user preferences

New Events

International

no event posted in the last week

The Ecological Crisis is an Economic Crisis is an Energy Crisis

category international | environment | opinion / analysis author Monday July 26, 2010 08:09author by Wayne Price - personal opinionauthor email drwdprice at aol dot com Report this post to the editors

PART II: A Revolutionary Anarchist Program

The world crisis is economic, ecological, and energy-based. Liberals want the state to regulate business and have a "new New Deal" to rebuild the economy and ecology. It won't work. Revolutionary anarchists want a new, ecological, economy which is democratically planned, produces for need not for profit, and is a decentralized federalism.
airpollution.jpg


The Ecological Crisis is an Economic Crisis is an Energy Crisis

PART II: A Revolutionary Anarchist Program


The glaciers of the Himalayas, it is reported, have been shrinking in every direction. On the roof of the world, glaciers have lost over 300 vertical feet, due to global warming and pollution, both caused by human reliance on fossil fuels. In turn, the shrinkage of the glaciers inceases the amount of sunlight which is not reflected but is absorbed by the earth and therefore increases global warming. According to the June issue of Science magazine, in the Indus and Brahmaputra river basins, the potential loss of annual glacial melt is “threatening the food security of an estimated 60 million people” (quoted in NY Times, 7/18/10, p. 10WK). This is what industrial capitalism is doing to our world.

“If the science is correct,…within the next twenty to thirty years…there is the danger that a tipping point will be reached, setting in motion irreversible warming trends….The earth will become unrecognizable and all life on it will be threatened” (Herod, 2010; p. 23).

The Liberal Program

Conservatives argue that a major overhaul of business’s relation to the environment would be extremely costly and would effect our whole way of life. Therefore they conclude essentially that nothing should be done. Alternately, liberals believe that the democratically-elected government--the state—could use legal regulations to force oil companies, such as BP, and other industries to act ecologically responsible, to develop a balanced, non-growth, economy. Doesn’t the government represent the whole society?

More sophisticated radicals (social democrats) note that it would be in the self-interest of the whole capitalist class to create a more stable, sustaining, relationship to nature, as opposed to permitting ecological catastrophes, such as global warming. After all, the capitalists have to live on this planet too. While individual capitalists might have a short-sighted desire to make profits at the expense of the environment, it is the job of the state to be the “executive committee” of the whole class and act in its collective interest.

The U.S. capitalist state did set aside a number of national parks, banned DDT (after Rachel Carson’s popular expose’), cut back acid rain, closed the hole in the ozone layer (as Ilan pointed out in a comment to Part I) by banning CFCs, and improved the health of major rivers (such as the Hudson, under pressure from Pete Seeger and others), set aside a “superfund” to bury industrial pollutants (after the Love Canal protests), and so on. All of these were done only through fights and have been maintained only through on-going struggles (as in the constant battles to maintain the parks). But they were done. Why can’t the capitalist state, ask liberals and social democratic reformists, similarly reorganize the economy and technology to be ecologically balanced? That is the liberal (and reformist) perspective.

However, what is necessary is not fixing this or that anti-ecological industry but the entire capitalist economy and its productive technology, in every aspect of its interaction with the natural environment. It is a total crisis. Unfortunately, the conservatives are right: change will be very expensive and disruptive. To the extent that there is a specific industry involved, it is the fossil fuel industry. As I argued in Part I, this industry underlays every aspect of society: our transportation, our heating, our production, our food (artificial fertilizers and pesticides), our clothing (artificial fibers), and everything we use plastics for. Naturally, Big Oil and Big Coal are wealthy and powerful, taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits annually. They buy up politicians and judges by the carload. They own local and national governments. It was one thing to ban marginal products such as CFCs or DDT. It would be quite another to abolish oil, coal, and natural gas, no matter how gradually.

The oil industry is not really in the business of producing oil (let alone of providing jobs for workers). It is in the business of making money (in Marxist terms, it is interested in exchange value, not use value). If the oceans are destroyed but BP walks away with a ton of money, it is satisfied. That is all that BP’s management cares about or could care about. The capitalists’ need for money is unlimited. Each business must expand or die. Capital must accumulate. If BP does not earn ever larger profits (producing ever more surplus value), then it will be overtaken by competing oil corporations, which would gobble it up.

Liberals (as supporters of capitalism) do not understand this. Unlike the conservatives, they want to do something about global warming, pollution, etc. but their program is shallow and unrealistic. To liberals, this is the perfect time to start building an energy-efficient, non-carbon based, and ecologically balanced society. Facing the Great Recession and, at best, a jobless recovery, there was a need, they said, for government stimulation of the economy. When Obama got elected, programs for a “new New Deal” were proposed by many liberals and social democrats (even the Marxist David Harvey). This would require big, job-creating, public works, including energy-saving and ecologically useful projects. They proposed to build new wind farms, “smart” electrical grids, stations for electric cars, improved national parks, retrofitted insulation in city and suburban housing, urban electric trolley systems, high-speed trains between cities, etc.

Overall, these were perfectly good ideas. As we know, nothing of the kind was done. Continuing the policies of the Bush administration, Congress and the pro-business officials brought in by Obama gave out gobs of money, which may have saved the system from falling into a second Great Depression—for now. (Keynesian economists outside of the administration, such as Paul Krugman, thought that it was not nearly enough to produce an upturn in jobs or for long term prosperity.) The money went to banks and big business. There were no strings attached to what the banks did with the money (they did not have to actually loan it to anyone). Very little was done directly to provide jobs or to improve energy and the ecological environment. President Obama’s energy-ecological initiatives have been anemic (and the U.S. senate has just abandoned all efforts to pass a climate change and energy bill). Shortly before the Gulf oil explosion, Obama came out for expanded offshore oil drilling and reviving nuclear power.

For reasons of class, there will be no “new New Deal.” The capitalist state will not spend vast sums of money to produce useful goods and services, neither directly nor by contracting for it. To produce such goods and services would put it in competition with existing corporations. It would conflict with powerful vested interests. It would mean taking money from the rich to spend on the working class. Ideologically, it would be an open admission that the market cannot provide for the people and that some sort of public economy (that is, socialism) could work better. Right now, the main discussion among government officials in the US and Europe is not how to expand production through more spending but how to cut back on public services which help workers and the poor.

In fact, during the (old) New Deal, the government never spent enough to get out of the Depression. It took the spending—and the destruction--of World War II to end the Great Depression and create relative prosperity (from 1946 to 1970). This is generally accepted by bourgeois economists. The capitalists do not mind spending on armaments; it is the one thing never discussed when they talk about making cuts to decrease public spending. Like other state expenditures, they “stimulate” the economy and provide jobs. They take wealth from the whole economy and concentrate it in the hands of a few big, subsidized, firms. However, unlike other possible state spending, armaments do not compete with private industry. They do not provide useful goods to workers and the poor. They increase the power of the state at home and abroad.

The US military budget today is 600 to 700 billion dollars a year! The problem with war spending, on armaments and other aspects (aside from its leading to imperialist wars!), is that it is pure waste. Spending on weaponry does not re-enter the economy as does productive investment. Building tractors leads to increased food production. Building bulldozers leads to new housing. But building tanks either leads to destroying things in wars or, at best, to storing tanks unused. This is even more true of nuclear missiles, which must never be used. The economic effect is like the government paying capitalists to hire workers to dig very big holes in the ground and then to fill them up again. There is a lot of busyness, capitalists and workers get money to spend, wheels turn, but nothing is actually added to the real economy. This may give a short-term shot in the arm to a sagging economy. But in the long term such unproductive consumption can only increase the basic trend toward economic stagnation of the epoch of capitalist decay.

The Revolutionary Socialist-Anarchist Program

Anarchists should support the various reform demands for a transition to renewable energy and ecological harmony as expressed in programs for useful public works--such as tree planting, retrofitting houses, and so on. Anarchists are against calling on big government to do things for people but can support programs which are self-managed by their workers and local communities. With this caveat, we should make demands on the state, which, after all, claims to serve the whole community and which does have a lot of money. If such reforms are carried out, even a little bit, that is all to the good. If not, then we can use this to expose the state for serving the rich and not workers. The point is not, as some imagine, to demand that the government do things which we know it won’t do. The point is to make demands for what is necessary to prevent ecological (and other) catastrophe, regardless of whether capitalism can do it or not.

But at all times we need to explain that only a revolutionary program can consistently and thoroughly solve the complex ecological-and-energy crisis. Global warming, pollution, the unraveling of the ecological web, and the vastly increasing costs of fossil fuels are a total crisis. Since the bourgeoisie cannot deal with it, they should be expropriated—their businesses taken from them and run by the workers.

Humanity needs, first, an economy which produces for use, not for profit. A nonprofit, nonmonetary, economy may make ecological mistakes, but it would have no drive to treat the natural world as a bottomless mine. A nonprofit economy would not have an endless need for quantitative growth (and therefore for ever more energy). It would expand qualitatively, by producing only what is needed—and only as much energy as is needed for such production.

Second, we need a planned, coordinated, economy, managed democratically, from the bottom-up. Instead of having many enterprises, each out for its own wealth, there needs to be an overall direction of the whole of human production and consumption in our interaction with the natural world. But this must be radically democratic, as opposed to bureaucratic centralized planning, in order to prevent the rise of a state-capitalist system which would be just as destructive to the ecology.

Third, the cooperative, coordinated, economy must be a decentralized federalism. There is, of course, need for national, continental, and international planning. We will have to coordinate the exploration and transportation of natural resources and the necessary steps to clean up the world’s oceans, among other things.

But there also has to be an effort to increase decentralization. (Unlike the idea of a planned and nonprofit economy, it is at this point that anarchism conflicts with the traditional Marxist program.) Some of those who have thought most deeply about how to deal with this total crisis have focused on the need for a more decentralized society. (See Kunstler 2006; McKibben 2007.) There will have to be a whole lot less transportation and shipping of goods and people. We won’t be able to afford it anymore. There will need to be a lot more use of local energy sources, local natural resources, small-scale industry, and local recycling of waste (industrial and organic).

There will have to be an end to the suburbs, the moribund, mega-urban, “cities” (such as the one stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C.), and factory farms. (However steps toward this vision could be immediately implemented in present-day cities, e.g., rooftop community gardens.) There will need to be more towns and small cities (sometimes bound together in regional networks of towns and cities), and a large number of organic farms (run by families or by communes). This would not prevent regional, continental, and world-wide activities where necessary. The Internet may still be possible (if it can function without the presentday levels of pollution) for sharing information and coordinating activities throughout the world.

Such a society of democratic planning, nonprofit production, and a decentralized federalism is consistent with the goals of anarchism, from Peter Kropotkin to Paul Goodman and Murray Bookchin. It goes back to the vision of the “utopian socialists” such as Fourier and Owen for cooperative communes with an integrated agri-industrial way of life.

This is a vision, not a fully-developed blueprint. No doubt a great deal of experimentation would have to be tried out in different places by different people. Not every region will come to the same conclusions (of what should be the urban/rural balance, for example). But the society we live in is racing toward death and disaster. The capitalist ruling classes of the major powers, and their politicians (liberal, social democratic, and conservative) have no clue as to the depth of the total crisis. They have no idea how to deal with it, except to try more of the same. It is time that someone else takes over and runs society. This someone else can only be the international working class and its allies among the oppressed. The crisis, economic-ecological-energy, may shake up the workers and oppressed enough to start them moving in a revolutionary new direction.


References

Herod, James (2010). “Capitalists, global warming, & the climate justice movement.” Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (Summer) # 54; pp. 23—28.

Kunstler, James H. (2006). The Long Emergency; Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. NY: Grove Press.

McKibben, Bill (2007). Deep Economy; The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. NY: Times Books/Henry Holt.

Written for www.Anarkismo.net


Read Part I: How Capitalism has created an Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crisis

author by Ilan S. - AAtW; ainfos; Matzpenpublication date Tue Jul 27, 2010 21:46author address Tel Avivauthor phone Report this post to the editors

The world crisis is really both economic, ecological, and energy-based.

But the apocalyptic claim that "It won't work" is misleading. It reminds me the claim that the wars between empires like world war I. and II. are immanent and will destroy the world in a big bang. Later some claimed the cold war between western capitalism and state capitalism of the east (USSR, China) will cause such Bang.

So claimed people that the recurrent crises in the capitalist market will explode it...

We should point to the catastrophes involved with the capitalist system. We may use the fights against these to educate people in the futility of the capitalist system.

We may even take advantage of one crisis or another to put end to the capitalist system much earlier than the usual prediction.
----------------
“If the science is correct,…within the next twenty to thirty years…there is the danger that a tipping point will be reached, setting in motion irreversible warming trends….The earth will become unrecognizable and all life on it will be threatened”

For sure competition within each capitalist empire and between them prevent an optimum measures to overcome crisis in economic, ecological, and energy-based domains. However crying "Wolf" too often do not promote anticapitalist education.

The claim:
"However, what is necessary is not fixing this or that anti-ecological industry but the entire capitalist economy and its productive technology, in every aspect of its interaction with the natural environment. It is a total crisis. Unfortunately, the conservatives are right: change will be very expensive and disruptive."

For sure some of the capitalists are against measures taken to confront the present crises. However, Till now, the sections of capitalist ruling elite found their ways to overcome the more reactionary ones.

We do not see yet huge investments in new technologies that will be able to overcome fast the crises surrounding the energy supply: environment damage and supply limits.

However, there are already promoting of low petrol using cars - including electrical cars. There are promotions of wind and solar energy. There may be even investment in research of fusion atomic energy not yet in use.
----------------------------------------

"Liberals (as supporters of capitalism) do not understand this. Unlike the conservatives, they want to do something about global warming, pollution, etc. but their program is shallow and unrealistic."

For sure liberals are more concerned with keeping the capitalist system going than the mending of its flaws... but not all the infights within the capitalist elites are on the open.

---------------------------------------

The military expenditure have more aspects not open to the usual scan.

"The US military budget today is 600 to 700 billion dollars a year! The problem with war spending, on armaments and other aspects (aside from its leading to imperialist wars!), is that it is pure waste."

The military budget enable the state to subsidize companies that are involved with other aspect of economy. Subsidizing technology innovations and exporting of capital...

It also helps the access and control of raw materials and oil for the still national related big capital.

"But in the long term such unproductive consumption can only increase the basic trend toward economic stagnation of the epoch of capitalist decay."

For sure there is lot of waste in the armament production and other military expenses but so are most of other aspects of the capitalist system.... But, the capitalist system is still further from stagnation than ever.

The doom of the capitalist system is approaching faster than ever but you cannot find it under "the lighted street pol lamp".

--------------------------------------------

"Third, the cooperative, coordinated, economy must be a decentralized federalism. There is, of course, need for national, continental, and international planning. We will have to coordinate the exploration and transportation of natural resources and the necessary steps to clean up the world’s oceans, among other things."

The "federalism" concept is just a compromise between the rejection of the capitalist authoritarian order, and the rejection of the bottom-up unified direct democracy as the only viable alternative to a modern world.

In a multi level direct democracy of the world commune of the grass roots commune, every decision, coordination, and execution of decisions will be of course at the lowest level. However, the loose concept and unity of "federalism" is not compatible with multi levels direct democracy.
---------------------------------------------

"There will have to be a whole lot less transportation and shipping of goods and people. We won’t be able to afford it anymore. There will need to be a lot more use of local energy sources, local natural resources, small-scale industry, and local recycling of waste (industrial and organic). "

There is lot of waste in the capitalist system. Transportation and shipping of goods and people is usually because of the "free market" of workers and competition between capitalists in the service of profits and the competition among them.

The abolishing of this waste will not be in order "to cut losses because we cannot effort it" - it will be because it will result in gain in efficiency and elevation of quality of life.
----------------------------------------

"There will have to be an end to the suburbs, the moribund, mega-urban, “cities” (such as the one stretching from Boston to Washington, D.C.), and factory farms." ..."There will need to be more towns and small cities (sometimes bound together in regional networks of towns and cities)....

I am not sure which is the best size of units of modern dwellings
taking all the factors into consideration. However, the supply of decent housing to the people in the less developed areas of the world will come in first priority. The abandoning or dismantling of the not so good dwelling arrangements of the developed countries will come much later.

" and a large number of organic farms (run by families or by communes)".

The "small is beautiful" is not always true. In the direct democracy alternative system the grass root community of few hundred members will be the basic (and smallest) autonomic unit.

"Such a society of democratic planning, nonprofit production, and a decentralized federalism is consistent with the goals of anarchism, from Peter Kropotkin to Paul Goodman and Murray Bookchin. It goes back to the vision of the “utopian socialists” such as Fourier and Owen for cooperative communes with an integrated agri-industrial way of life."

The anarchist communism of multi level direct democracy of world commune of grass root communes, in which "each will contribute according to abilities and receive according to needs" was a development not shared by all who use(d) the label of anarchism... Especially it is still rejected by people who do not take into consideration the developments of the last score(s) of years.
------------------------------------------------------

"This is a vision, not a fully-developed blueprint. No doubt a great deal of experimentation would have to be tried out in different places by different people."

Any major adjustment in way people live need great deal of experimentation... but not every thing can go in our modern world.

"Not every region will come to the same conclusions (of what should be the urban/rural balance, for example)."

For sure the changes which will have to occur immediately differ in between New York or Tel Aviv, or the slums of Mexico city and the East of Asia.

But so will have to be lot of experimentation in all other aspects of life.

"But the society we live in is racing toward death and disaster. The capitalist ruling classes of the major powers, and their politicians (liberal, social democratic, and conservative) have no clue as to the depth of the total crisis."

Exaggeration of the the wrongs of the present capitalist system is more damaging than can be seen on first sight.

Calling "wolf" do not recruit people for the long road of struggle.

"They have no idea how to deal with it, except to try more of the same. It is time that someone else takes over and runs society. "

They know lot more than what they say. They hide behind ignorance to justify steps limited by short term interests,

It is surely time for the masses of the working people to takes over and runs society... but they are not convinced yet, and it need lot of wisdom and daring by the people who already sense it (including the development of detailed alternative and adherence to the best educational steps available.)

"The crisis, economic-ecological-energy, may shake up the workers and oppressed enough to start them moving in a revolutionary new direction."

The present economic-ecological-energy crisis may contribute to the delegitimizing of the authoritarian exploitative and alienating capitalist system, but do not count on the direct connection between "the worst it become the earlier people will revolt".

Related Link: http://ilan.shalif.com/anarchy/glimpses/glimpses.html
author by Waynepublication date Thu Jul 29, 2010 04:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ilan warms that " Exaggeration of the the wrongs of the present capitalist system is more damaging than can be seen on first sight." But do I exaggerate? I wish I did! Is there any evidence that the international bourgeoisie is making any serious steps to control global warming? Overfishing? Ecological destruction? All Ilan can do is to cite small improvements (ineffective for the total crisis) and say that they may be doing things we do not know about (but countering global warming has to be done openly). Recently the US Senate has abandoned all efforts to pass any climate-energy bill, even the ineffective one proposed by the Democrats. Meanwhile there have been three (smaller) oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico in the last few months, unrelated to the BP disaster.

I would be delighted to learn that the bourgeoisie is doing something to at least slow down the ecological catastrophe we are living through. At least it would give us more time. But where is the evidence? It is like Ilan saying that "the capitalist system is still further from stagnation than ever," even as we live through the Great Recession and its limited, virtually jobless, "recovery." I believe that we must tell the truth to the working class and I say what I think is true.

I do not understand the distinction Ilan is making between my phrase, "decentralized federalism" and his "multi level direct democracy of the world commune of the grass roots commune."

As for what will cause revolutionary upheavals, I do not know. Things looked pretty quiet in the 1950s, before the rebelliousness of the 60s. Will a new radicalization develop in time to at least pressure the bourgeoisie? Time will tell.

author by Wayne quoting a readerpublication date Thu Jul 29, 2010 05:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Someone sent me some comments on this piece. I am printing it here, without using this person's name. My response will follow.--Wayne

*I read your post with interest. I happen to agree with most of what you say. I myself, though not affiliated with any group, feel that some form of non ideological anarchism is where societies should head if we are to make any dent in resolving the myriad dilemmas facing humanity.

Two points:

1) Unless I missed it I didn't notice any mention, of what in my opinion underlies all of the above mentioned crisis, "population growth" on a finite planet with limited resources. How do you propose we tackle that in a humane and equitable manner?

2) You wrote: "But at all times we need to explain that only a revolutionary program can consistently and thoroughly solve the complex ecological-and-energy crisis. Global warming, pollution, the unraveling of the ecological web, and the vastly increasing costs of fossil fuels are a total crisis. Since the bourgeoisie cannot deal with it, they should be expropriated—their businesses taken from them and run by the workers."

I agree the the "bourgeoisie" at least as I understand the meaning of that word , are an anachronism and most certainly are not equipped with the knowledge or vision to imagine, let alone implement a new paradigm. In my opinion the same applies to "The Workers".

I am very far from convinced that we need businesses in the traditional sense or "Workers", working in them. From where I sit I see this as a throwback to the original conflict between Capitalism and Communism, neither "Ism" being useful moving forward.

The second problem I see here is that I don't see that the so called "workers" have the necessary grounding in science and and the capability for "Big Picture" visioning to be competent in implementing a truly radical new paradigm of sustainability. The BAU paradigm has way too much inertia.

BTW, to be clear, I think we need all hands on deck and there is lots of work to be done, but not in my opinion, by "Workers"!

Anyways, as they say, herding cats, can be quite a challenging enterprise.

author by Waynepublication date Thu Jul 29, 2010 05:23author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I sent this post in response to the above comments:

I am glad that you agree with most of what I wrote. To briefly answer your comments:

(1) Population is a problem, although I do not believe it is the underlying issue. There is more pollution, etc., in the less-populated, industrialized (imperialist) countries than in the more-populated but poorer (oppressed) countries. All evidence is that population levels decrease with higher standards of living and--especially--greater freedom for women. But I expect that a socialist society would make efforts to encourage fewer children in a democratic, libertarian, manner.

(2) By bourgeoisie I mean the capitalist class which owns the economy and rules society (I regard the bureaucracy of China and Cuba as also a capitalist class, ruling state capitalist economies). They are completely subordinated to the system and should be expropriated. By whom? The working class is almost everyone else, blue collar and white collar, who work for the capitalists. Being most directly effected by capitalist indusstrialism on a day-to-day basiis, they have the ability to end capitalism. And it they do not, then there is no one else who does (although I make a point of referring not only to the workers but also to the oppressed in general as allies of the workers and as overlapping with the working class).

You seem to think that the workers are stupid and ignorant, not Big Picture thinkers. (But I include white collar technical workers as part of the class.) In general, you seem to blame the people for our problems: ecological crisis being caused by too many people, workers being ignorant and not good at Big Picture visions (although millions have supported the Big Picture visions of socialism and anarchism in the past, if not so much in the US). Who do you think will be able to make the changes we need? Perhaps you have some idealized vision of middle class intellectuals taking over and running society? If so, I could not disagree more.

Glad we agree as much as we do and I hope we will come to agree more in the future.

author by Wayne sqsuoting a readerpublication date Fri Jul 30, 2010 04:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Another reader wrote to me--WP

. . . right with 'ya with tieing the economic, energy, and environmental crises together! I'd like to hear from you your thoughts, beyond theory, on how we create that cooperative economy right now. I think the "revolution" needs bread. That is, local self-reliance is the first goal. That's one reason NYC is doomed. It produces nothing, and is completely reliant on energy. So, how do you think we create that economy now?

author by Waynepublication date Fri Jul 30, 2010 04:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

am glad you like my main point . But I do not think that we *can* create that economy right now. There are too few of us, we have too limited resources, as against the rulers and their mistaken followers and the wealth of the system. A small number of anarchists making garden farms or even community farms would be overwhelmed by an ecological/economic collapse. (Not that I am against community food gardens, mind you. I am only rejecting them as a strategy for replacing the capitalisst economy.) The same goes for alternate economic institutions such as coops. They tend to fail by success, becoming integrateintthe system. Not even Mondragon is a challenge to world capitalism, nor wuld it survive a total collapse.

So what I advocate is trying to build a movement of opposition to the ruling class, based on the working class and its allies among the oppressed. We need to wake people up by basing ourselves on the interests and needs of ordinary people. A new mass movement such as the 60s or 30s may yet develop and it could put pressure on the ruling class sto at least take some steps to slow down ecological decay. More importantly, it could result in a revolution to totally change society. Anyway that is the strategy I have been committed to

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
Neste 8 de Março, levantamos mais uma vez a nossa voz e os nossos punhos pela vida das mulheres!
© 2005-2019 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]