνται…

ΓΡΑΜΜΗ ΤΡΑΜ 
ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ-ΑΣΚΛΗΠΙΕΙΟ ΒΟΥΛΑΣ
ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟ ΝΥΧΤΕΡΙΝΟ ΤΡΑΜ ΑΠΟ ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ
ΣΤΙΣ 2.30 ΤΟ ΒΡΑΔΥ
ΚΑΤΕΒΑΙΝΕΙΣ ΣΤΟ ΤΕΡΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΠΕΡΠΑΤΑΣ
200 ΜΕΤΡΑ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΑ ΠΙΣΩ ΜΕΧΡΙ ΠΟΥ ΒΛΕΠΕΙΣ 
ΤΗΝ ΕΙΣΟΔΟ ΤΟΥ
ΑΥΤΟΔΙΑΧΙΡΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΥ ΚΑΜΠΙΝΓΚ ΒΟΥΛΑΣ

Βρες τί είναι αυτό που σου αναλογεί να κάνεις στον Δημόσιο Χώρο και καν’ το ΤΩΡΑ! Υπάρχει μια λεπτή γραμμή που ενώνει τον αγώνα για την Ελευθερία της Έκφρασης στον Δημόσιο Χώρο με τον αγώνα των κατοίκων στην Χαλκιδική, ο Λόφος του Στρέφη και το Πεδίο του Άρεως ενώνονται με την Κερατέα, τις      Σκουριές, την αυτοδιαχειριζόμενη παραλία της Βούλας και του Αγίου Κοσμά, με τις καταλήψεις στην Κρήτη και την Πάτρα, τα κοινωνικά κέντρα στην Κομοτηνή, την Μυτιλήνη και τo Μεσολόγγι, τις μικρές μας επιθυμίες και τα μεγάλα μας όνειρα! Κάθε εκβιαστικός καταναγκασμός, κάθε τοπικό οικολογικό έγκλημα, κάθε   μικρός ψιθυριστός ρατσισμός, κάθε μέρα δικιάς μας αδιαφορίας και υποταγής καταστρέφει την ζωή όλων μας για πάντα. ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΖΗΣΟΥΜΕ ΣΑΝ ΔΟΥΛΟΙ!
ΒΡΕΣ ΈΝΑ ΤΡΟΠΟ ΝΑ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΘΟΥΜΕ… // KENO ΔΙΚΤΥΟ

πληροφορίες για τον 
αγώνα υπεράσπισης 
της παραλίας Βούλας:
http://voulacamp.blogspot.gr/

ΑΚΤΕΣ & ΠΡΑΣΙΝΟ: 
ΑΔΙΑΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΕΥΤΑ ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ ΑΓΑΘΑ

ΑΛΛΗΛΕΓΓΥΗ / ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ

Οι παραλίες – το ωραιότερο και πολυτιμότερο κομμάτι της δημόσιας περιουσίας ήδη εκποιούνται. 
Παράλληλα όμως, πολίτες σε όλη τη χώρα οργανώνονται και αγωνίζονται για την προστασία τους.
Στο σχέδιο εκποίησης εντάσσεται και ο χώρος του πρώην         Κάμπινγκ Βούλας με την παραλία του, που για πολλά χρόνια και με ευθύνη της πολιτείας 
παρέμενε κλειδωμένος και εγκαταλελειμμένος. Μετά από δυναμική παρέμβαση συλλόγων και πολιτών ο χώρος απελευθερώθηκε και λειτουργεί μέσω μιας εβδομαδιαίας ανοιχτής συνέλευσης πολιτών. Με την πραγματοποίηση στο χώρο αυτό δεκάδων πολιτιστικών, αλληλέγγυων, επιστημονικών, επιμορφωτικών και οικολογικών δραστηριοτήτων αξιοποιείται με σεβασμό μια αχρησιμοποίητη έκταση ακαλλιέργητης αστικής γης και έχει μετατραπεί σε ζωντανό κέντρο            
διαρκούς δημιουργίας & διεκδίκησης. 

Κρατάμε ελεύθερη την παραλία.                          

Παραμένουμε ανυπότακτοι και αντιστεκόμαστε στα σχέδια εκποίησης της δημόσιας γης, του φυσικού πλούτου και αυτής της ίδιας της ζωής μας.

Η Ανοιχτή Συνέλευση «Κάμπινγκ» Βούλας http://www.voulacamp.blogspot.gr 

The post RECLAIM THE BEACH Party! στην Αυτοδιαχειριζόμενη ΠΑΡΑΛΙΑ ΒΟΥΛΑΣ >>>>>>>> ΣΑΒΒΑΤΟ 07/09/2013 έναρξη 18.00 appeared first on Void Network.

“What’s really happening in Greece, Cyprus, spain, Portugal, and Italy, the past few years? is it just the reflection of the global financial crisis of 2008, that finally touched the real status of EU’s economy? is it just a general problem that has to do mainly with P.I.G.S( the acronyms of the first letter of the name of each one of the main european countries of the south ), weak fundamentals of economy, and the leading bureaucracies? is it, at the end that we aren’t NEOLIBERALS ENOUGH? Or maybe there is something else going on here…something much bigger,,.something that asks for a rightwing immediate change in the whole of the european south and ends with the transformation of the western democratic capitalistic system that for years had based on the decisions of parliamentary governments, and especially in europe had made after long struggles against Authority to develop a certain social security status, into something completely different! lets start from the beggining This talk could also come out under another title; “EUROPEAN UNION’S GIGANTIC TRANSFORMATION, AND THE RISE OF NEW TOTALITARIANISM IN THE WEST!” ΑRΕ ΤΗERE ANSWERS ON THAT SITUATION? DO WE HAVE ANSWERS ON THAT SITUATION?”

The post Void Network short tour of talks in U.S.A. / May 2013: WHATS REALLY HAPPENING IN GREECE,CYPRUS AND EUROPE? THE EUROPEAN DEPT CRISIS AND THE ANSWER OF ANARCHIST MOVEMENT appeared first on Void Network.