& waiting disappear ...
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Regal Kitchen Pro K6743 Parts
In I-.
This time I leave a fairly rigid schedule on the blog to say what I please.
I recently returned to comment on the blog (that I have it pretty botadito, do not endorse or I add anything, so I thought it was great) and took advantage of update my profile.
just off I have two phones, so I am incommunicado telephone (if not for the blessed Internet)
should have done this long ago I think.
distance has brought me good and bad times. Good and bad nostalgia. Good and bad experiences. Good and bad dreams. And very bad disappointment.
Although the latter clearly is, it's just my fault, since I am faithful follower of the line in that place for waiting disappointment over what might happen, so do not expect anything and be happy with what comes . And a "better than nothing."
you consider is always the same? Where they are?
I do. Although no parezca que soy la misma.
De pasar a ser florerito de mesa en mi colegio a ser alguien super piola en la U, es una gran diferencia. Realmente, una gran diferencia. Pero es que estoy probando el terreno recién y está tomando menos tiempo que en el colegio (8 años, toda la enseñanza básica para despertar recien en primero medio y darme a conocer).
Me agrada la nueva gente que está a mi alrededor. Me hace enojar con facilidad por su flojera, pero me cuidan. Además, son ellos los que llevan la batuta para la diversión y eso me agrada, como yo no conozco mucho acá. Además hablamos de todo.
Pero por el otro lado, soy de las que no olvidan el pasado. Nunca nadie reemplazará a mis buenos amigos de Curico. Well, I think the good ... or thought a while ago.
I've always said that people come and go in our lives, but for me, I'm so stupid when it comes to love, I find it a bit hard to give to people. And expecting the same in return, as it was not caprice.
More than one bitter moment has given me to see the rest still change and I remain the same. Loving them the same way and expecting something that may never come. And here I always think I already went through the exit door to go that far.
I was miserable? Yes, I walked away for mental health.
But not to lose ... lost bread or piece? I do not know. But now looking forward to Curico I have, and ultimately would go for a while ... than necessary ... and what is needed?
do not know, because where no aid, better not to interfere.
So now I'm not more. -.-
This time I leave a fairly rigid schedule on the blog to say what I please.
I recently returned to comment on the blog (that I have it pretty botadito, do not endorse or I add anything, so I thought it was great) and took advantage of update my profile.
just off I have two phones, so I am incommunicado telephone (if not for the blessed Internet)
should have done this long ago I think.
distance has brought me good and bad times. Good and bad nostalgia. Good and bad experiences. Good and bad dreams. And very bad disappointment.
Although the latter clearly is, it's just my fault, since I am faithful follower of the line in that place for waiting disappointment over what might happen, so do not expect anything and be happy with what comes . And a "better than nothing."
you consider is always the same? Where they are?
I do. Although no parezca que soy la misma.
De pasar a ser florerito de mesa en mi colegio a ser alguien super piola en la U, es una gran diferencia. Realmente, una gran diferencia. Pero es que estoy probando el terreno recién y está tomando menos tiempo que en el colegio (8 años, toda la enseñanza básica para despertar recien en primero medio y darme a conocer).
Me agrada la nueva gente que está a mi alrededor. Me hace enojar con facilidad por su flojera, pero me cuidan. Además, son ellos los que llevan la batuta para la diversión y eso me agrada, como yo no conozco mucho acá. Además hablamos de todo.
Pero por el otro lado, soy de las que no olvidan el pasado. Nunca nadie reemplazará a mis buenos amigos de Curico. Well, I think the good ... or thought a while ago.
I've always said that people come and go in our lives, but for me, I'm so stupid when it comes to love, I find it a bit hard to give to people. And expecting the same in return, as it was not caprice.
More than one bitter moment has given me to see the rest still change and I remain the same. Loving them the same way and expecting something that may never come. And here I always think I already went through the exit door to go that far.
I was miserable? Yes, I walked away for mental health.
But not to lose ... lost bread or piece? I do not know. But now looking forward to Curico I have, and ultimately would go for a while ... than necessary ... and what is needed?
do not know, because where no aid, better not to interfere.
So now I'm not more. -.-
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Silicone Caulk To Hold Suction Soap Dish
about the invention of the newspaper El País
few days ago, the English daily El Pais released as "first" that the first campaign Correa had received a contribution from the FARC.
not the first time that this journal will play into the Colombian government. Almost a year ago launched a similar invention. On the subject, at which time the journalist Rubén Darío Buitrón ajdunto interviewed the director of the Journal, Vicente Jiménez. This is the interview:
"If I had to be rectified I would, BUT NOT THE CASE"
By Rubén Darío Buitrón
The basic rules of good journalism say that you should go directly to the source, ask questions, compare , crossing information, check, be plural, stage actors all the facts that count. Did the
English newspaper "El País" these basic requirements, including ethical and balanced management of information, posting on Wednesday, in three pages, with front-page headline, the article "The FARC find refuge in Ecuador?
The government of President Rafael Correa reacted with outrage to the report. He rejected what the journalist says in the text, sent explanatory letters which are published today in the newspaper and threatened to prosecute the media. We communicate by telephone in Madrid Vicente Jiménez, deputy director of the "Country".
In this interview, Jimenez published and defends what he says bet on the credibility and confidence in his reporter Maite Rico, who wrote the report from Bogota.
What criteria was based El Pais to publish the story about the FARC and Ecuador? It is, in our view, of a note without confrontation with the defendant and supported by hidden sources ...
Your question is loaded with intention. The criterion that the country at the time of publishing is not, but all information is the same: the interest of information, its relevance, the contrast of sources, checking of information ... As you well have said, when sensitive information is where intelligence services are involved, obviously the source management is not the same as that of a press conference. It is information that requires a different preparation, but the criteria is the same as is usually the newspaper.
But contrasted with the other party. For example, when he says that "the former guerrilla has not mince words and launched serious accusations against the authorities," the journalist did not call these authorities ...
There are reports, as you well know, which sometimes contrast is difficult because the source that we must resort to contrast not do it, would not comment because the type of information it is.
That is, not confronted?
I will not get to discuss why a particular phrase guerrilla determined not confronted with the appropriate source or government agency. All I can say is that the newspaper published information because he felt that he was interested, we were aware that sensitive information was sensitive, but is confronted, there are various sources of intelligence, including the OAS ...
OAS Secretary reacted harshly and rejected
version ... I know that the OAS ensures that none of its officials spoke to the country, but that is absolutely false. Of course I doubt that the official wants to confess his own initiative he spoke to El Pais. But, hey, this is unusual for sensitive information that is at stake is the credibility of governments, the relations between the governments of Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the relationship with a guerrilla group in Colombia considered a terrorist.
"measured the impact that would have the story?
was understood that information that would arouse much controversy and that would obviously not be to everyone's liking, but the newspaper should keep its policy is to inform all that it considers relevant. Obviously, for the country what is happening in Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, throughout Latin America, is of primary interest.
If the Ecuadorian government raises a claim against the country, what is your response?
Typically, it is not the first nor the last time. If there is demand would speak with our legal services and they, of course, give the appropriate response.
"The other scenario would be the correction of the report if the Ecuadorian government to demonstrate that it is not true what was said?
El Pais published tomorrow (today) a letter from the Ambassador of Ecuador in Spain and also a letter from the secretary of the OAS. We do not have the slightest problem to post the version you want to give people who consider themselves affected by information.
The question is whether the country would rectify if it is proved that what is published does not conform to reality ...
Our duty is to assess the information and we will do if what you say. But one thing should be very clear: Country fully responds to the assertion of the journalist who made that information.
you Discards "bias in the content?
The newspaper did not have any animosity against the legitimate government of Correa, Uribe or Chavez. Yes, we have every right to publish that information that according to ethical procedures that handle our journalists consider can be published.
Even if you do not have all the elements of a consistent note?
has all the elements and the country may support the assertion in the report. If from there Correa's government sees fit to go to court and take legal action, has every right to do so.
Why did the note from Bogota and Quito not?
I'm not sure where you want reach the question ...
the balance and the contrast, you have always been a benchmark of good information ...
That has nothing to do with Quito, Bogota and Caracas. Country acts like everywhere. We succeed, sometimes we are wrong and deserve awards. Our view on political violence is the same in Bogota, Quito or Beijing.
The country ratified, then, in all published?
I will not get to discuss the procedure and how it has worked our reporter. Do not go into what are our ways of working. Our commitment is to our readers and procedures to defend.
Is there the possibility of redress, if that proved otherwise?
That response is in the assessment made by the newspaper reporter's note. Lies in the fact of having published the information and who has given three columns on the front page and three pages in its international section. That's all I can say about that.
Do you accept publicly a mistake, if you get to make?
The newspaper has neither ever had any qualms about acknowledging the errors, when warranted. The country has no problem to post corrections. In the present case will publish the letters, but not rectify because we believe in the ability to Maite Rico, whose work The country defends and supports.
Via: http://rubendariobuitron.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/otra-vez-diario-el-pais-uf/
I recommend visiting the following entries from the same blog, he recalls businesses in the country and how it relates to the Colombian media ...
... and it seems that the country should have good relations with Uribe.
Andrés Velasco wrote to the same blog on the country and reveals other issues, very interesting:
To understand the notes the newspaper "El País" must be analyzed within the context, which in this case is simple: money. Sufficient to review the investments of English Multinationals (communications, publishing, energy, oil, ...). (...)
In fact, I recommend you check all items that have been published about Ecuador. They find that Alberto Acosta is apparently owns the largest bank in Ecuador as he led the Constituent Assembly.
Via: http://rubendariobuitron.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/para-entender-a-diario-el-pais/ 
few days ago, the English daily El Pais released as "first" that the first campaign Correa had received a contribution from the FARC.
not the first time that this journal will play into the Colombian government. Almost a year ago launched a similar invention. On the subject, at which time the journalist Rubén Darío Buitrón ajdunto interviewed the director of the Journal, Vicente Jiménez. This is the interview:
"If I had to be rectified I would, BUT NOT THE CASE"
By Rubén Darío Buitrón
The basic rules of good journalism say that you should go directly to the source, ask questions, compare , crossing information, check, be plural, stage actors all the facts that count. Did the
English newspaper "El País" these basic requirements, including ethical and balanced management of information, posting on Wednesday, in three pages, with front-page headline, the article "The FARC find refuge in Ecuador?
The government of President Rafael Correa reacted with outrage to the report. He rejected what the journalist says in the text, sent explanatory letters which are published today in the newspaper and threatened to prosecute the media. We communicate by telephone in Madrid Vicente Jiménez, deputy director of the "Country".
In this interview, Jimenez published and defends what he says bet on the credibility and confidence in his reporter Maite Rico, who wrote the report from Bogota.
What criteria was based El Pais to publish the story about the FARC and Ecuador? It is, in our view, of a note without confrontation with the defendant and supported by hidden sources ...
Your question is loaded with intention. The criterion that the country at the time of publishing is not, but all information is the same: the interest of information, its relevance, the contrast of sources, checking of information ... As you well have said, when sensitive information is where intelligence services are involved, obviously the source management is not the same as that of a press conference. It is information that requires a different preparation, but the criteria is the same as is usually the newspaper.
But contrasted with the other party. For example, when he says that "the former guerrilla has not mince words and launched serious accusations against the authorities," the journalist did not call these authorities ...
There are reports, as you well know, which sometimes contrast is difficult because the source that we must resort to contrast not do it, would not comment because the type of information it is.
That is, not confronted?
I will not get to discuss why a particular phrase guerrilla determined not confronted with the appropriate source or government agency. All I can say is that the newspaper published information because he felt that he was interested, we were aware that sensitive information was sensitive, but is confronted, there are various sources of intelligence, including the OAS ...
OAS Secretary reacted harshly and rejected
version ... I know that the OAS ensures that none of its officials spoke to the country, but that is absolutely false. Of course I doubt that the official wants to confess his own initiative he spoke to El Pais. But, hey, this is unusual for sensitive information that is at stake is the credibility of governments, the relations between the governments of Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, the relationship with a guerrilla group in Colombia considered a terrorist.
"measured the impact that would have the story?
was understood that information that would arouse much controversy and that would obviously not be to everyone's liking, but the newspaper should keep its policy is to inform all that it considers relevant. Obviously, for the country what is happening in Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, throughout Latin America, is of primary interest.
If the Ecuadorian government raises a claim against the country, what is your response?
Typically, it is not the first nor the last time. If there is demand would speak with our legal services and they, of course, give the appropriate response.
"The other scenario would be the correction of the report if the Ecuadorian government to demonstrate that it is not true what was said?
El Pais published tomorrow (today) a letter from the Ambassador of Ecuador in Spain and also a letter from the secretary of the OAS. We do not have the slightest problem to post the version you want to give people who consider themselves affected by information.
The question is whether the country would rectify if it is proved that what is published does not conform to reality ...
Our duty is to assess the information and we will do if what you say. But one thing should be very clear: Country fully responds to the assertion of the journalist who made that information.
you Discards "bias in the content?
The newspaper did not have any animosity against the legitimate government of Correa, Uribe or Chavez. Yes, we have every right to publish that information that according to ethical procedures that handle our journalists consider can be published.
Even if you do not have all the elements of a consistent note?
has all the elements and the country may support the assertion in the report. If from there Correa's government sees fit to go to court and take legal action, has every right to do so.
Why did the note from Bogota and Quito not?
I'm not sure where you want reach the question ...
the balance and the contrast, you have always been a benchmark of good information ...
That has nothing to do with Quito, Bogota and Caracas. Country acts like everywhere. We succeed, sometimes we are wrong and deserve awards. Our view on political violence is the same in Bogota, Quito or Beijing.
The country ratified, then, in all published?
I will not get to discuss the procedure and how it has worked our reporter. Do not go into what are our ways of working. Our commitment is to our readers and procedures to defend.
Is there the possibility of redress, if that proved otherwise?
That response is in the assessment made by the newspaper reporter's note. Lies in the fact of having published the information and who has given three columns on the front page and three pages in its international section. That's all I can say about that.
Do you accept publicly a mistake, if you get to make?
The newspaper has neither ever had any qualms about acknowledging the errors, when warranted. The country has no problem to post corrections. In the present case will publish the letters, but not rectify because we believe in the ability to Maite Rico, whose work The country defends and supports.
Via: http://rubendariobuitron.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/otra-vez-diario-el-pais-uf/
I recommend visiting the following entries from the same blog, he recalls businesses in the country and how it relates to the Colombian media ...
... and it seems that the country should have good relations with Uribe.
Andrés Velasco wrote to the same blog on the country and reveals other issues, very interesting:
To understand the notes the newspaper "El País" must be analyzed within the context, which in this case is simple: money. Sufficient to review the investments of English Multinationals (communications, publishing, energy, oil, ...). (...)
In fact, I recommend you check all items that have been published about Ecuador. They find that Alberto Acosta is apparently owns the largest bank in Ecuador as he led the Constituent Assembly.
Via: http://rubendariobuitron.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/para-entender-a-diario-el-pais/
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Hot Scens Of Movie Mera Naam Joker
hostname Gregarious
finally back to blogging. First let's update the assembly and then neglected it. Happened to me? I became an adult, no more: the work was so demanding that the little free time I dedicate to rest. Also, now I see more television ... trash.
2 weeks ago, I ran the Latest News Quito and found Gandha . I could not see any other blogger known and it was a moment I realized how far I have suc-mundu of blogger.
It feels good to join the group:
Just like in this video, integrated mass can feel like "a sheep in the flock," but the truth is that is fun. In the office where I worked for two months, created a code: when someone is stressed out, shouting: Aaahh! and everyone in the choir repeated the cry. It was fun in the office heard someone shouting far and "hear" the empathy of desestrés. Funny truth.
Better late than never, return to the group. 
finally back to blogging. First let's update the assembly and then neglected it. Happened to me? I became an adult, no more: the work was so demanding that the little free time I dedicate to rest. Also, now I see more television ... trash.
2 weeks ago, I ran the Latest News Quito and found Gandha . I could not see any other blogger known and it was a moment I realized how far I have suc-mundu of blogger.
It feels good to join the group:
Just like in this video, integrated mass can feel like "a sheep in the flock," but the truth is that is fun. In the office where I worked for two months, created a code: when someone is stressed out, shouting: Aaahh! and everyone in the choir repeated the cry. It was fun in the office heard someone shouting far and "hear" the empathy of desestrés. Funny truth.
Better late than never, return to the group.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Ww1 Trench Foot Prevention#
not come
glue will not come more touching your hands or eyes detached from my eyes enlightening.
No more dreams and hopes they will not come much more to come ...
not your sweet kisses to my naked body ...
We hand? I gave everything I could?
I know right now I have broken the soul, the eyes I cry inside and the heart beats without force ...
I know that memories will not come to be the cause of a smile, I know they will not come over your feet next to mine, I know your arms will not come closer every time my I see, I know your hand will not walk again linked with mine.
I know, and I know they will not come so many hopes, morning dew will not come from your body next to mine, neither day nor night, nor the many will come.
No more, no more ...
And I ran out of strength ... I ran
force ... I ran
force ...
No more dreams and hopes they will not come much more to come ...
not your sweet kisses to my naked body ...
We hand? I gave everything I could?
I know right now I have broken the soul, the eyes I cry inside and the heart beats without force ...
I know that memories will not come to be the cause of a smile, I know they will not come over your feet next to mine, I know your arms will not come closer every time my I see, I know your hand will not walk again linked with mine.
I know, and I know they will not come so many hopes, morning dew will not come from your body next to mine, neither day nor night, nor the many will come.
No more, no more ...
And I ran out of strength ... I ran
force ... I ran
force ...
Friday, March 13, 2009
Most Lightweight Metal
Diario Hoy called "fellah" Correa
several days ago was to tell one on the Journal today, but they see this other news story, which I thought was funny because the newspaper maintains a critical stance against Correa.
In this article, a picture of the President speaking in Manabi. The photo is uploaded with this name: http://www.hoy.com.ec/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/companierito.jpg and when you put the cursor over the image reads "COMPANIERITO" .
As if! 
several days ago was to tell one on the Journal today, but they see this other news story, which I thought was funny because the newspaper maintains a critical stance against Correa.
In this article, a picture of the President speaking in Manabi. The photo is uploaded with this name: http://www.hoy.com.ec/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/companierito.jpg and when you put the cursor over the image reads "COMPANIERITO" .
As if!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wood Swing Directions
Any phone with her owner in Mexico
I liked reading this story where we explain that in a year, every phone in Mexico (there are many more than those in Ecuador) should have identified the owner.
Although problems may be caused by this provision, surely it is better to leave this system there are thousands of phones owned by the famous "final consumer" that are used by criminals or calls Spouses deceived. 
I liked reading this story where we explain that in a year, every phone in Mexico (there are many more than those in Ecuador) should have identified the owner.
Although problems may be caused by this provision, surely it is better to leave this system there are thousands of phones owned by the famous "final consumer" that are used by criminals or calls Spouses deceived.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bosch Grit Dishwasher
The fourth quarter Nine Habits of Highly
That is, the fourth photo from the fourth folder. With
radicaLibre on the meme. Let's see what I find, because I have not seen yet.
The rules of the meme: Choose
Well, here we go again. I will choose a picture in the second folder, which is the only one where it does are my pictures (the others are other orders):
Pictures folder within the DOB, the fourth is one that says "College." This photo was taken on June 23, 2007, according to data from the photo. It is a gathering of college buddies in the house of radicaLibre precisely. Pictured: Coko, Challis and Darius. And Pilsener, of course! 
That is, the fourth photo from the fourth folder. With
radicaLibre on the meme. Let's see what I find, because I have not seen yet.
The rules of the meme: Choose
- fourth folder: "Xavo"
- Choose the fourth photo:
-
- explains:
Well, here we go again. I will choose a picture in the second folder, which is the only one where it does are my pictures (the others are other orders):
Pictures folder within the DOB, the fourth is one that says "College." This photo was taken on June 23, 2007, according to data from the photo. It is a gathering of college buddies in the house of radicaLibre precisely. Pictured: Coko, Challis and Darius. And Pilsener, of course! Monday, January 19, 2009
Shooting Star Antenna Manual
Against the State and against all authority. Problems and misunderstandings between anarchism, state, political and institutional
The intention of my work is coming to expose the "truth", but on the contrary, seek to be about the issues, I believe, deserve to be discussed as anarchists to better address our struggles, both present and future. That is why I will not seek any current referrers necessarily logical or purely academic, because anarchism is simply not based on them, although of course I support some ideas and thoughts that I think may be useful for a good approach.
What I like to address today is, specifically, that old opponent, that old enemy is for us and we the state. In this regard, and anarchists have written dozens of pamphlets, books and treatises. Much has been theorized [1] , is driven against [2] , and the relationship has always been controversial and virulent, because as we know, the State represents the main visible institution of oppression and authoritarianism, compared to which, as anarchists, we stand as the main antagonists.
These tests, these actions, this way of thinking correspond precisely to any stage of development of anarchism itself, which inevitably reflects his time, synonymous with their time and conflicts [3] . However, planted in this century that began long ago, we realize that the picture is rather different. Societies have changed, capitalism has changed, more complex and elaborated itself many times, and therefore the State has changed its form and its actions, but of course its dominance matrix structure has not changed, but instead, they perfected in their forms of social intervention.
Well, it is within this perspective, it is possible to realize that many of our ways of thinking and acting against the state have been taken out of context, that is currently lacking. Strange as that sounds, it seems that anarchism has operated some kind of univocal logic by which the thinking and assimilating the State has been institutionalized. Everything written and analyzed by various classical theorists of libertarian socialism seems to be sacred point, against which there is not much to add or say, at most we can add two or three general considerations that must meet these basic precepts. There are few cases where there were attempts to challenge these notions, but immediately fell into a dynamic labeling and stigmatization, negative ("they are reformers," are not anarchists ", etc.), So, what might be called the "officers" of anarchism were ignored and relegated to a marginal role [4] .
This is not surprising, as has happened over history every time there was glimpses of questioning the institutionalized within different movements and schools of thought, but it is surprising that this happens in anarchism, a trend that is broad, heterogeneous and non-dogmatic. Well, it seems that once again, we must dare to that old exercise that we proposed the old Bakunin, who said "The destructive passion is also a constructive passion ...." It may be necessary to break and destroy many of our ideas and actions that operate as "dogmas", so you can come something new, a lever and revolutionary, something genuinely anarchist. Otherwise, you would think that both poor societies as capitalism and the state are capable of change, but this is not possible for anarchism ...
As I stated at the beginning, I will not expose truths or certainties show because I have not. I just interested in drawing attention to some issues that I believe should be taken into account when thinking about and analyzing the State.
One approach that seems appropriate, refers to a kind of simplistic and reductionist to certain currents of anarchist thought or sectors usually do on the state to capture it and define it strictly as a kind of character structure police / repression, and therefore purely top-down and authoritarian. Speaking of the state seems to be that likened to a Nazi-type state (every state is Fascist "," Power is Fascism, Fascism is Power "," everything is a terrorist state "), context within which the anarchists and it seems that we live in a kind of state permanent war against state authority [5] , and the whole horizon of our actions is "freedom" [6] . Is not envisaged the relationship with capitalism, and indeed there are even those who define capitalism as a form or method of the State to implement its economy (¿!?). We will not deny the authoritarian nature of the state or its policing and repressive, but making this analogy to think the State (and indeed any state), seems naive and very light, and tends much to use a sort of "common sense libertarian" that appeals to a theoretical vacuum that unfortunately can turn into sectarian practices and cutting edge.
In a second approach, I think there is another issue that deserves reflection. Anarchism, as well as the entire spectrum of socialist thought (the fruit of modernity), has a strong array position which seeks to express a kind of universalizing vision of nature, which often lose perspective and specific local problems. As anarchists, we often fall into a sort of simplification to think that all States (as different societies) are born, work and drive the same way in all places at all times. In that sense, I think many times we have fallen into the dynamics of moving ideas, analysis and actions originating in Europe directly to our various realities, and consequently, this leads to problems.
Consider for a moment the context in which ideas anarchists arrived in Latin America: from the hands of many workers exiled from the 1 st International, as well as the odd intellectual anarchism was loyal representative of the aspirations of emancipation high part of European societies oppressed, playing the same struggle and aspiration in these land. Similarly, picked up much of their imagery, and their conceptions. In that sense, in the case of Argentina is reproduced local development structures of capitalism in which Buenos Aires, inhabited by workers and migrant workers almost entirely, was coupled to the logic of a plant whose primary products were the main destinations European cities, with visible social class distinctions and a clear role as an accomplice structural state of the relationship between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination. But if we withdraw from there, we can see that in the rest of the country [7] , and almost a majority of other Latin American history and social composition are different.
What I think is necessary to think of all this, consider the fact that the history of the American continent is no transfer from feudalism to capitalism, nor of the absolute monarchies to fall against the emergence of the bourgeoisie. It is not American history of the appropriation of land by a few who expelled the peasants to the cities to become labor reserve army and the development of capitalism. American history speaks of previous cultures and ways of development of various complex societies with their own forms of relationship with nature, earth and time [8] . The same story tells of the conquest, plunder and genocide practiced by the major European empires, who under the cross and the sword, plundered, slaughtered and enslaved all peoples. It tells us the story of the imposition of religions, languages \u200b\u200band customs of the conquerors, and various acts of rebellion and insurrection featuring these peoples. Just observe some problems faced by people surviving in local wars of independence, we can see the confusion of his situation, realizing they could not see the horizon of emancipation in the instituted (English crown) and in the future (the emerging Latin American republics). Because the patterns of domination (educational, religious, cultural, etc.) That are formed and shaped also respond to the interests of dominant groups, often lose sight of whether or not we consider these aspects, and even they assign a marginal and secondary prospects within our control: we remember these things only when it is October 12, or when we learned that there was a repression or colleagues are members of the indigenous people arrested or detained.
It is now possible for many and many to wonder if I am not exaggerating and I say that and anarchists have always considered these issues. But I invite you all to find authors or experiences as anarchists (at least for the case of Argentina) which has been devoted to analyzing the composition of our local society and its various ideas, imaginations, customs and social practices. Except for isolated case out of context from Alberto Ghiraldo, it is hardly possible to find a reflection on this, or at least have some today.
American societies are complex, diverse, and have their own territorial identity matrices. If, as anarchists seek to understand and operate based on many preconceptions that are specific to their area of \u200b\u200borigin (ie Europe) can hardly conceive or think of anarchism as a perspective of Latin American emancipation [9] . In my opinion, I think first of all, you must first think of ourselves as we are, as we feel and think, locally speaking. Otherwise, do not think of ourselves as part of a historical process both locally and globally, understating social habits and practices of these regions, it is highly unlikely that anarchism can be a way to a horizon of emancipation. I think we deserve first think of ourselves as inhabitants of this land, with our special and tensions, and from there to think and look for similarities with libertarian ideas and practices [10] . We should not be
anarchists who want freedom for all Latin Americans, but Latin Americans who find affinities and resonances anarchism compatible or similar concerns for emancipation and freedom [11] . On this basis, it is possible to understand better how both their composition, their different social customs and practices, including various imaginary. Similarly, we can better understand how they operate the various national states, as its various matrices form of domination and social intervention, and develop various forms of local capitalists and their relationship with the logic of development of Global Capitalism [12] .
A third approach that has exposed deep relationship with here, refers to the various characteristics, tensions and contradictions that exist in Latin American states and societies. In that sense, if we look to Marxism, there were major efforts to interpret and understand, but inevitably have found serious limitations, mainly having to do with the Marxist prism which sought to interpret and accommodate these various issues to the "objective" parameters of "scientific socialism", with various kinds of reductionism, undermining local identities and particularities subordinating the mapping strategy of conquest of political power. Marti Aricó Mariátegui, Sandino, Peña, Castro and Guevara, among others, have sought work and find a "Latin American Marxism, but always came across the problem of assimilating" nationalism "to" American way to socialism ", with a strange and confusing notion of "patriotism" that open the door to digest oppression and power structures of local [13] . As anarchists, we have a broader and more complex the matter, particularly when we understand and assimilate notions such as "class struggle" or "revolutionary subject" so expensive to Marxism. Of course we can not deny the contradiction between capital and labor, which remains the engine of exploitation and alienation, but we make a sharp division between employers and exclusive and proletariat, but the class struggle refers to something broader, that is a struggle and strife for domination. These relationships not only exist between the owners of the means of production and workers who sell their labor, but in both there are also internal relations of authoritarianism (dominant parent, discipline and punish the household, husband that exploits both socially and sexually to his wife, imposition of family traditions / religious / cultural values \u200b\u200bthat reproduce sexist, authoritarian and nefarious of various societies, etc.).. Thus, unlike the Marxism that is often left only with the relations arising from the contradiction between capital and labor within the state, as anarchists we should understand the deep relations of domination embedded in our various societies, while we observe workers / as and owners must also include in our analysis and perspectives to the various peoples and their tensions, desires and imaginaries in dispute with the state and foreign corporations, a confusing and divisive effects of the various nationalist and patriotic expressions and social policies local results of anti-state activities of the various dominant castes and landowners, as well as anti-state activities of companies, corporations and international consortia, the results of the various cultures, religions and customs, the tensions and conflicts of various sexualities and gender, age problems of students, youth groups and various urban tribes, regional, local and diverse territorial possessions, and many more contradictions and tensions, such as those arising within their own vertical structure of state bureaucracies. I believe that society operate many more issues that arise strictly the capital-labor ratio, and that as anarchists we must pay attention, giving them an honest perspective of assimilation and understanding of their struggles and disputes [14] within anarchism.
The last issue that I would draw minimal attention, concerns the very existence of States and self-justifying their actions. While States are accomplices structural contradiction between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination, also justify their existence through the implementation of various public policies, both in infrastructure Road (routes, roads, bridges, highways, railway lines, etc.), health (hospitals, emergency rooms, etc..), education (kindergarten, primary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, etc.). , and other social intervention agencies (soup kitchens, homes for the day, workers and various social workers and pensions of various kinds, care plans and food bags, etc..), giving the state an image of a role "necessary "for their actions and existence. All these institutions, agencies and roles that are embodied in the rule make sense for different companies, so think as anarchists destruction and disappearance of the State, should lead us to think that way we can handle (as corporations) of all these tasks, and that it is not nothing but a romantic yearning of "fighting against all state and all forms of oppression" . Read the first chapters of "libertarian Communities in Spain" can give us a faint idea of \u200b\u200bthe complex network which has had to give the revolutionaries English civil war when it began, the state in many parts "disappeared" and had to appeal our old notion of self, but in every way possible. This exercise should think today in our present circumstances and our various limitations.
is quite possible that at this point, many and many are thinking what is the meaning of all this what I'm talking about, or believe that many of these issues are already settled, but these things affect us and we go through daily. If we do a simple review of bird flight and the events that took place in Argentina throughout the conflict by the adoption of resolution 125, called by the media, "the struggle of the field" or "soy war," we can see that, beyond how it was resolved, or social and political alignments were, anarchism was the odd warm positioning but overall a confused silence prevailed, that I personally refer to an inability to properly analyze the conflict. I've heard from positions that were in favor of soy producers because "they are against the government" to proposed solutions such as "land reform and" a type of load or clear political commitment, but diffuse chances to materialize. I must say that, in my view, anarchism is very far from having any influence both as a capacity to understand these situations and propose some action. Or want to get into thorny issues such as what is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia.
As I said earlier, I have no certainties, but concerns and some ideas. I am interested in translating them, to serve as a trigger for discussions that consider both necessary and interesting. Thank you very much and hopefully not having too boring.
[1] Without going into great detail, there is an abundant life in this regard. Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner, Kropotkin and Malatesta and others are those who have done what we could call classical theorizing about the state.
[2] Since the various uprisings Popular featuring Bakunin and the Federalists during the 1 st International until the English Civil War, we find the classic action-type insurrectionary and revolutionary anarchism, through the Paris Commune, Russian Revolution and Workers Councils in Germany, among many others. In this sense, also for individualistic antiorganizacionistas sectors of the movement, the state has been the main focus of the main actions and attacks.
[3] Very lightly, I only dare to suggest that anarchism, in its origins, contains both perspectives and action of contract, as well as a kind of deep analysis positivist in many cases reflect the nineteenth century itself, and survive over much of the twentieth.
[4] This type of action by an anarchist "official" or institutionalized can be seen in particular from the 1907 Amsterdam Congress, where questioning views conflicted with orthodox or classical anarchism. From then on, this dynamic is constantly repeated in almost all facets.
[5] This is unthinkable almost Hobbesian terms referring to the "permanent war of all against all" and think in terms Lockean response to rebel against the centralizing power of the state.
[6] does not seem appropriate to wear to make a specific definition of what the concept of freedom for and anarchists, because that would require further reflection and careful, but what I think must be emphasized in this particular case, is that in this perspective, the notion of freedom is treated, often, to individual freedom, and confused can find parallels with a concept of individual freedom and self-serving negative character is very close to the most radical of Liberalism.
[7] enter into a similar dynamic and surrounding cities of Rosario, Cordoba, Mendoza, and parts of coastal Northwest and the Patagonia. But the case of Buenos Aires is paradigmatic deep to find parallels with European cities, including the dynamics of work (industry) and its social composition.
[8] I want to be careful with it, because it is very easy to fall into simplistic. In America we find various kinds of human societies and development, including what might be described as states, as in the case of the Maya, Aztec and Inca. Necessary to rethink our histories and our own cultures, does not mean you have to make a generalization and an immediate positive valuation, because we know that authoritarianism, war, domination and enslavement were commonplace. But if you think it is necessary to reconsider the issues related to cultural practices and customs that were able to permeate the domination of the conquistadors and survive ...
[9] This I suggest here is not new, but is one of the axes of debate that existed between Bakunin and Marx in the 1 º International. Bakunin watched again and again could not put aside the regional issues that dealt specifically with the customs and cultural practices of different peoples, criticizing the approach "scientific" and homogenizer that Marx was talking about social class Bakunin who always objected to seeing it as a sentimental who devoted much effort to juveniles Panslavists intentions.
[10] I want to acknowledge that I am not appealing to a kind of "localism" claiming unequivocally nationalist or anything or local historical process, because as an anarchist I am very critical of many such issues could fall so easily appellate almost Peronist or other ideologies such self-referential as "national overview". But if I think that anarchism must be thought from the Latin American, and not playing its parent Eurocentric.
[11] You can find hundreds of jobs, research and monographs which discussed the Guarani, Aymara and other indigenous peoples, finding "ways" and "practices" anarchists. How is that possible? Anarchism as an ideology is its own process of modernity and nineteenth century, while the practices and customs of these peoples have centuries of development. How could they be anarchists? In fact, we should think that these social practices have some kind of affinity with the libertarian ideas and practices. With the intention to question everything, I suggest reading "Local histories / global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking" by Walter Mignolo.
[12] To think both the problem of the scope and limitations of the current development of capitalism and nation states within a neoliberal context, suggest the critical reading of "Globalization: the human consequences" of Zygmunt Bauman, among a profusion literature on the subject.
[13] Anyway, there are some contributions that could be enriching for a local libertarian approach. Suggest the critical reading of "The State in Latin America" \u200b\u200bBolivian René Zavaleta Mercado, who harshly questioned many of these preconceptions of "Latin American Marxism, but valuing a local dimension of the thing.
[14] Unfortunately, in certain tendencies of Marxism and socialist parties, these contradictions are seen almost utilitarian key, and speeches and messages are created with the intention of gaining adherents almost exclusive or constituencies, without the slightest intention to achieve any real change. 
The intention of my work is coming to expose the "truth", but on the contrary, seek to be about the issues, I believe, deserve to be discussed as anarchists to better address our struggles, both present and future. That is why I will not seek any current referrers necessarily logical or purely academic, because anarchism is simply not based on them, although of course I support some ideas and thoughts that I think may be useful for a good approach.
What I like to address today is, specifically, that old opponent, that old enemy is for us and we the state. In this regard, and anarchists have written dozens of pamphlets, books and treatises. Much has been theorized [1] , is driven against [2] , and the relationship has always been controversial and virulent, because as we know, the State represents the main visible institution of oppression and authoritarianism, compared to which, as anarchists, we stand as the main antagonists.
These tests, these actions, this way of thinking correspond precisely to any stage of development of anarchism itself, which inevitably reflects his time, synonymous with their time and conflicts [3] . However, planted in this century that began long ago, we realize that the picture is rather different. Societies have changed, capitalism has changed, more complex and elaborated itself many times, and therefore the State has changed its form and its actions, but of course its dominance matrix structure has not changed, but instead, they perfected in their forms of social intervention.
Well, it is within this perspective, it is possible to realize that many of our ways of thinking and acting against the state have been taken out of context, that is currently lacking. Strange as that sounds, it seems that anarchism has operated some kind of univocal logic by which the thinking and assimilating the State has been institutionalized. Everything written and analyzed by various classical theorists of libertarian socialism seems to be sacred point, against which there is not much to add or say, at most we can add two or three general considerations that must meet these basic precepts. There are few cases where there were attempts to challenge these notions, but immediately fell into a dynamic labeling and stigmatization, negative ("they are reformers," are not anarchists ", etc.), So, what might be called the "officers" of anarchism were ignored and relegated to a marginal role [4] .
This is not surprising, as has happened over history every time there was glimpses of questioning the institutionalized within different movements and schools of thought, but it is surprising that this happens in anarchism, a trend that is broad, heterogeneous and non-dogmatic. Well, it seems that once again, we must dare to that old exercise that we proposed the old Bakunin, who said "The destructive passion is also a constructive passion ...." It may be necessary to break and destroy many of our ideas and actions that operate as "dogmas", so you can come something new, a lever and revolutionary, something genuinely anarchist. Otherwise, you would think that both poor societies as capitalism and the state are capable of change, but this is not possible for anarchism ...
As I stated at the beginning, I will not expose truths or certainties show because I have not. I just interested in drawing attention to some issues that I believe should be taken into account when thinking about and analyzing the State.
One approach that seems appropriate, refers to a kind of simplistic and reductionist to certain currents of anarchist thought or sectors usually do on the state to capture it and define it strictly as a kind of character structure police / repression, and therefore purely top-down and authoritarian. Speaking of the state seems to be that likened to a Nazi-type state (every state is Fascist "," Power is Fascism, Fascism is Power "," everything is a terrorist state "), context within which the anarchists and it seems that we live in a kind of state permanent war against state authority [5] , and the whole horizon of our actions is "freedom" [6] . Is not envisaged the relationship with capitalism, and indeed there are even those who define capitalism as a form or method of the State to implement its economy (¿!?). We will not deny the authoritarian nature of the state or its policing and repressive, but making this analogy to think the State (and indeed any state), seems naive and very light, and tends much to use a sort of "common sense libertarian" that appeals to a theoretical vacuum that unfortunately can turn into sectarian practices and cutting edge.
In a second approach, I think there is another issue that deserves reflection. Anarchism, as well as the entire spectrum of socialist thought (the fruit of modernity), has a strong array position which seeks to express a kind of universalizing vision of nature, which often lose perspective and specific local problems. As anarchists, we often fall into a sort of simplification to think that all States (as different societies) are born, work and drive the same way in all places at all times. In that sense, I think many times we have fallen into the dynamics of moving ideas, analysis and actions originating in Europe directly to our various realities, and consequently, this leads to problems.
Consider for a moment the context in which ideas anarchists arrived in Latin America: from the hands of many workers exiled from the 1 st International, as well as the odd intellectual anarchism was loyal representative of the aspirations of emancipation high part of European societies oppressed, playing the same struggle and aspiration in these land. Similarly, picked up much of their imagery, and their conceptions. In that sense, in the case of Argentina is reproduced local development structures of capitalism in which Buenos Aires, inhabited by workers and migrant workers almost entirely, was coupled to the logic of a plant whose primary products were the main destinations European cities, with visible social class distinctions and a clear role as an accomplice structural state of the relationship between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination. But if we withdraw from there, we can see that in the rest of the country [7] , and almost a majority of other Latin American history and social composition are different.
What I think is necessary to think of all this, consider the fact that the history of the American continent is no transfer from feudalism to capitalism, nor of the absolute monarchies to fall against the emergence of the bourgeoisie. It is not American history of the appropriation of land by a few who expelled the peasants to the cities to become labor reserve army and the development of capitalism. American history speaks of previous cultures and ways of development of various complex societies with their own forms of relationship with nature, earth and time [8] . The same story tells of the conquest, plunder and genocide practiced by the major European empires, who under the cross and the sword, plundered, slaughtered and enslaved all peoples. It tells us the story of the imposition of religions, languages \u200b\u200band customs of the conquerors, and various acts of rebellion and insurrection featuring these peoples. Just observe some problems faced by people surviving in local wars of independence, we can see the confusion of his situation, realizing they could not see the horizon of emancipation in the instituted (English crown) and in the future (the emerging Latin American republics). Because the patterns of domination (educational, religious, cultural, etc.) That are formed and shaped also respond to the interests of dominant groups, often lose sight of whether or not we consider these aspects, and even they assign a marginal and secondary prospects within our control: we remember these things only when it is October 12, or when we learned that there was a repression or colleagues are members of the indigenous people arrested or detained.
It is now possible for many and many to wonder if I am not exaggerating and I say that and anarchists have always considered these issues. But I invite you all to find authors or experiences as anarchists (at least for the case of Argentina) which has been devoted to analyzing the composition of our local society and its various ideas, imaginations, customs and social practices. Except for isolated case out of context from Alberto Ghiraldo, it is hardly possible to find a reflection on this, or at least have some today.
American societies are complex, diverse, and have their own territorial identity matrices. If, as anarchists seek to understand and operate based on many preconceptions that are specific to their area of \u200b\u200borigin (ie Europe) can hardly conceive or think of anarchism as a perspective of Latin American emancipation [9] . In my opinion, I think first of all, you must first think of ourselves as we are, as we feel and think, locally speaking. Otherwise, do not think of ourselves as part of a historical process both locally and globally, understating social habits and practices of these regions, it is highly unlikely that anarchism can be a way to a horizon of emancipation. I think we deserve first think of ourselves as inhabitants of this land, with our special and tensions, and from there to think and look for similarities with libertarian ideas and practices [10] . We should not be
anarchists who want freedom for all Latin Americans, but Latin Americans who find affinities and resonances anarchism compatible or similar concerns for emancipation and freedom [11] . On this basis, it is possible to understand better how both their composition, their different social customs and practices, including various imaginary. Similarly, we can better understand how they operate the various national states, as its various matrices form of domination and social intervention, and develop various forms of local capitalists and their relationship with the logic of development of Global Capitalism [12] .
A third approach that has exposed deep relationship with here, refers to the various characteristics, tensions and contradictions that exist in Latin American states and societies. In that sense, if we look to Marxism, there were major efforts to interpret and understand, but inevitably have found serious limitations, mainly having to do with the Marxist prism which sought to interpret and accommodate these various issues to the "objective" parameters of "scientific socialism", with various kinds of reductionism, undermining local identities and particularities subordinating the mapping strategy of conquest of political power. Marti Aricó Mariátegui, Sandino, Peña, Castro and Guevara, among others, have sought work and find a "Latin American Marxism, but always came across the problem of assimilating" nationalism "to" American way to socialism ", with a strange and confusing notion of "patriotism" that open the door to digest oppression and power structures of local [13] . As anarchists, we have a broader and more complex the matter, particularly when we understand and assimilate notions such as "class struggle" or "revolutionary subject" so expensive to Marxism. Of course we can not deny the contradiction between capital and labor, which remains the engine of exploitation and alienation, but we make a sharp division between employers and exclusive and proletariat, but the class struggle refers to something broader, that is a struggle and strife for domination. These relationships not only exist between the owners of the means of production and workers who sell their labor, but in both there are also internal relations of authoritarianism (dominant parent, discipline and punish the household, husband that exploits both socially and sexually to his wife, imposition of family traditions / religious / cultural values \u200b\u200bthat reproduce sexist, authoritarian and nefarious of various societies, etc.).. Thus, unlike the Marxism that is often left only with the relations arising from the contradiction between capital and labor within the state, as anarchists we should understand the deep relations of domination embedded in our various societies, while we observe workers / as and owners must also include in our analysis and perspectives to the various peoples and their tensions, desires and imaginaries in dispute with the state and foreign corporations, a confusing and divisive effects of the various nationalist and patriotic expressions and social policies local results of anti-state activities of the various dominant castes and landowners, as well as anti-state activities of companies, corporations and international consortia, the results of the various cultures, religions and customs, the tensions and conflicts of various sexualities and gender, age problems of students, youth groups and various urban tribes, regional, local and diverse territorial possessions, and many more contradictions and tensions, such as those arising within their own vertical structure of state bureaucracies. I believe that society operate many more issues that arise strictly the capital-labor ratio, and that as anarchists we must pay attention, giving them an honest perspective of assimilation and understanding of their struggles and disputes [14] within anarchism.
The last issue that I would draw minimal attention, concerns the very existence of States and self-justifying their actions. While States are accomplices structural contradiction between capital and labor, guaranteeing private ownership of the means of production and main structure of repression and domination, also justify their existence through the implementation of various public policies, both in infrastructure Road (routes, roads, bridges, highways, railway lines, etc.), health (hospitals, emergency rooms, etc..), education (kindergarten, primary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, etc.). , and other social intervention agencies (soup kitchens, homes for the day, workers and various social workers and pensions of various kinds, care plans and food bags, etc..), giving the state an image of a role "necessary "for their actions and existence. All these institutions, agencies and roles that are embodied in the rule make sense for different companies, so think as anarchists destruction and disappearance of the State, should lead us to think that way we can handle (as corporations) of all these tasks, and that it is not nothing but a romantic yearning of "fighting against all state and all forms of oppression" . Read the first chapters of "libertarian Communities in Spain" can give us a faint idea of \u200b\u200bthe complex network which has had to give the revolutionaries English civil war when it began, the state in many parts "disappeared" and had to appeal our old notion of self, but in every way possible. This exercise should think today in our present circumstances and our various limitations.
is quite possible that at this point, many and many are thinking what is the meaning of all this what I'm talking about, or believe that many of these issues are already settled, but these things affect us and we go through daily. If we do a simple review of bird flight and the events that took place in Argentina throughout the conflict by the adoption of resolution 125, called by the media, "the struggle of the field" or "soy war," we can see that, beyond how it was resolved, or social and political alignments were, anarchism was the odd warm positioning but overall a confused silence prevailed, that I personally refer to an inability to properly analyze the conflict. I've heard from positions that were in favor of soy producers because "they are against the government" to proposed solutions such as "land reform and" a type of load or clear political commitment, but diffuse chances to materialize. I must say that, in my view, anarchism is very far from having any influence both as a capacity to understand these situations and propose some action. Or want to get into thorny issues such as what is happening in Venezuela, Ecuador or Bolivia.
As I said earlier, I have no certainties, but concerns and some ideas. I am interested in translating them, to serve as a trigger for discussions that consider both necessary and interesting. Thank you very much and hopefully not having too boring.
Xaby
[1] Without going into great detail, there is an abundant life in this regard. Proudhon, Bakunin, Stirner, Kropotkin and Malatesta and others are those who have done what we could call classical theorizing about the state.
[2] Since the various uprisings Popular featuring Bakunin and the Federalists during the 1 st International until the English Civil War, we find the classic action-type insurrectionary and revolutionary anarchism, through the Paris Commune, Russian Revolution and Workers Councils in Germany, among many others. In this sense, also for individualistic antiorganizacionistas sectors of the movement, the state has been the main focus of the main actions and attacks.
[3] Very lightly, I only dare to suggest that anarchism, in its origins, contains both perspectives and action of contract, as well as a kind of deep analysis positivist in many cases reflect the nineteenth century itself, and survive over much of the twentieth.
[4] This type of action by an anarchist "official" or institutionalized can be seen in particular from the 1907 Amsterdam Congress, where questioning views conflicted with orthodox or classical anarchism. From then on, this dynamic is constantly repeated in almost all facets.
[5] This is unthinkable almost Hobbesian terms referring to the "permanent war of all against all" and think in terms Lockean response to rebel against the centralizing power of the state.
[6] does not seem appropriate to wear to make a specific definition of what the concept of freedom for and anarchists, because that would require further reflection and careful, but what I think must be emphasized in this particular case, is that in this perspective, the notion of freedom is treated, often, to individual freedom, and confused can find parallels with a concept of individual freedom and self-serving negative character is very close to the most radical of Liberalism.
[7] enter into a similar dynamic and surrounding cities of Rosario, Cordoba, Mendoza, and parts of coastal Northwest and the Patagonia. But the case of Buenos Aires is paradigmatic deep to find parallels with European cities, including the dynamics of work (industry) and its social composition.
[8] I want to be careful with it, because it is very easy to fall into simplistic. In America we find various kinds of human societies and development, including what might be described as states, as in the case of the Maya, Aztec and Inca. Necessary to rethink our histories and our own cultures, does not mean you have to make a generalization and an immediate positive valuation, because we know that authoritarianism, war, domination and enslavement were commonplace. But if you think it is necessary to reconsider the issues related to cultural practices and customs that were able to permeate the domination of the conquistadors and survive ...
[9] This I suggest here is not new, but is one of the axes of debate that existed between Bakunin and Marx in the 1 º International. Bakunin watched again and again could not put aside the regional issues that dealt specifically with the customs and cultural practices of different peoples, criticizing the approach "scientific" and homogenizer that Marx was talking about social class Bakunin who always objected to seeing it as a sentimental who devoted much effort to juveniles Panslavists intentions.
[10] I want to acknowledge that I am not appealing to a kind of "localism" claiming unequivocally nationalist or anything or local historical process, because as an anarchist I am very critical of many such issues could fall so easily appellate almost Peronist or other ideologies such self-referential as "national overview". But if I think that anarchism must be thought from the Latin American, and not playing its parent Eurocentric.
[11] You can find hundreds of jobs, research and monographs which discussed the Guarani, Aymara and other indigenous peoples, finding "ways" and "practices" anarchists. How is that possible? Anarchism as an ideology is its own process of modernity and nineteenth century, while the practices and customs of these peoples have centuries of development. How could they be anarchists? In fact, we should think that these social practices have some kind of affinity with the libertarian ideas and practices. With the intention to question everything, I suggest reading "Local histories / global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking" by Walter Mignolo.
[12] To think both the problem of the scope and limitations of the current development of capitalism and nation states within a neoliberal context, suggest the critical reading of "Globalization: the human consequences" of Zygmunt Bauman, among a profusion literature on the subject.
[13] Anyway, there are some contributions that could be enriching for a local libertarian approach. Suggest the critical reading of "The State in Latin America" \u200b\u200bBolivian René Zavaleta Mercado, who harshly questioned many of these preconceptions of "Latin American Marxism, but valuing a local dimension of the thing.
[14] Unfortunately, in certain tendencies of Marxism and socialist parties, these contradictions are seen almost utilitarian key, and speeches and messages are created with the intention of gaining adherents almost exclusive or constituencies, without the slightest intention to achieve any real change.
Pokemon Card R Symbol
Surgery. Orthopedics. Eugenics. An approach to the legal constitution of the popular state in twentieth century Argentina
With this work I intend to provide a draft of a possible scheme for the anarchist critique of the contemporary state. To the extent that this criticism is proposed to start to realize our specific problems as activists propose the categories are abstractions constructed from Argentina's history of the twentieth century.
The starting point is the following question. Although the State is always controlled, hierarchical, violent, does not always exercise their controls, their hierarchies and violence the same way. I think that diversity of strategies we should oppose a variety of resistances. That would be the underlying problem, but in this work I'll just state strategies.
To distinguish these changes within the state of position I will return a sense of Foucault. In The birth of biopolitics he proposes the replacement of a conception of the State entificada a reformulation in terms of practices of nationalization. The state, says Foucault, it has no guts; is the sum of estatalizantes practices that can be carried out or not, their bodies and affecting us in many different ways as appropriate.
I think this approach can be productive and that during their "evolution" the State has managed well enough to adapt to an environment that is hostile, and even to shape that environment in their favor, and that's what I would start to discuss today. The state remains the state, and the main objective of this paper is to address the idea, widely held, that Western political organizations progress from despotism to democracy. This idea seems wrong for two reasons. First, the State never resign especially its violent practices. They remain always, more or less latent, overlapping with other modes of intervention. Secondly, it gives me the impression that even those areas that are usually considered more democratic and free of coercion (such as universities), imply a degree of nationalization and much less explicit, but much deeper than the rest.
In this sense I think we can distinguish, through the evolution of the Argentine State, three modes of state intervention that overlap and complement each other.
Sometimes the state behaves surgery. His other is like a tumor that must be removed before it affects the rest. In this case, the State challenges us as criminals. Such practices are carried out mainly by security forces. is advantageous [1] because it can move effectively and can show results quickly. But it is disadvantageous in so far as it involves a clean break between society and state, and becomes, therefore, difficult to sustain over time. Violence is given. Local examples would be military intervention during strikes in Patagonia in the early twentieth century and the mechanism of forced disappearance of persons put into operation during the last military dictatorship.
But the state also moves so brace. In this case the other is not perceived as a tumor that must be removed, but as a healthy member may deviate from normal development. Such practices are fundamentally I think regulators, and are carried out by bureaucrats and lawyers. In this case the State appeals to us as citizens. It is advantageous to the extent that the illusion of recognition of the individual as a citizen, in his dual nature of the subject of copyright law and (indirectly) from that which they operate. Its disadvantages are that it is by definition an area of \u200b\u200bnon-intervention and restricts the ability of state action with a series of internal controls. This way I think nationalization is the one embodied in the public administration and the courts. Local examples would be the process of regulation of labor relations and the gradual regulation of labor organizations in the first half of the twentieth century.
Finally, the state also adopted eugenic practices. And is not removed or direct, but to produce or bring into being a matter as yet formless. Is the set of state practices in education, health and welfare. Is carried out by highly skilled bureaucrats and involves the injection of resources and knowledge in society. Its main advantage lies in the ability of overlapping state and society, allowing it to strike deep roots and create an illusion of almost total freedom or independence. Its main disadvantage is the handling time (far more extensive than the previous) and vulnerability that characterizes until it is firmly established. Local examples would be the creation and development of ministries of education, health and welfare, with the vast network of devices that were deployed over time.
It seems important to consider a couple of points in this scheme. First, it is simultaneous and complementary practices, and even when an apparent precedence over the others in a particular circumstance, the truth is that all three are deployed in a delicate balance that allows the survival and the extension of nationalized processes taken together. Secondly that, regardless of appearances, in all three cases these are practices that control us, and we violate our nest. The only difference is that I called surgical practices act on our bodies, freeing our heads, and the eugenic free our bodies, but only as and have operated over our heads. Challenges us as criminals, citizens or people, are always subject to the state (in the sense of subjects) of law. But as the state questioning change, I think they should modify our strategies of resistance, and so nationalization as complementary modes should also be complemented by our actions.
One last point I would leave mentioned, and that requires a lot of work still is the remarkable ability to learn the state. In other words, not only is a machine that represses, but also a learning mind. The self-help labor organizations of the early nineteenth century urban forms of resistance carried out by the strikers in the early twentieth century and the decentralized guerrilla '70s have in common have been co-opted by the state under the forms of social assistance, the reconfiguration of police strategies and weaponry and the adoption of state terrorism.
Martin [1] At this point, and those that follow, the term beneficial I mean the kind of benefits that may accrue to the State, either for its maintenance or expansion. 
With this work I intend to provide a draft of a possible scheme for the anarchist critique of the contemporary state. To the extent that this criticism is proposed to start to realize our specific problems as activists propose the categories are abstractions constructed from Argentina's history of the twentieth century.
The starting point is the following question. Although the State is always controlled, hierarchical, violent, does not always exercise their controls, their hierarchies and violence the same way. I think that diversity of strategies we should oppose a variety of resistances. That would be the underlying problem, but in this work I'll just state strategies.
To distinguish these changes within the state of position I will return a sense of Foucault. In The birth of biopolitics he proposes the replacement of a conception of the State entificada a reformulation in terms of practices of nationalization. The state, says Foucault, it has no guts; is the sum of estatalizantes practices that can be carried out or not, their bodies and affecting us in many different ways as appropriate.
I think this approach can be productive and that during their "evolution" the State has managed well enough to adapt to an environment that is hostile, and even to shape that environment in their favor, and that's what I would start to discuss today. The state remains the state, and the main objective of this paper is to address the idea, widely held, that Western political organizations progress from despotism to democracy. This idea seems wrong for two reasons. First, the State never resign especially its violent practices. They remain always, more or less latent, overlapping with other modes of intervention. Secondly, it gives me the impression that even those areas that are usually considered more democratic and free of coercion (such as universities), imply a degree of nationalization and much less explicit, but much deeper than the rest.
In this sense I think we can distinguish, through the evolution of the Argentine State, three modes of state intervention that overlap and complement each other.
Sometimes the state behaves surgery. His other is like a tumor that must be removed before it affects the rest. In this case, the State challenges us as criminals. Such practices are carried out mainly by security forces. is advantageous [1] because it can move effectively and can show results quickly. But it is disadvantageous in so far as it involves a clean break between society and state, and becomes, therefore, difficult to sustain over time. Violence is given. Local examples would be military intervention during strikes in Patagonia in the early twentieth century and the mechanism of forced disappearance of persons put into operation during the last military dictatorship.
But the state also moves so brace. In this case the other is not perceived as a tumor that must be removed, but as a healthy member may deviate from normal development. Such practices are fundamentally I think regulators, and are carried out by bureaucrats and lawyers. In this case the State appeals to us as citizens. It is advantageous to the extent that the illusion of recognition of the individual as a citizen, in his dual nature of the subject of copyright law and (indirectly) from that which they operate. Its disadvantages are that it is by definition an area of \u200b\u200bnon-intervention and restricts the ability of state action with a series of internal controls. This way I think nationalization is the one embodied in the public administration and the courts. Local examples would be the process of regulation of labor relations and the gradual regulation of labor organizations in the first half of the twentieth century.
Finally, the state also adopted eugenic practices. And is not removed or direct, but to produce or bring into being a matter as yet formless. Is the set of state practices in education, health and welfare. Is carried out by highly skilled bureaucrats and involves the injection of resources and knowledge in society. Its main advantage lies in the ability of overlapping state and society, allowing it to strike deep roots and create an illusion of almost total freedom or independence. Its main disadvantage is the handling time (far more extensive than the previous) and vulnerability that characterizes until it is firmly established. Local examples would be the creation and development of ministries of education, health and welfare, with the vast network of devices that were deployed over time.
It seems important to consider a couple of points in this scheme. First, it is simultaneous and complementary practices, and even when an apparent precedence over the others in a particular circumstance, the truth is that all three are deployed in a delicate balance that allows the survival and the extension of nationalized processes taken together. Secondly that, regardless of appearances, in all three cases these are practices that control us, and we violate our nest. The only difference is that I called surgical practices act on our bodies, freeing our heads, and the eugenic free our bodies, but only as and have operated over our heads. Challenges us as criminals, citizens or people, are always subject to the state (in the sense of subjects) of law. But as the state questioning change, I think they should modify our strategies of resistance, and so nationalization as complementary modes should also be complemented by our actions.
One last point I would leave mentioned, and that requires a lot of work still is the remarkable ability to learn the state. In other words, not only is a machine that represses, but also a learning mind. The self-help labor organizations of the early nineteenth century urban forms of resistance carried out by the strikers in the early twentieth century and the decentralized guerrilla '70s have in common have been co-opted by the state under the forms of social assistance, the reconfiguration of police strategies and weaponry and the adoption of state terrorism.
Martin [1] At this point, and those that follow, the term beneficial I mean the kind of benefits that may accrue to the State, either for its maintenance or expansion.
Pomegranate Benefits Fair Skin
Freedom is a place that is away from home: affinities between anarchism, feminism and queer theory
The text that follows is based on notes I wrote for the Conference on Anarchist Thought and Philosophy At the edge of anarchy in order to socialize knowledge and create room for reflection on practice and activism everyday. In addition to the notes as footnotes, long quotes added at the end of the text, with some issues raised in the discussion and that could not be fully addressing the interest of time.
Develop your legitimate strangeness
Rene Char 1 .- Introduction. Secret affinities and others.
The call for this conference suggested a shift "from the anarchist thought to philosophy, to trace philosophical problem hidden-or not-libertarian perspective. This proposal appealed to me a moment to ask me immediately after a problem: while I agree that that anarchism can not be an object of study, do not think it possible path to take from " anarchist thought "to philosophy. Because for nosotrxs muchxs of anarchism is a political philosophy of life, an "art of living against domination" [1] , not a system from which you can read the reality. There is something of an anarchist philosophy (as is, for example, "existentialist philosophy" or "Marxist philosophy") but is, rather, a way to anarchist philosophy, that is a libertarian political theme. Since Foucault once said: to me what interests me is not philosophy but policy [i] .
As expected the title of this work, I intend to outline some crossing of two major "isms" of our political history: anarchism and feminism. But, you know, none of these "isms" is running on a single definition. There are different anarchism. Without much effort, we distinguish at least three major currents: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-communism. The same is true feminism. And there is a difference in kind or merely evolutionary chronology (first, second or third wave feminism, as is usually stated in the academy), but of political positions. This difference may be obvious in the case of feminism integrated with the apparatus of the State or in ostensibly oenegizados, but may go unnoticed in other cases. And is not solved by adding a last name common name "feminism" (like saying "worker feminism" or "bourgeois feminism"). These also include different political positions, fortunately, the possibility of other feminisms and post-feminism, more playful and thoughtful, wrote the philosopher Beatriz Preciado. As for the so-called queer theory, the picture is similar. There are queer theory, post-queer, trans, postcolonial. Not only do not pretend here to exhaust the possible affinities, secret or otherwise, between anarchism, feminism, queer [2] , but I'm focus on certain desirable crosses between these practices (the anarchist, the feminist, queer), to try to respond to the challenge of the call.
For anarchists, the affinity is a mutual horizontal, a gathering of individuals around action, initiative and common sensibility. If possible bring desirable crosses between anarchism, feminism and queer theory, these crossings are clearly in terms of affinity [3] . But there is a historical axis which is unavoidable, as these meetings have already been made in our history [ii] . Of course we can not deal with this axis here [iii] , but it have it Please note: while it may be true that the entire history of anarcho-feminism is yet to be written, I think you have to write so very different from what has been tried for some time in academia. Not because a priori renege this kind of story or, more specifically, the history of women, but because this write-needed, on the other hand, you have to link it with concrete practices. There is a purely academic interest in the political heresy is pleased to collect historical oddities, like the one in question. That clearly can not be our interest. Political works, including poetry, are the result of a long collective work, "years of shared ideas" to the words of Virginia Woolf (citadísima work your own room.) Recognize our traditions do not mean to draw a direct line from our present into the past, a line full of famous names and landmarks (that is, no doubt), but a genealogy: continuities and discontinuities, ruptures, advances and retreats, secret affinities and the other: those that are there, in the light, waiting only to look at them more closely. 2 .- Fundamentals
untouchables: Freedom is a place that is away from home [4] .
To deal with the academic rigor or that other danger of fundamentalist anarchism, it may be good to put on hold certainties and foundations untouchable, as is the freedom for thought and action or distinction anarchists Nature / Culture and Sex / Gender and the dual male / female (or Dominator / victim) for certain feminisms [iv] . That's where the post-structuralism (as a condition of possibility of queer theory) can be crossed happily with anarchism in their specific analysis of specific situations of oppression, domination continued production of subjectivities and possibilities of resistance.
There is a recurrent danger in a traditional or fundamentalist when anarchism With a concept of normal as the prototype of what is properly human and individual, this concept can not be disputed. Often reduced to anarchy to a simplistic way of thinking that considers human nature as essentially good and facing the institutions of power, which are by definition bad and guilty for all the evil that lurks in this candid humanity. Thus, it is easy to oppose anarchism to a post-structuralist philosophy, broadly speaking, is characterized by consider that power is essentially creative rather than punitive. When this flag is covered with identifying all anarchism (either to insult or to recognize value), it is often forgotten that in his brilliant Bakunin comments on the Marxist theory of the seizure of power and workers' state was never very confident in nature or human psychology as naturally good. For Bakunin was very clear, and never tired of repeating, that evil was the principle of authority and not something abstract called "power" to dry.
Traditional Anarchism is founded on the concept that the individual has a reservation that is irreducible to the social arrangements of power. Thus, there would be a space of freedom for people, space of revolt against all authority, for the words of Bakunin. But we could think Foucault and Butler [5] that ethical practices, criticism and resistance does not emanate from a sort of innate freedom of the soul escapes the ravages of the system, but that same area of \u200b\u200bfreedom is forged between something that is already there (the specific relations of power and domination, the rules and regulations that not only say which way is normal and what not, but, as discussed Butler, marked the very terms in which there will not be possible) and something new: a series of acts, practices, attitudes experimental as Foucault says in another text [6] . According to Butler, Foucault's distinction between government and governmentality seeks to show that the unit denoting the former enters into the practices gobernadxs of those being in the same forms of knowledge and in their own ways of being. So how gobernadx not, when power relations enter the bodies? Foucault proposed in one of his last interviews the "anarchisation of the body, bodily hierarchies and their standard locations. Another way to put up barricades not disciplined, open spaces not yet calculated pleasures, cuts as windows to freedom.
So we hit the post-structuralism and queer thought one step further, even from what the classical anarchist thought nineteenth century as a struggle against the principle of authority, hierarchies and domination, because, in fact, Foucault said in What is Critique? - "the desire not to be governed is always the desire not to be governed well, so, for they, at this price (the emphasis added). This is not a simple formulation in the abstract, such as free will in a religious sense or liberal. This is where the philosopher faces the edge what he calls a "fundamental anarchism," which find the historical practice of revolt, of non-acceptance of a real government, and individual refusal of governmentality. It will then critique, ethics, resilience, the art of "voluntary insubordination, disobedience of reflection," as Foucault also wrote in the same text I've been quoting. What anarchists who came before us and tried to put into practice: freedom as lived experience, not just recited.
against the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentation and subordinate struggles: spontaneity, localism, immediacy and variety of struggles for liberation, queer, feminist. Affinities acting minorities made abject, they do blow the authoritarian practices and normalizing our lives that lead certain channels. These practices, these struggles are not behind the "main enemy" but the immediate enemy. As Foucault said, it is anarchist struggles since the main objective is to attack not so much 'this or that "institution of power, or group, or elite, or class, but rather a technique, a form of power that applies to immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, assigned its own individuality, attaches him to his own identity [v] . Bakunin spoke of a "creative passion" that prepares the outbreak of the "passions", as once defined the revolution. Malatesta also spoke of a "creative power" present in individuality and freedom dear to distinguish otrxs vegan nosotrxs and absolutely free, abstract metaphysics, which translates into oppression fatally when low to the ground. Foucault refers constantly in his later texts and interviews to "practices of freedom", which opposes the absolute idea of \u200b\u200b"liberation" [vi] . And all the comrades know what we are talking about: are the active practices that should be taken now, not tomorrow, can not wait for the uncertain dawn of social revolution.
And while freedom is a location that is away from home, this is start living today as we want to live in this new world that is growing at every moment in our hearts [7] .
Laura Contreras
www.todaniniosensiblesabra.blogspot.com
www.pidoperdonzine.blogspot.com
www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com
Some text notes and more desirable.
[1] Ferrer, Christian: Heads storm. Anarres, Buenos Aires, 2004.
[2] As Judith Butler explains in his book Bodies That Matter, queer is an insult in their native language (English), used to refer to the rare, pathological and abnormal with respect to the norm, especially in issues of sexuality, gender identities and expressions. But queer is also a site of resistance: means taking a word and twist, deflect and guide to other uses (and joys) political. Thus understood, queer is a membership that is not identical identities. See Butler, Judith: Bodies that matter. On material and discursive limits of "sex." Polity Press, Buenos Aires, 2005. Pp. 313 et seq. In one of the translators vegan notes the work of Butler Language, power and identity, queer is defined as referring to any non-hetero sexuality and hetero own critique of the system. See Javier Sáez and Beatriz Preciado, translators of Butler, Judith: Language, power and identity. Synthesis, Madrid, 2004. pg. 75. And although it is clear there is no closed definition, took this concept to be sure, at least for a while, a stable floor where we can understand and discuss.
[3] When from anarcho-queer positions are intended other types of organized kinship ties and not from blood but from the affinity, friendship and mutual assistance, this is a desirable cross political paths.
[4] Loquero, "Omen" in centuries of slaughter, (demo), 1993.
[5] Judith Butler discussed in "What is critical? An essay on Foucault's virtue in "the text of Foucault" What is criticism. " Http://caosmosis.acracia.net/?p=507
[6] Foucault, Michel: What is Enlightenment? Editions of The Piquette, Madrid, 1996.
[7] Christian Ferrer said as well about the anarchist praxis: "In every life was performed by specific ethical practices, the promised freedom." Ferrer, Christian: Heads storm. Anarres, Buenos Aires, 2004.
[i] The quote from Foucault is the following: "Actually, I never cared philosophy, but that's not a problem. Your question is: why I care so much politics? If you could answer a very simple, say the following: why Why should not I care? That is, what blindness, what deafness, what density of ideology should be charged to avoid the interest in what is probably the most crucial aspect of our existence, that is, society in which we live, economic relations within which it works and the system of power that defines the ways, what is allowed and what our behavior. " In Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault. Fons Elder: Human Nature: Justice versus power. A debate. Buenos Aires, Katz, 2007.
[ii] This historical axis is unavoidable precisely because that is where we established clearly one of the major problems of intersection between anarchism and feminism. Anarchism today may not include feminist practices, no matter what sex is bio-political asignadx unx - and yet still being discussed in many places if certain historical claims of feminism should be included or not among the priorities of anarchists . On the other hand, some anarcho-feminist spaces remain in positions that fall behind at least three decades on what happens today. We can not but ask this question: if in the beginning, the feminist agenda of the anarchists was completely new, and certainly risky practices, why has it taken so long to renew anarcho-feminism (theory and practice)? One problem reappears, almost unchanged, when it comes to reading queer theory post-structuralism or from the more traditional anarchism. He rejects, without discussion, without reading, without proof.
[iii] Already at the beginning of the decades-long influence of anarchism in cultural life and Argentina are various newspapers struggle anarchists who collected the "woman question", asserting the fairness and proletarian revolutionary feminism (to distinguish the bourgeois feminism essentially suffragette), but there was no uniformity about the hierarchy to agree to specific vindication women. For example, La Question Sociale, a newspaper founded by Malatesta in 1883, published a series of pamphlets devoted to the subject, and Germinal, which appeared in 1897, had a section entitled "Feminism." The protest, central newspaper of Argentine anarchism along its entire route, also devotes space to the propaganda directed particularly at women and they are expressed in the struggles of their own. While representing a minority tendency within the movement, we must stress the importance of women's voice (1896-1897). This newspaper, recognizing the specificity of the oppression of women, calling for mobilizing against their double subordination: that is, as women and as workers. However, in many men's eyes lingered paternalistic anarchists. While the Federation Obrera Argentina (central anarchist) there should be "feminist issue" but "purely human, purely social" (3 rd Congress of the FOA, 1903), recognized the need for economic independence of women, for that "next to the man, fighting for human independence." The historic Congress of the FORA V, 1905, resolved "propaganda aimed at organizing the woman", sending a fellow tour of the interior. Addition Voice of Women, including female-specific newspapers (written by and for women) further highlights our Tribuna (1922-1925), by the great activist and broadcaster of "Idea" Juana Rouco Buela. Several women's groups are active libertarian ending the century and early twentieth century, some of them driven by the Workers Federation (Regional) Argentina. Resistance societies, women's centers for illustration and clarification and strike committees took shape over the decades of anarchist influence in the labor movement and its rich socio-cultural life. While female participation is conditioned by prejudice Moral of the time, the continued repression of the government, which afflicts the entire range of anarchist activities, beyond gender, brand, lack of material resources, the intensity of the fighting and other factors, lack of regularity and not very high degree of integration achieved by these groups among the workers (an issue which is marked by not a few, and few specialists) and not dull its originality and merit. The constant propaganda about the specific condition of oppression among the workers inside and outside of factories or workshops, the various campaigns in working class neighborhoods and in rental housing on such diverse topics as contraception, health care and education workers or new ideals mentadísimo relational-the "free love" - \u200b\u200bto name a few examples, account for an oral and written preaching tirelessly in the pursuit of a life in a whole opposed to bourgeois alienation . In this historical context that line hastily forming an indigenous working class movement with the contribution of immigration "conscious" from Europe and the gradual incorporation of women into the ranks of the urban proletariat, stands La Voz de la Mujer The appearance this newspaper and its vicissitudes us about a phenomenon not without contradictions: from the second issue, the editors denounce the attitudes of male comrades, "false anarchists" are called, who proclaim the liberation of all humanity, but in practice remain strong supervision over "their" women. While there is no consensus in theory or in practice, it is clear that the strong libertarian concern to think through the structure of domination and implement ways of life against that dominance, even with its contrasts and contradictions ", opened a space for a specifically anarchist feminist development, as expressed in this paper and in later ones. In a quick list of titles, are: the double oppression of women (Which constitutes the most exploited sector of society); attack on marriage, to male power over women and the proposal of free love as a counterpart to the institutions of the bourgeoisie and the power of the Church to certain social Neo-Malthusianism circumvent the workers' misery and does not play more labor for the ruling class, the constant denunciation of bourgeois hypocrisy (for example, abortion is practiced by the gentry, by the nuns and priests); complaint relentless sexual exploitation as one of the main scourges to fight, a complex and radical discourse on sexuality, autonomy and the use of the body. More problematic is, however, the exaltation of the role of mother that, abnegadísima, who raises children anarchists. Else remains for detailed analysis of this key moment of local anarchists.
[iv] think, with Marie-Hélène Bourcier, if it is possible to have a feminist subject "pure", that emerge as a counterpart of domination located in men (which is commonly known as "patriarchy"). This author reminds us that the monolithic view of power is linked to an unambiguous and fixed conception of domination, oppression hierarchy so that confiscation and possible subjects invisible and liable to oppression cross (and resistance multiparous). The structure of domination seamless application makes it impossible to criticism and political struggles that are, in fact, in the context of a complex system or device (see Bourcier, Marie-Hélène: "The end of the domination (masculine): pouvoir des genres, et post-feminism feminism queer "in Multitudes Magazine No. 12, Paris 2003, htpp: / / www.multitudes.samizdat.net/article364.html.) domination is never solid and comprehensive, but multiple in these societies ( refer to Foucault: "Power, right, right" in Genealogy of racism, the Piquette, Madrid, 1992).
[v] Foucault explains how in the nineteenth century the struggle against exploitation came to the fore. And how in our days, the struggles against the forms of subjection, against submission of subjectivity, become increasingly important, even when the struggles against forms of domination and exploitation have not disappeared. Freedom is a condition for the exercise of power, not their absence. See Michel Foucault, "Why study power: the question of the subject", in Dreyfus-Rabinow: Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Nueva Visión, Buenos Aires, 2001.
[vi] "I think we should distinguish relations of power as strategic games between liberties-games that result in the fact that some people try to determine the behavior of others, and states of domination, which is commonly called power. And between them, the power games and the states of domination, there are technologies of government (...). The analysis of these techniques is necessary, because it is often through them that states establish and maintain domination. In my analysis of power, there are three levels: strategic relations, techniques and levels of government domination. " Foucault, Michel: The self minimalist and other conversations. P. 166 
The text that follows is based on notes I wrote for the Conference on Anarchist Thought and Philosophy At the edge of anarchy in order to socialize knowledge and create room for reflection on practice and activism everyday. In addition to the notes as footnotes, long quotes added at the end of the text, with some issues raised in the discussion and that could not be fully addressing the interest of time.
Develop your legitimate strangeness
The call for this conference suggested a shift "from the anarchist thought to philosophy, to trace philosophical problem hidden-or not-libertarian perspective. This proposal appealed to me a moment to ask me immediately after a problem: while I agree that that anarchism can not be an object of study, do not think it possible path to take from " anarchist thought "to philosophy. Because for nosotrxs muchxs of anarchism is a political philosophy of life, an "art of living against domination" [1] , not a system from which you can read the reality. There is something of an anarchist philosophy (as is, for example, "existentialist philosophy" or "Marxist philosophy") but is, rather, a way to anarchist philosophy, that is a libertarian political theme. Since Foucault once said: to me what interests me is not philosophy but policy [i] .
As expected the title of this work, I intend to outline some crossing of two major "isms" of our political history: anarchism and feminism. But, you know, none of these "isms" is running on a single definition. There are different anarchism. Without much effort, we distinguish at least three major currents: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-individualism, anarcho-communism. The same is true feminism. And there is a difference in kind or merely evolutionary chronology (first, second or third wave feminism, as is usually stated in the academy), but of political positions. This difference may be obvious in the case of feminism integrated with the apparatus of the State or in ostensibly oenegizados, but may go unnoticed in other cases. And is not solved by adding a last name common name "feminism" (like saying "worker feminism" or "bourgeois feminism"). These also include different political positions, fortunately, the possibility of other feminisms and post-feminism, more playful and thoughtful, wrote the philosopher Beatriz Preciado. As for the so-called queer theory, the picture is similar. There are queer theory, post-queer, trans, postcolonial. Not only do not pretend here to exhaust the possible affinities, secret or otherwise, between anarchism, feminism, queer [2] , but I'm focus on certain desirable crosses between these practices (the anarchist, the feminist, queer), to try to respond to the challenge of the call.
For anarchists, the affinity is a mutual horizontal, a gathering of individuals around action, initiative and common sensibility. If possible bring desirable crosses between anarchism, feminism and queer theory, these crossings are clearly in terms of affinity [3] . But there is a historical axis which is unavoidable, as these meetings have already been made in our history [ii] . Of course we can not deal with this axis here [iii] , but it have it Please note: while it may be true that the entire history of anarcho-feminism is yet to be written, I think you have to write so very different from what has been tried for some time in academia. Not because a priori renege this kind of story or, more specifically, the history of women, but because this write-needed, on the other hand, you have to link it with concrete practices. There is a purely academic interest in the political heresy is pleased to collect historical oddities, like the one in question. That clearly can not be our interest. Political works, including poetry, are the result of a long collective work, "years of shared ideas" to the words of Virginia Woolf (citadísima work your own room.) Recognize our traditions do not mean to draw a direct line from our present into the past, a line full of famous names and landmarks (that is, no doubt), but a genealogy: continuities and discontinuities, ruptures, advances and retreats, secret affinities and the other: those that are there, in the light, waiting only to look at them more closely. 2 .- Fundamentals
untouchables: Freedom is a place that is away from home [4] .
To deal with the academic rigor or that other danger of fundamentalist anarchism, it may be good to put on hold certainties and foundations untouchable, as is the freedom for thought and action or distinction anarchists Nature / Culture and Sex / Gender and the dual male / female (or Dominator / victim) for certain feminisms [iv] . That's where the post-structuralism (as a condition of possibility of queer theory) can be crossed happily with anarchism in their specific analysis of specific situations of oppression, domination continued production of subjectivities and possibilities of resistance.
There is a recurrent danger in a traditional or fundamentalist when anarchism With a concept of normal as the prototype of what is properly human and individual, this concept can not be disputed. Often reduced to anarchy to a simplistic way of thinking that considers human nature as essentially good and facing the institutions of power, which are by definition bad and guilty for all the evil that lurks in this candid humanity. Thus, it is easy to oppose anarchism to a post-structuralist philosophy, broadly speaking, is characterized by consider that power is essentially creative rather than punitive. When this flag is covered with identifying all anarchism (either to insult or to recognize value), it is often forgotten that in his brilliant Bakunin comments on the Marxist theory of the seizure of power and workers' state was never very confident in nature or human psychology as naturally good. For Bakunin was very clear, and never tired of repeating, that evil was the principle of authority and not something abstract called "power" to dry.
Traditional Anarchism is founded on the concept that the individual has a reservation that is irreducible to the social arrangements of power. Thus, there would be a space of freedom for people, space of revolt against all authority, for the words of Bakunin. But we could think Foucault and Butler [5] that ethical practices, criticism and resistance does not emanate from a sort of innate freedom of the soul escapes the ravages of the system, but that same area of \u200b\u200bfreedom is forged between something that is already there (the specific relations of power and domination, the rules and regulations that not only say which way is normal and what not, but, as discussed Butler, marked the very terms in which there will not be possible) and something new: a series of acts, practices, attitudes experimental as Foucault says in another text [6] . According to Butler, Foucault's distinction between government and governmentality seeks to show that the unit denoting the former enters into the practices gobernadxs of those being in the same forms of knowledge and in their own ways of being. So how gobernadx not, when power relations enter the bodies? Foucault proposed in one of his last interviews the "anarchisation of the body, bodily hierarchies and their standard locations. Another way to put up barricades not disciplined, open spaces not yet calculated pleasures, cuts as windows to freedom.
So we hit the post-structuralism and queer thought one step further, even from what the classical anarchist thought nineteenth century as a struggle against the principle of authority, hierarchies and domination, because, in fact, Foucault said in What is Critique? - "the desire not to be governed is always the desire not to be governed well, so, for they, at this price (the emphasis added). This is not a simple formulation in the abstract, such as free will in a religious sense or liberal. This is where the philosopher faces the edge what he calls a "fundamental anarchism," which find the historical practice of revolt, of non-acceptance of a real government, and individual refusal of governmentality. It will then critique, ethics, resilience, the art of "voluntary insubordination, disobedience of reflection," as Foucault also wrote in the same text I've been quoting. What anarchists who came before us and tried to put into practice: freedom as lived experience, not just recited.
against the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentation and subordinate struggles: spontaneity, localism, immediacy and variety of struggles for liberation, queer, feminist. Affinities acting minorities made abject, they do blow the authoritarian practices and normalizing our lives that lead certain channels. These practices, these struggles are not behind the "main enemy" but the immediate enemy. As Foucault said, it is anarchist struggles since the main objective is to attack not so much 'this or that "institution of power, or group, or elite, or class, but rather a technique, a form of power that applies to immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, assigned its own individuality, attaches him to his own identity [v] . Bakunin spoke of a "creative passion" that prepares the outbreak of the "passions", as once defined the revolution. Malatesta also spoke of a "creative power" present in individuality and freedom dear to distinguish otrxs vegan nosotrxs and absolutely free, abstract metaphysics, which translates into oppression fatally when low to the ground. Foucault refers constantly in his later texts and interviews to "practices of freedom", which opposes the absolute idea of \u200b\u200b"liberation" [vi] . And all the comrades know what we are talking about: are the active practices that should be taken now, not tomorrow, can not wait for the uncertain dawn of social revolution.
And while freedom is a location that is away from home, this is start living today as we want to live in this new world that is growing at every moment in our hearts [7] .
Laura Contreras
www.todaniniosensiblesabra.blogspot.com
www.pidoperdonzine.blogspot.com
www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com
Some text notes and more desirable.
[1] Ferrer, Christian: Heads storm. Anarres, Buenos Aires, 2004.
[2] As Judith Butler explains in his book Bodies That Matter, queer is an insult in their native language (English), used to refer to the rare, pathological and abnormal with respect to the norm, especially in issues of sexuality, gender identities and expressions. But queer is also a site of resistance: means taking a word and twist, deflect and guide to other uses (and joys) political. Thus understood, queer is a membership that is not identical identities. See Butler, Judith: Bodies that matter. On material and discursive limits of "sex." Polity Press, Buenos Aires, 2005. Pp. 313 et seq. In one of the translators vegan notes the work of Butler Language, power and identity, queer is defined as referring to any non-hetero sexuality and hetero own critique of the system. See Javier Sáez and Beatriz Preciado, translators of Butler, Judith: Language, power and identity. Synthesis, Madrid, 2004. pg. 75. And although it is clear there is no closed definition, took this concept to be sure, at least for a while, a stable floor where we can understand and discuss.
[3] When from anarcho-queer positions are intended other types of organized kinship ties and not from blood but from the affinity, friendship and mutual assistance, this is a desirable cross political paths.
[4] Loquero, "Omen" in centuries of slaughter, (demo), 1993.
[5] Judith Butler discussed in "What is critical? An essay on Foucault's virtue in "the text of Foucault" What is criticism. " Http://caosmosis.acracia.net/?p=507
[6] Foucault, Michel: What is Enlightenment? Editions of The Piquette, Madrid, 1996.
[7] Christian Ferrer said as well about the anarchist praxis: "In every life was performed by specific ethical practices, the promised freedom." Ferrer, Christian: Heads storm. Anarres, Buenos Aires, 2004.
[i] The quote from Foucault is the following: "Actually, I never cared philosophy, but that's not a problem. Your question is: why I care so much politics? If you could answer a very simple, say the following: why Why should not I care? That is, what blindness, what deafness, what density of ideology should be charged to avoid the interest in what is probably the most crucial aspect of our existence, that is, society in which we live, economic relations within which it works and the system of power that defines the ways, what is allowed and what our behavior. " In Noam Chomsky, Michel Foucault. Fons Elder: Human Nature: Justice versus power. A debate. Buenos Aires, Katz, 2007.
[ii] This historical axis is unavoidable precisely because that is where we established clearly one of the major problems of intersection between anarchism and feminism. Anarchism today may not include feminist practices, no matter what sex is bio-political asignadx unx - and yet still being discussed in many places if certain historical claims of feminism should be included or not among the priorities of anarchists . On the other hand, some anarcho-feminist spaces remain in positions that fall behind at least three decades on what happens today. We can not but ask this question: if in the beginning, the feminist agenda of the anarchists was completely new, and certainly risky practices, why has it taken so long to renew anarcho-feminism (theory and practice)? One problem reappears, almost unchanged, when it comes to reading queer theory post-structuralism or from the more traditional anarchism. He rejects, without discussion, without reading, without proof.
[iii] Already at the beginning of the decades-long influence of anarchism in cultural life and Argentina are various newspapers struggle anarchists who collected the "woman question", asserting the fairness and proletarian revolutionary feminism (to distinguish the bourgeois feminism essentially suffragette), but there was no uniformity about the hierarchy to agree to specific vindication women. For example, La Question Sociale, a newspaper founded by Malatesta in 1883, published a series of pamphlets devoted to the subject, and Germinal, which appeared in 1897, had a section entitled "Feminism." The protest, central newspaper of Argentine anarchism along its entire route, also devotes space to the propaganda directed particularly at women and they are expressed in the struggles of their own. While representing a minority tendency within the movement, we must stress the importance of women's voice (1896-1897). This newspaper, recognizing the specificity of the oppression of women, calling for mobilizing against their double subordination: that is, as women and as workers. However, in many men's eyes lingered paternalistic anarchists. While the Federation Obrera Argentina (central anarchist) there should be "feminist issue" but "purely human, purely social" (3 rd Congress of the FOA, 1903), recognized the need for economic independence of women, for that "next to the man, fighting for human independence." The historic Congress of the FORA V, 1905, resolved "propaganda aimed at organizing the woman", sending a fellow tour of the interior. Addition Voice of Women, including female-specific newspapers (written by and for women) further highlights our Tribuna (1922-1925), by the great activist and broadcaster of "Idea" Juana Rouco Buela. Several women's groups are active libertarian ending the century and early twentieth century, some of them driven by the Workers Federation (Regional) Argentina. Resistance societies, women's centers for illustration and clarification and strike committees took shape over the decades of anarchist influence in the labor movement and its rich socio-cultural life. While female participation is conditioned by prejudice Moral of the time, the continued repression of the government, which afflicts the entire range of anarchist activities, beyond gender, brand, lack of material resources, the intensity of the fighting and other factors, lack of regularity and not very high degree of integration achieved by these groups among the workers (an issue which is marked by not a few, and few specialists) and not dull its originality and merit. The constant propaganda about the specific condition of oppression among the workers inside and outside of factories or workshops, the various campaigns in working class neighborhoods and in rental housing on such diverse topics as contraception, health care and education workers or new ideals mentadísimo relational-the "free love" - \u200b\u200bto name a few examples, account for an oral and written preaching tirelessly in the pursuit of a life in a whole opposed to bourgeois alienation . In this historical context that line hastily forming an indigenous working class movement with the contribution of immigration "conscious" from Europe and the gradual incorporation of women into the ranks of the urban proletariat, stands La Voz de la Mujer The appearance this newspaper and its vicissitudes us about a phenomenon not without contradictions: from the second issue, the editors denounce the attitudes of male comrades, "false anarchists" are called, who proclaim the liberation of all humanity, but in practice remain strong supervision over "their" women. While there is no consensus in theory or in practice, it is clear that the strong libertarian concern to think through the structure of domination and implement ways of life against that dominance, even with its contrasts and contradictions ", opened a space for a specifically anarchist feminist development, as expressed in this paper and in later ones. In a quick list of titles, are: the double oppression of women (Which constitutes the most exploited sector of society); attack on marriage, to male power over women and the proposal of free love as a counterpart to the institutions of the bourgeoisie and the power of the Church to certain social Neo-Malthusianism circumvent the workers' misery and does not play more labor for the ruling class, the constant denunciation of bourgeois hypocrisy (for example, abortion is practiced by the gentry, by the nuns and priests); complaint relentless sexual exploitation as one of the main scourges to fight, a complex and radical discourse on sexuality, autonomy and the use of the body. More problematic is, however, the exaltation of the role of mother that, abnegadísima, who raises children anarchists. Else remains for detailed analysis of this key moment of local anarchists.
[iv] think, with Marie-Hélène Bourcier, if it is possible to have a feminist subject "pure", that emerge as a counterpart of domination located in men (which is commonly known as "patriarchy"). This author reminds us that the monolithic view of power is linked to an unambiguous and fixed conception of domination, oppression hierarchy so that confiscation and possible subjects invisible and liable to oppression cross (and resistance multiparous). The structure of domination seamless application makes it impossible to criticism and political struggles that are, in fact, in the context of a complex system or device (see Bourcier, Marie-Hélène: "The end of the domination (masculine): pouvoir des genres, et post-feminism feminism queer "in Multitudes Magazine No. 12, Paris 2003, htpp: / / www.multitudes.samizdat.net/article364.html.) domination is never solid and comprehensive, but multiple in these societies ( refer to Foucault: "Power, right, right" in Genealogy of racism, the Piquette, Madrid, 1992).
[v] Foucault explains how in the nineteenth century the struggle against exploitation came to the fore. And how in our days, the struggles against the forms of subjection, against submission of subjectivity, become increasingly important, even when the struggles against forms of domination and exploitation have not disappeared. Freedom is a condition for the exercise of power, not their absence. See Michel Foucault, "Why study power: the question of the subject", in Dreyfus-Rabinow: Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Nueva Visión, Buenos Aires, 2001.
[vi] "I think we should distinguish relations of power as strategic games between liberties-games that result in the fact that some people try to determine the behavior of others, and states of domination, which is commonly called power. And between them, the power games and the states of domination, there are technologies of government (...). The analysis of these techniques is necessary, because it is often through them that states establish and maintain domination. In my analysis of power, there are three levels: strategic relations, techniques and levels of government domination. " Foucault, Michel: The self minimalist and other conversations. P. 166
Permission To Travel Letter Pregnancy
The aim is ecstasy, the dream is death. Free love sex anarchist counter-hegemonic practices and self
[1] With this I am not implying that all past and cultures there was free love and women.
[2] "The love between anarchist, E. Armand in free love, Eros and Anarchy Baigorria Osvaldo (ed.)
[3] people probably prehistoric societies were able to have these two sides split largely due to the phenomenon known as parthenogenesis, where you know what was the intervention of man in the reproduction of the species, and therefore was completely secular sexuality from reproduction. 
wish for all I want for me: the freedom to act, to love, to think. Ie anarchy desire for all mankind
Scarfó America (1928 - Letter to Armand)
Scarfó America (1928 - Letter to Armand)
There is a beautiful event associated with Kafka I relate to the construction of ways of being-at the end of accounts, the subject of this brief work, and which says: "travel, sex and books are roads that lead nowhere, and yet are roads that have to penetrate and get lost to find or to find something, anything, a book, a gesture, a lost object, to find anything perhaps a method, hopefully, the new, what has always been there. "
As I believe there can be no division between life praxis and ideas, I'll start talking about me, because that forms part of what society would call" my private life "is actually a strong political commitment to the established order of things, which I hope will be destroyed at any time by the actions of other individuals like me. And beginning with the autobiographical tone because I think that we have not overcome the texts and the productions of scholars like Foucault or Butler Preciado about sexuality, but if it is time to put the body literally the case, and let to play the hidden sexuality, being as it is that the division by gender, qualification by gender expressions, and the exercise of sexuality that there is clear and "natural" are at least one of the pillars where the system is strongly supported playing the system we have today. However, my interest is not to prescribe how one should live in a future anarchist society, but try to find hic et nunc, from my own personal experience based on the intersection with other individuals, ways to subvert, dismantle and destroy the system as far as my concerns me (for taste) and more challenges me. I
Leonor. I have 32 years. I have sex with women from age 12, and males from the 15. I have three male lovers, and a female lover, not all these people live in my city, my longest relationship has been 8 years, and that person is the only one that I call family, and I want the other 3 also someday are, I think we walked to the affinity. And "I have" in this context means having a car, a house or a pair of slippers, it means giving my life (my body) to others with all our contradictions and weaknesses. These 4 people know about the others, some of them are known and are in turn love between them. Cojo
all I can, with any person who I like and want to catch me. And But those who know me know that I am anything but a friend of smiles, which Venus, kind or sympathetic. My idea is not released the girl always ready, but the activist who makes his shell a barricade because he knows that, in part, the vulva is one of the best things that get learned. Take to me is not just penetration, but being penetrated by the body, fists, dildos, vibrators, as well as penetrating my lovers is something we usually practice with extreme pleasure. We talked a lot about sex, fantasies and desires, as well as other policy issues around which the activists congregate. Whenever I can also try to have group sex (especially swingers nightclubs not) plus sadomasochistic practices of all kinds enjoy being sexually submissive or subjecting others with all manner of perversions, some of which include either pain or humiliation of some kind. I see sadomasochism as a work of art that is so much more exciting when it is prohibited. My practice S / M parody often politically hegemonic sexualities. Sadomasochism is the most extreme sexual experience: when sex becomes most purely sexual, the further away of love, anatomical reduction and romantic discipline. The S / M is the quintessence of sex without reproductive purposes: to create strange pleasure forms. Also explored enough exhibitionism and the sexualization of public space, and work on the citation deviant sexual conventions allows sexualized (and so resemantizing) such as jealousy (or does not it remains privately owned). Not my body or my sexuality, I feel shame, and masturbation and auto-eroticism is an excellent opportunity for my sex life. My life is like that of muchxs, full of contradictions to be overcome, but not double-talk, false consciousness, or hypocrisy.
not usually found in the anarchist movement (and only discuss otrxs ellxs because vegan activists and movements are even worse in regard to sexuality) or lovers or sex related, but That does not surprise me, not usually found in the anarchist movement, beyond some honorable exceptions, rather than playing themselves what they want to abolish, or were supposed to algunxs wanted: young married couples who had a child by an oversight, and now charge with that, long engagements with sexuality romanticoides unsatisfactory and where she always believed in a concept so slavish and restrictive for their own freedom and emancipation as "eternal love" and where he is able to say things like "we can do whatever you want but she does not realize the damage because "moralists of all kinds, all colors essentialist motherhood holding as a destination for women, couples unequal gender roles, penetrative sexual and reproductive functions, etc.
The picture is, to say the least, bleak. We're not even where we had left the anarchist Emma Goldman in the early past century reminds us that love can only be free, that love dies with the marriage, and if by some mystery survives after getting married, it was not the marriage. Of course Emma was referring to heterosexuals in a time where it was virtually impossible for a woman or a man, evade their civic and social responsibility to marry and enter, thus the system of capitalist production and reproduction which the anarcho-feminist opposed. And the reality is that today there is no longer much difference between going through the church or registry office and living with family ties faux marriage, but we want self-deceiving. In fact the couple, even a couple who freely choose to be mutual and state-blessed - as I thought Emma Goldman would be the link between two human beings who love, "is an institution in itself always presupposes that the most desirable is not alone. Moreover, we fell in love (ie, suffer the cathexis) of freedom but the first thing we demand and demand is security, which clearly does not exist, repeating the pattern will not be happy but I have a husband (or weds) and forget couples closed who also risk tomorrow This continuing story. Forget that question open relationships, monogamy, a model which, as is well known, is very recent (about 200 years) and that comes from the hand and the service of capitalism [1] . In fact, in line with Armand and the couple or family are eligible to "develop the anarchist conception of life. The family is a small state, even when parents are anarchists .... " As write Rossi, a journalist of the socialist community in the late nineteenth century and managed to settle the anarchist community project in Brazil called Colonia Cecilia "Change rites and the names as we want ... but while we have a man, a woman, a hijxs, a house, we have a family, a small company that is authoritarian, jealous of its prerogatives .... " As we see, we have regressed enough boxes when nuestrxs anarchists today are no longer as concerned issues such as alternative forms of power, and from art and sexuality.
But it is understood, this exploration of open relationships and all sexual practices and usually repressed it contained no means to experience a sort of secret joys and return home unscathed to pretend that nothing has happened, not convinced by the sexologist Alessandra Rampolla of "everything is normal", but rather the contrary, imports the "abnormal." Nor is it to emulate the swinger covenants that reinforce the idea of \u200b\u200bcouples, a two indissoluble where women are often used as a bargaining chip to gain access to new goods, ie where other women and erotic games between them are focused on warming partner only. Rather, it is unthinkable relations proposed subversive and rebellious social rearrangements that may already be trying, here now, pleasant, happy, and threateningly radical indecency given regulated country within the community itself, and reproduces reorganization models the sex of the traditional bourgeois heterosexual family, without being aware of it, a kind of false consciousness of gender. Because, besides "love love may also include, above all, the happiness of one who loves" or does not say that our freedom Bakunin and multiplies otrxs free vegan. In love, as in everything else, "is only what destroys wealth of jealousy and envy" [2] .
But I know that "saying yes to sex is not to say no to power," becoming a sexual insurgent trying to lift barriers to the boiling of repressed impulses, in a relentless pursuit of many lovers as desirable people find my way. On the contrary, it is an intensification of pleasures, new ways of love, new relationships erotic resist the disciplining of sexuality and increase the pleasures and bodily pleasures to intervene and transform the reality. Effective resistance to the heteronormative productivity that has entered our lives with our approval and we have been deprived of life lovemaking more exciting, more extreme, more risk to achieve counterproductivity, which deliberately plays on the surfaces of our bodies with shapes or intensities of pleasure and enjoyment not covered, so to speak, by the authoritarian ratings up now we have issued authoritatively what sex is and what their sexuality.
The proposal is to think the body as a site of resistance against the construction biopolitics hypersexualization demanding forms of sexual functions total break with traditional forms of feminism standard, systematically deconstructing not only the desire but the sexual practices of gender system hegemonic, and the entire gender system. Counterproductivity, pleasure-namely, that makes us excited permanently out of production-reproduction chain (whether they be children, whether they practice, be it relationships, or things), always being aware that there is no pure sexuality - contrasexual not pure, "but what if you can have is discomfort and resistance, and that sexuality is not that nameless and less land, natural and merely unconscious or conscious pre worse, but the device from where the power with great power in its more naturalized state. Hence the need for full sexual consciousness (an insurgency), sexualizing the entire body surface, all fetishes and disidentified reproductive organs with sex organs (easily achievable task for the woman who knows since the mid-40, against reactionary vulgata and by J & J that the only possible orgasm is the clitoris is not part of the reproductive system [3] ).
And unfortunately, this practice of resistance, this sexual self-learning, construction and eroticism that you want to lead to greater wealth libidinal and destruction of social taboos, indicators of the socio-ideological repression and testimony of human alienation will not be carried on without effort, without conscience, without mutual support from other individuals and especially unwilling to get rid of gender privileges that clearly produce oppression and exclusion. As you may have noticed, do not believe in sex as a natural instinct, or as organ or as a practice. By contrast, according to Preciado and Foucault, think of it as a technology of domination heterosocial that reduces the body's erogenous zones according to a skewed distribution of gender and its expressions and disciplines. The heterosexual political system, in the words of Wittig, divide and fragment the body identified as focal areas of natural sexual difference. The roles and practices that are attributed to the male gender is an arbitrary set of rules inscribed in the bodies that ensure the material exploitation of one sex over another favoring the penis (a type of penis with certain steps and certain practices and not others ) a privileged place of intercourse, and subtracting from now, creativity, and of course, pleasure, a refuge for our freedom, being a perversion, in an opinion a bit rushed, a bastion of resistance, as quoted out of context, unproductive sexuality exposes another disciplinatoria sexuality as hetero ideology.
"hard? Certainly, like all struggles. Impossible? No way. No doubt anti-hegemonic sexualities and relationships and bonds of affinity ranks first they are desirable and necessary to live today as we would like to live tomorrow.
As I believe there can be no division between life praxis and ideas, I'll start talking about me, because that forms part of what society would call" my private life "is actually a strong political commitment to the established order of things, which I hope will be destroyed at any time by the actions of other individuals like me. And beginning with the autobiographical tone because I think that we have not overcome the texts and the productions of scholars like Foucault or Butler Preciado about sexuality, but if it is time to put the body literally the case, and let to play the hidden sexuality, being as it is that the division by gender, qualification by gender expressions, and the exercise of sexuality that there is clear and "natural" are at least one of the pillars where the system is strongly supported playing the system we have today. However, my interest is not to prescribe how one should live in a future anarchist society, but try to find hic et nunc, from my own personal experience based on the intersection with other individuals, ways to subvert, dismantle and destroy the system as far as my concerns me (for taste) and more challenges me. I
Leonor. I have 32 years. I have sex with women from age 12, and males from the 15. I have three male lovers, and a female lover, not all these people live in my city, my longest relationship has been 8 years, and that person is the only one that I call family, and I want the other 3 also someday are, I think we walked to the affinity. And "I have" in this context means having a car, a house or a pair of slippers, it means giving my life (my body) to others with all our contradictions and weaknesses. These 4 people know about the others, some of them are known and are in turn love between them. Cojo
all I can, with any person who I like and want to catch me. And But those who know me know that I am anything but a friend of smiles, which Venus, kind or sympathetic. My idea is not released the girl always ready, but the activist who makes his shell a barricade because he knows that, in part, the vulva is one of the best things that get learned. Take to me is not just penetration, but being penetrated by the body, fists, dildos, vibrators, as well as penetrating my lovers is something we usually practice with extreme pleasure. We talked a lot about sex, fantasies and desires, as well as other policy issues around which the activists congregate. Whenever I can also try to have group sex (especially swingers nightclubs not) plus sadomasochistic practices of all kinds enjoy being sexually submissive or subjecting others with all manner of perversions, some of which include either pain or humiliation of some kind. I see sadomasochism as a work of art that is so much more exciting when it is prohibited. My practice S / M parody often politically hegemonic sexualities. Sadomasochism is the most extreme sexual experience: when sex becomes most purely sexual, the further away of love, anatomical reduction and romantic discipline. The S / M is the quintessence of sex without reproductive purposes: to create strange pleasure forms. Also explored enough exhibitionism and the sexualization of public space, and work on the citation deviant sexual conventions allows sexualized (and so resemantizing) such as jealousy (or does not it remains privately owned). Not my body or my sexuality, I feel shame, and masturbation and auto-eroticism is an excellent opportunity for my sex life. My life is like that of muchxs, full of contradictions to be overcome, but not double-talk, false consciousness, or hypocrisy.
not usually found in the anarchist movement (and only discuss otrxs ellxs because vegan activists and movements are even worse in regard to sexuality) or lovers or sex related, but That does not surprise me, not usually found in the anarchist movement, beyond some honorable exceptions, rather than playing themselves what they want to abolish, or were supposed to algunxs wanted: young married couples who had a child by an oversight, and now charge with that, long engagements with sexuality romanticoides unsatisfactory and where she always believed in a concept so slavish and restrictive for their own freedom and emancipation as "eternal love" and where he is able to say things like "we can do whatever you want but she does not realize the damage because "moralists of all kinds, all colors essentialist motherhood holding as a destination for women, couples unequal gender roles, penetrative sexual and reproductive functions, etc.
The picture is, to say the least, bleak. We're not even where we had left the anarchist Emma Goldman in the early past century reminds us that love can only be free, that love dies with the marriage, and if by some mystery survives after getting married, it was not the marriage. Of course Emma was referring to heterosexuals in a time where it was virtually impossible for a woman or a man, evade their civic and social responsibility to marry and enter, thus the system of capitalist production and reproduction which the anarcho-feminist opposed. And the reality is that today there is no longer much difference between going through the church or registry office and living with family ties faux marriage, but we want self-deceiving. In fact the couple, even a couple who freely choose to be mutual and state-blessed - as I thought Emma Goldman would be the link between two human beings who love, "is an institution in itself always presupposes that the most desirable is not alone. Moreover, we fell in love (ie, suffer the cathexis) of freedom but the first thing we demand and demand is security, which clearly does not exist, repeating the pattern will not be happy but I have a husband (or weds) and forget couples closed who also risk tomorrow This continuing story. Forget that question open relationships, monogamy, a model which, as is well known, is very recent (about 200 years) and that comes from the hand and the service of capitalism [1] . In fact, in line with Armand and the couple or family are eligible to "develop the anarchist conception of life. The family is a small state, even when parents are anarchists .... " As write Rossi, a journalist of the socialist community in the late nineteenth century and managed to settle the anarchist community project in Brazil called Colonia Cecilia "Change rites and the names as we want ... but while we have a man, a woman, a hijxs, a house, we have a family, a small company that is authoritarian, jealous of its prerogatives .... " As we see, we have regressed enough boxes when nuestrxs anarchists today are no longer as concerned issues such as alternative forms of power, and from art and sexuality.
But it is understood, this exploration of open relationships and all sexual practices and usually repressed it contained no means to experience a sort of secret joys and return home unscathed to pretend that nothing has happened, not convinced by the sexologist Alessandra Rampolla of "everything is normal", but rather the contrary, imports the "abnormal." Nor is it to emulate the swinger covenants that reinforce the idea of \u200b\u200bcouples, a two indissoluble where women are often used as a bargaining chip to gain access to new goods, ie where other women and erotic games between them are focused on warming partner only. Rather, it is unthinkable relations proposed subversive and rebellious social rearrangements that may already be trying, here now, pleasant, happy, and threateningly radical indecency given regulated country within the community itself, and reproduces reorganization models the sex of the traditional bourgeois heterosexual family, without being aware of it, a kind of false consciousness of gender. Because, besides "love love may also include, above all, the happiness of one who loves" or does not say that our freedom Bakunin and multiplies otrxs free vegan. In love, as in everything else, "is only what destroys wealth of jealousy and envy" [2] .
But I know that "saying yes to sex is not to say no to power," becoming a sexual insurgent trying to lift barriers to the boiling of repressed impulses, in a relentless pursuit of many lovers as desirable people find my way. On the contrary, it is an intensification of pleasures, new ways of love, new relationships erotic resist the disciplining of sexuality and increase the pleasures and bodily pleasures to intervene and transform the reality. Effective resistance to the heteronormative productivity that has entered our lives with our approval and we have been deprived of life lovemaking more exciting, more extreme, more risk to achieve counterproductivity, which deliberately plays on the surfaces of our bodies with shapes or intensities of pleasure and enjoyment not covered, so to speak, by the authoritarian ratings up now we have issued authoritatively what sex is and what their sexuality.
The proposal is to think the body as a site of resistance against the construction biopolitics hypersexualization demanding forms of sexual functions total break with traditional forms of feminism standard, systematically deconstructing not only the desire but the sexual practices of gender system hegemonic, and the entire gender system. Counterproductivity, pleasure-namely, that makes us excited permanently out of production-reproduction chain (whether they be children, whether they practice, be it relationships, or things), always being aware that there is no pure sexuality - contrasexual not pure, "but what if you can have is discomfort and resistance, and that sexuality is not that nameless and less land, natural and merely unconscious or conscious pre worse, but the device from where the power with great power in its more naturalized state. Hence the need for full sexual consciousness (an insurgency), sexualizing the entire body surface, all fetishes and disidentified reproductive organs with sex organs (easily achievable task for the woman who knows since the mid-40, against reactionary vulgata and by J & J that the only possible orgasm is the clitoris is not part of the reproductive system [3] ).
And unfortunately, this practice of resistance, this sexual self-learning, construction and eroticism that you want to lead to greater wealth libidinal and destruction of social taboos, indicators of the socio-ideological repression and testimony of human alienation will not be carried on without effort, without conscience, without mutual support from other individuals and especially unwilling to get rid of gender privileges that clearly produce oppression and exclusion. As you may have noticed, do not believe in sex as a natural instinct, or as organ or as a practice. By contrast, according to Preciado and Foucault, think of it as a technology of domination heterosocial that reduces the body's erogenous zones according to a skewed distribution of gender and its expressions and disciplines. The heterosexual political system, in the words of Wittig, divide and fragment the body identified as focal areas of natural sexual difference. The roles and practices that are attributed to the male gender is an arbitrary set of rules inscribed in the bodies that ensure the material exploitation of one sex over another favoring the penis (a type of penis with certain steps and certain practices and not others ) a privileged place of intercourse, and subtracting from now, creativity, and of course, pleasure, a refuge for our freedom, being a perversion, in an opinion a bit rushed, a bastion of resistance, as quoted out of context, unproductive sexuality exposes another disciplinatoria sexuality as hetero ideology.
"hard? Certainly, like all struggles. Impossible? No way. No doubt anti-hegemonic sexualities and relationships and bonds of affinity ranks first they are desirable and necessary to live today as we would like to live tomorrow.
Leonor Silvestri
leocatlove@gmail.com
http://www.leomiau76.blogspot.com/
http://www.anarcopervertismo.blogspot.com/
http://www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com/
leocatlove@gmail.com
http://www.leomiau76.blogspot.com/
http://www.anarcopervertismo.blogspot.com/
http://www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com/
[1] With this I am not implying that all past and cultures there was free love and women.
[2] "The love between anarchist, E. Armand in free love, Eros and Anarchy Baigorria Osvaldo (ed.)
[3] people probably prehistoric societies were able to have these two sides split largely due to the phenomenon known as parthenogenesis, where you know what was the intervention of man in the reproduction of the species, and therefore was completely secular sexuality from reproduction.
Too Much Protein Causes Nosebleeds
Base material - are not made of air
is not the intention of returning to the old debate between anarchism and Marxism, especially considering that Marxism itself more than once did not know what to do with their own theoretical and practical treasure. The question of materialism, as proposed based on the immanence philosophy, atheism, the use of reason and science, it is common to both anarchism and Marxism. But the waters were divided at the time of stress or not the famous "base material" condition of human action. Except
gray crosses between the two traditions, can say that, broadly speaking, the Marxist political tradition have placed much emphasis on material conditions of production and the economy when to intervene, while the anarchists put emphasis on freedom of action and life of individual subjects and collective. This is not exactly true, I'm just stating what most "noise" made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and does justice to the diversity of practices that have escaped the doctrinal lines, authors' affiliations, etc.
being rude, we can say that the version of materialism that we know as a member of Marxism is a crude version introduced by Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and remains that spreads even in academic and extra-party even though they have nothing to do with party affiliation or traditional theoretical work.
anarchist tendencies, have historically been more concerned with freedom in action, by building self-help material devices therefore have bequeathed a rich theoretical literature that adopts a special theme to the economy and modes of production demands for freedom, to be in terms of currency, a diagnosis of social structure is of little use.
This is true because these diagnoses have been of little use to Marxisms politicians when they had the chance to take in hand the company and its state. In practical terms, have been reproduced despotic production mechanisms taken from Taylorism and Fordism. In this regard, my position is closer to anarchism proposes a current embodiment of a different society, independent of programmatic and abstract delusions. Of course I do not speak of anarchism in general, because for example, anarcho-syndicalism is with a strong program with which I disagree.
I will not go to select from the vast range of theoretical and practical positions of both traditions, it would be interesting to revive and reinterpret some but this is beyond the scope of my paper.
Turning to the base material, if that matters is to establish the liberty and, why stop to think about how to build the economy, how we ensure our survival?
First, because the balance of militancy in the last centuries found that there was no royal road to social change. In fact there were many, and the most original, as the English self have lasted as long as the time allowed between world wars. Note that I say that has lasted for a limited time and not have been defeated. I'm going to expound a bit on this. A historian
French revolutions called Sylvain Lazarus, very intelligent, evades the problem of the length of the variable speed military victory or defeat. He says that revolutions are "exhausted" because the power unleashed by libertarian forces eventually wear out trying to cope with internal problems associated with having to specify, manage and secure your everyday life, its economy, its institutions, its policy, more taking into account the threat of the enemy all the time cause confusion about the decisions you make and wear these forces ends.
makes no sense to speak of defeat is like saying that an apple fell from the tree defeated by gravity. A revolution is exhausted just as the falling apple. It only makes sense to consider the situations, challenges and strategies. Staying on the subject of failure or defeat is an ideal of eternal duration of things.
Turning to political issues: the question of the state, for instance, divided the Marxist or anarchist just a matter of time: it abolishes the State and or a time through a process of taking power. But today we realize that both attitudes emerged in the midst of a troubled land, the European working masses organized in the past centuries.
And that is why today, in very different, far exists organized labor and anti-capitalist mass, seems distant to us the possibility of abolishing the state (especially when today is often the last to assure widespread misery, and to the radical atomization of ties). But it is far for the same reasons that Marxists, because we realized that not taking tomorrow to solve anything.
I think our time compels us to produce an unprecedented hybrid: the synthesis between freedom in action and organization of material sources of livelihood. It's true that we conducted experiments of this type, but the truth is that not enough thought has been given about the need to combine both to be effective. No has thought long and hard about it because the sky was near the hands and well, provided we act according to the needs and situations.
Now that the sky seems so far away, and where the militant preaching seems to find so little resonance mass as factories or markets recovered solidarity, we have a double problem: ideas that have challenged and organization effectiveness, organization materials facing the limits of the capitalist market, forcing the particularization. The siren call of marketing cornering us three options: to seduce, to work with the image, to increase forever the same speeches and strategies, or stay passive waiting better times, but in general are worse.
The output of commercial corset-state and not just because the state also became a commodity, we again turn our gaze to the material conditions.
And here is where we can rescue the most interesting core of Marxism, which is not limited to famous analysis of the modes of production, social formations, the ultimate determination of the economy.
That core is the most basic and crucial: people and their culture is characterized by the way they get their food and shelter. The struggle for food, which is consecrated by the ruling biblically "Sweat of your brow you will get your support" is what continues to operate in the institutions that we knew to build, so that where there appears to play a real problem of obtaining the support (Hegel would say: this is a struggle for recognition ), is precisely where the material continues to condition.
What Marx analyzed as commodity fetishism, or ideology, is actually quite simple: is the neglect of the material, forgetting that in reality our symbolic conflicts, cultural, affective, are mediated by the way we mobilize our energies, knowledge and strength to obtain or produce our food. Not interested scrutinize both the genesis of that failure, looking for alleged human essence has to be dominated, to a lopsided balance between objective and subjective forces, both like to analyze the social sciences. Neither the indication of that failure will illuminate the alienated and take the right path of alienation, because if you do not propose a practical device for alienated'm just preaching the gospel as a priest.
So, what it pays to remember that neglect? Serves to realize we are not free to work or produce our food. We are required to turn them into goods and place them in a market. Market goods and there was always say, but these two little words are not central in all societies but in capitalism, because capitalism is where almost everything tends to be absorbed in the relationship of buying and selling. I said almost everything because its rule is not absolute and depends on certain social areas are outside the law of value: the unconditional support of family members or care work (when we share things and teach them to friends, etc.).
However, the policy problem appears when we realize that is not enough that the family does or that we can have friends, because in reality the capital not only valuing the real colonization but leaving parasite outside its domain. The thing gets more screwed if the family or friends insist that capitalism, selfishness, immunity are the best ways of making life. But here we are dealing with is to think about is how we can expand our capacity to those who think that this is not our way.
anarchists who broke with the family in the early nineteenth century had their contention on the primary union, they were workers who always had a job because they were organized in branches (bakers, etc).
libertarian militants of the decade of 60/70 could break with the family because there was full employment welfare state in Europe and Argentina.
Today it is not possible economic empowerment of the family, but rather more capital exploits the workers know that what they lack of support is patched with the support of father, aunt, income, field, scholarship, allowance, etc..
Paradoxically, if there is a time when gritty fight for the money (a fetish of support) that time is today. Today is where we all know, cynically, that a university chair, a play, a clinic, ie in institutions is at stake something cultural, recognition, or even care, it is so evident naked competition to get very scarce goods (Jobs, promotion, approval of projects, grants, etc).
Then, before anyone says to already know that there is a clear intention behind hidden shit, to seduce, for profit. Before criticism should make great efforts to expose such intentions. So we believe when we realize combinationes so easy, but because the material conditions and social arrangements of production have changed much until today. It is a crime continue to report and critical when everyone already knows immediately how things work today.
Where fetishism is still operating as we continue to believe in the effectiveness of speeches, relying on the ideological interpellation, meanwhile material disposal situations remain intact. The complaint, rather than change a situation, only puts us in a place of moral purity, which again, forget the impurity of our sources of subsistence, traded places every day for our sustenance: the chair, work, family, etc.. And when some people try to do something different in space that moves, not usually combat value because not totally abolish the structures in which it is immersed, structures certainly have to see how it continues to guarantee the flow loop and livelihoods once abolished.
will say that this is a power problem, which is true, but there is a greater power, and it is one's ability to get food together with others and against others. The power never leaves the food because without it no life, simply. The threat of loss of life comes not only the gun but the lack of food. Although centuries of religious domination made us believe that we are ethereal spirits, the reward is after death, we continue to act on these principles by other names. Are not we cutting things all the time an image problem? Are we not thinking about our actions based on elusive and improbable future?
I said. We're not made of air, the spirit, there are gravitational forces and we have to take care of them, and recently we have opened the way for political emancipation.
My friend maikel:
1) Be very specific in relation to the areas where the law of value operates to distinguish them from those where it operates "as defective." These latter cases may be found in emergency situations (markets solidarity, fair price, factories, etc) which set limits to the law of value, although it continues to operate. Where it does not operate this means that there is no exchange of equivalents, because there is no equivalent. Is the scope of the gift.
2) For there to be a gift situation must previously have an extraordinary transfer of drive from the "justice" to "detachment." From the point of view of the gift is completely irrelevant whether or not received anything. Of course it is more irrelevant still received something in return. "
3) However, to be sustainable a collective situation of gift, that commitment must be shared. In a collective situation that there can be "harvested." One advantage is that it tries to live by two rules at the same time, according to what suits you at all times.
4) A gift collective situation, can be in turn, overall, a relationship of value out of that situation? Obviously yes. What is not so clear is how that would change the situation itself. To not be too purist would say that to the extent that the business relationship with the outside is very minor and not significant to the survival of the situation, there should be no problem. Moreover gift any situation could be completely autonomous, due to the need for means of production, even elementary. Due to the great division of labor, which is correspondingly a division of knowledge, is clearly a situation unlikely to be self-sufficient.
5) Anyway have to study production and distribution aspects of a situation. There is much to learn from experiences, both successful and disastrous. Jorge Iacobsohn
is not the intention of returning to the old debate between anarchism and Marxism, especially considering that Marxism itself more than once did not know what to do with their own theoretical and practical treasure. The question of materialism, as proposed based on the immanence philosophy, atheism, the use of reason and science, it is common to both anarchism and Marxism. But the waters were divided at the time of stress or not the famous "base material" condition of human action. Except
gray crosses between the two traditions, can say that, broadly speaking, the Marxist political tradition have placed much emphasis on material conditions of production and the economy when to intervene, while the anarchists put emphasis on freedom of action and life of individual subjects and collective. This is not exactly true, I'm just stating what most "noise" made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and does justice to the diversity of practices that have escaped the doctrinal lines, authors' affiliations, etc.
being rude, we can say that the version of materialism that we know as a member of Marxism is a crude version introduced by Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, and remains that spreads even in academic and extra-party even though they have nothing to do with party affiliation or traditional theoretical work.
anarchist tendencies, have historically been more concerned with freedom in action, by building self-help material devices therefore have bequeathed a rich theoretical literature that adopts a special theme to the economy and modes of production demands for freedom, to be in terms of currency, a diagnosis of social structure is of little use.
This is true because these diagnoses have been of little use to Marxisms politicians when they had the chance to take in hand the company and its state. In practical terms, have been reproduced despotic production mechanisms taken from Taylorism and Fordism. In this regard, my position is closer to anarchism proposes a current embodiment of a different society, independent of programmatic and abstract delusions. Of course I do not speak of anarchism in general, because for example, anarcho-syndicalism is with a strong program with which I disagree.
I will not go to select from the vast range of theoretical and practical positions of both traditions, it would be interesting to revive and reinterpret some but this is beyond the scope of my paper.
Turning to the base material, if that matters is to establish the liberty and, why stop to think about how to build the economy, how we ensure our survival?
First, because the balance of militancy in the last centuries found that there was no royal road to social change. In fact there were many, and the most original, as the English self have lasted as long as the time allowed between world wars. Note that I say that has lasted for a limited time and not have been defeated. I'm going to expound a bit on this. A historian
French revolutions called Sylvain Lazarus, very intelligent, evades the problem of the length of the variable speed military victory or defeat. He says that revolutions are "exhausted" because the power unleashed by libertarian forces eventually wear out trying to cope with internal problems associated with having to specify, manage and secure your everyday life, its economy, its institutions, its policy, more taking into account the threat of the enemy all the time cause confusion about the decisions you make and wear these forces ends.
makes no sense to speak of defeat is like saying that an apple fell from the tree defeated by gravity. A revolution is exhausted just as the falling apple. It only makes sense to consider the situations, challenges and strategies. Staying on the subject of failure or defeat is an ideal of eternal duration of things.
Turning to political issues: the question of the state, for instance, divided the Marxist or anarchist just a matter of time: it abolishes the State and or a time through a process of taking power. But today we realize that both attitudes emerged in the midst of a troubled land, the European working masses organized in the past centuries.
And that is why today, in very different, far exists organized labor and anti-capitalist mass, seems distant to us the possibility of abolishing the state (especially when today is often the last to assure widespread misery, and to the radical atomization of ties). But it is far for the same reasons that Marxists, because we realized that not taking tomorrow to solve anything.
I think our time compels us to produce an unprecedented hybrid: the synthesis between freedom in action and organization of material sources of livelihood. It's true that we conducted experiments of this type, but the truth is that not enough thought has been given about the need to combine both to be effective. No has thought long and hard about it because the sky was near the hands and well, provided we act according to the needs and situations.
Now that the sky seems so far away, and where the militant preaching seems to find so little resonance mass as factories or markets recovered solidarity, we have a double problem: ideas that have challenged and organization effectiveness, organization materials facing the limits of the capitalist market, forcing the particularization. The siren call of marketing cornering us three options: to seduce, to work with the image, to increase forever the same speeches and strategies, or stay passive waiting better times, but in general are worse.
The output of commercial corset-state and not just because the state also became a commodity, we again turn our gaze to the material conditions.
And here is where we can rescue the most interesting core of Marxism, which is not limited to famous analysis of the modes of production, social formations, the ultimate determination of the economy.
That core is the most basic and crucial: people and their culture is characterized by the way they get their food and shelter. The struggle for food, which is consecrated by the ruling biblically "Sweat of your brow you will get your support" is what continues to operate in the institutions that we knew to build, so that where there appears to play a real problem of obtaining the support (Hegel would say: this is a struggle for recognition ), is precisely where the material continues to condition.
What Marx analyzed as commodity fetishism, or ideology, is actually quite simple: is the neglect of the material, forgetting that in reality our symbolic conflicts, cultural, affective, are mediated by the way we mobilize our energies, knowledge and strength to obtain or produce our food. Not interested scrutinize both the genesis of that failure, looking for alleged human essence has to be dominated, to a lopsided balance between objective and subjective forces, both like to analyze the social sciences. Neither the indication of that failure will illuminate the alienated and take the right path of alienation, because if you do not propose a practical device for alienated'm just preaching the gospel as a priest.
So, what it pays to remember that neglect? Serves to realize we are not free to work or produce our food. We are required to turn them into goods and place them in a market. Market goods and there was always say, but these two little words are not central in all societies but in capitalism, because capitalism is where almost everything tends to be absorbed in the relationship of buying and selling. I said almost everything because its rule is not absolute and depends on certain social areas are outside the law of value: the unconditional support of family members or care work (when we share things and teach them to friends, etc.).
However, the policy problem appears when we realize that is not enough that the family does or that we can have friends, because in reality the capital not only valuing the real colonization but leaving parasite outside its domain. The thing gets more screwed if the family or friends insist that capitalism, selfishness, immunity are the best ways of making life. But here we are dealing with is to think about is how we can expand our capacity to those who think that this is not our way.
anarchists who broke with the family in the early nineteenth century had their contention on the primary union, they were workers who always had a job because they were organized in branches (bakers, etc).
libertarian militants of the decade of 60/70 could break with the family because there was full employment welfare state in Europe and Argentina.
Today it is not possible economic empowerment of the family, but rather more capital exploits the workers know that what they lack of support is patched with the support of father, aunt, income, field, scholarship, allowance, etc..
Paradoxically, if there is a time when gritty fight for the money (a fetish of support) that time is today. Today is where we all know, cynically, that a university chair, a play, a clinic, ie in institutions is at stake something cultural, recognition, or even care, it is so evident naked competition to get very scarce goods (Jobs, promotion, approval of projects, grants, etc).
Then, before anyone says to already know that there is a clear intention behind hidden shit, to seduce, for profit. Before criticism should make great efforts to expose such intentions. So we believe when we realize combinationes so easy, but because the material conditions and social arrangements of production have changed much until today. It is a crime continue to report and critical when everyone already knows immediately how things work today.
Where fetishism is still operating as we continue to believe in the effectiveness of speeches, relying on the ideological interpellation, meanwhile material disposal situations remain intact. The complaint, rather than change a situation, only puts us in a place of moral purity, which again, forget the impurity of our sources of subsistence, traded places every day for our sustenance: the chair, work, family, etc.. And when some people try to do something different in space that moves, not usually combat value because not totally abolish the structures in which it is immersed, structures certainly have to see how it continues to guarantee the flow loop and livelihoods once abolished.
will say that this is a power problem, which is true, but there is a greater power, and it is one's ability to get food together with others and against others. The power never leaves the food because without it no life, simply. The threat of loss of life comes not only the gun but the lack of food. Although centuries of religious domination made us believe that we are ethereal spirits, the reward is after death, we continue to act on these principles by other names. Are not we cutting things all the time an image problem? Are we not thinking about our actions based on elusive and improbable future?
I said. We're not made of air, the spirit, there are gravitational forces and we have to take care of them, and recently we have opened the way for political emancipation.
My friend maikel:
1) Be very specific in relation to the areas where the law of value operates to distinguish them from those where it operates "as defective." These latter cases may be found in emergency situations (markets solidarity, fair price, factories, etc) which set limits to the law of value, although it continues to operate. Where it does not operate this means that there is no exchange of equivalents, because there is no equivalent. Is the scope of the gift.
2) For there to be a gift situation must previously have an extraordinary transfer of drive from the "justice" to "detachment." From the point of view of the gift is completely irrelevant whether or not received anything. Of course it is more irrelevant still received something in return. "
3) However, to be sustainable a collective situation of gift, that commitment must be shared. In a collective situation that there can be "harvested." One advantage is that it tries to live by two rules at the same time, according to what suits you at all times.
4) A gift collective situation, can be in turn, overall, a relationship of value out of that situation? Obviously yes. What is not so clear is how that would change the situation itself. To not be too purist would say that to the extent that the business relationship with the outside is very minor and not significant to the survival of the situation, there should be no problem. Moreover gift any situation could be completely autonomous, due to the need for means of production, even elementary. Due to the great division of labor, which is correspondingly a division of knowledge, is clearly a situation unlikely to be self-sufficient.
5) Anyway have to study production and distribution aspects of a situation. There is much to learn from experiences, both successful and disastrous. Jorge Iacobsohn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)