Some Thoughts About Social Movements
Are they an entirely new phenomenon?
What is their contribution to democratic culture? Do they further the process
of self-empowerment of the populace? Do they help identify and tackle relevant
Today, we see movements for social
and economic rights, democracy movements, grass-roots movements, springing
up all over the world, from Indonesia and the Philippines to Honduras,
from Bolivia to Greece, from Canada to Germany.
If we want to understand why
such movements should be regarded as positive democratic phenomena, we
must also understand in what respect they are very different from certain
“movements” witnessed in the 20th century. And not only different but,
in fact, often their opposites.
In the 20th century, a number
of “social movements” that could be witnessed were anti-democratic. There
was the fascist prototype. Such a “movement” was seen by its leaders and
adherents as something very much like a military formation.
And in fact, it was organized
in that way.
It was oriented towards “charismatic
It is enough to think of people
like Mussolini or Franco.
Even Hitler, perhaps, who lacked
the Mediterranean or Latino quality of a caudillo, being “wooden,” and
also somewhat Prussian, both hysteric and bureaucratic.
In Germany, the Nazis spoke of
the entirety of their organizations, both before and subsequent to the
establishment of the Fascist dictatorship, as “the movement” (die Bewegung).
It is clear what was intended.
On the one hand, they wanted to usurp a concept that belonged to the Left,
the concept of “working class movement” (Arbeiter-bewegung). On the other
hand, they wanted to distance themselves from
the concept of “party” (Partei).
Although the Hitlerites had formed a party they misleadingly named a workers’
party (the National Socialist Workers’ Party), they
accentuated the movement, not
the party. And this in contrast to the Communist Party which, already very
much under the influence of the extremely “centralist” Russian model, accentuated
The Fascists in Germany railed
against parties and the parliament.
They talked of the unity of
the people, the latter a concept which they defined in ethnic, racist and
not in social and socio-cultural terms.
The unity they conjured up was
a fictional. The classes and class antagonism did not evaporate. Of course,
those 45 per cent who voted Hitler and his party into powe were ideologically
“united” by their adherence to and belief in the “Fuehrer”; the rest of
the population was only part of that “unity” described by Nazi ideologies
as a “volksgemeinschaft” (a united people), to the extent that this unity
was the external “unity” (or submission) forced upon prison-inmates
by the whip of their guards.
The Nazi leadership was on very
friendly terms with the bosses of big industry, with Mr. Hugenberg
(the Murdoch or Springer of that time, in Germany), with the Imperial family
and above all the eldest son of the former emperor, William II –
a “Crown Prince” who dreamed perhaps that Marshall Hindenburg, another
champion of the rise of Hitler, would re-establish the monarchy.
Obviously, the German fascist
“movement” was a mass of atomized individuals, true subjects (Untertanen),
incapable of emancipated, autonomous activity. They were disenchanted by
the Weimar Republic, driven to despair by the Global Economic Crisis of
1928 and the Great Depression that followed, and full of resentment, after
the lost war of 1914-18. Some dreamed of the “good old days” of the industrial
expansion that had occurred during the rule of the three Hohenzollern emperors.
Others, with pseudo-religious naivité, longed for a savior, a “strongman”
who would cope with the crisis, do away with the sharpening social cleavage,
the polarization between left and right, and give back “dignity” and “national
pride” to what they saw as a “humiliated nation.”
These were largely petit-bourgeois
The bourgeoisie had no place
for such vague sentimentalities; it had real, concrete interests in mind,
for instance extra-profits due to a new arms race, disempowerment of trade
unions, checking of the danger of a victory of the radical left, and, in
case of a war, recouping of lost iron ore mines as well as lost coal mines
(in Lorraine, ceded to France, and in Upper Silesia, ceded to Poland).
Later on, or perhaps very early on, its imperialistic designs went further
than that: they were focused on German hegemony in what they defined as
Central Europe – and that included (re-)conquest of South East European
If want to understand social
movements today, it doesn’t help to look back the Fascist “bewegung.” They
are entirely different. They are also different fom the neo-fascist MSI,
the movimento sociale italiano, that sprang up in Italy after WWII and
that turned into a “respective” chameleon under il signore Fini, the erstwhile
ally of Berlusconi, later on.
And still it is okay to look
back for precursors of today’s social movements, in order to understand
the continuity and the new that they embody. Looking back, it is necessary
to look for movements that embraced liberty as an ideal, rather than authoritarian
and retrogressive longings for “good old days” when “authority” was unquestioned.
If we look for “movements” in
Europe that were filled with a longing for freedom, we have to go further
back than to the inter-war years, the 1920s and 30s. We have to go back
to the social movements of the early and mid-19th century that expressed,
in some cases, a thirst for social, in others, for national emancipation.
If we think of the latter, it is enough to think of the Italian movement
associated with the name of Garibaldi.
In France and Britain, social
movements took shape, too. In Britain most notably the Chartrist movement.
Some of this spilled over to
Belgium, to Germany etc. where goals associated with social justice mingled
with a thirst for national emancipation.
Belgium became sovereign thanks
to the revolution of 1830. The democratic revolution of 1848-49 in Germany
was defeated, in part because the propertied classes in Germany feared
that a republican project might lead to a “red republic:” thus, their aim
took the form of a compromise. They thought that the revolution they wanted
should lead to no more than a constitutinal monarchy that would disenfranchise
The resulting split of the social
forces opposing reactionary absolutism in Germany lead to the victory of
the reaction. The unitary German state that the revolutionaries hoped for,
either as a republic or constitional monarchy, was not etablished. It was
only achieved in 1871 by Prussian militarism, in the wake of the Franco-Prussian
Today’s social movements in Europe
have nothing in common with the falangist o fascist movements. In some
way, they are heirs of the democratic movements of the first half of the
To the extent that they embrace
aims associated with the concept of social justice, they are heirs of the
19th century working-class movement which was far from being in the least
degree similar to a military formation, disciplined, and answering the
calls of a party leadership. In the 19th century, quite a few “tendencies”
or interpretations of the goals of the struggle that the movement found
itself engaged in, can be noted. Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Lamartine
mattered in France and also, to some extent, in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany.
The British case was a different one; the influence of thinkers from the
continent was not overwhelming before the defeat of the Chartrists. In
the second half of the 19th century, the theoretical contribution of Marx
was recognized slowly as relevant, and the influence of Marx and Engels,
as well as activists and writers endebted to them, grew in Britain, Germany,
France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Russia etc.
Though Marx, whose analysis of
Capitalism was sharp, clear and to the point, was only partially understood
by many socialist, and this includes both political leaders and those who
were grass-roots activists, the concept of socialism as a classless society,
the concept of class-struggle, and the notion that organization and discipline
were necessary elements of the fight for working-class emancipation became
generally accepted within the Left. Perhaps only the anarchists, a minority
within the Left, resented the “marxist” strategy that aimed, like they
did, at a revolution but saw a proletarian republic that would use repression
against its foes (the counter-revolution, the bourgeois and aistocratic
reaction) as an inescapable intermediate stage.
Of course, the anarchist concern
was not unfounded, as we know today. But the “marxist” recipe (only partially
attributable to Marx, perhaps; at least if we think how repression was
practiced later on in “real socialist” countries) was conceived for good
reason. The degeneration and final defeat of the French revolution that
had erupted in 1789 was largely a consequence of internal and external
counter-revolution. The revolutionary attempts in France between 1830 and
1848 had shown that peaceful and democratic self-organization led nowhere,
if the social adversaries of the oppressed and exploited majority resorted
to bloody repression of every attempt to attain an active, autonomous improvements
of one’s situation and full democratic and social rights. So repression
was to be countered with repression, violence with violence, it was thought.
It was a history lesson learned the hard way.
We all know that in the context
of revolutions, between 1905 and, say, 1949 (when the revolution in China
was victorious), and undoubtedly in the context of hard times, woking class
movements the world over embraced discipline.
It is true that existence of
a revolutuonary government in Russia after 1918 helped to bring about the
increased influence of Russian leaders among working class movements on
a global scale. It is disputable whether all working class movements outside
the Soviet Union were “stalinist” if by that we understand that discipline
was enforced by repression. In fact, it was almost impossible to use repression
against revolutionary activists in Capitalist countries. The activists
were dedicated to a cause; if they had wanted to desert it in capitalist
France or in the U.S. or in Indonesia, it would have been easy. It was
the police and the FBI and the courts that constituted a dangerous threat
for them, not their own leaders, their union o their party. So discipline
was freely and voluntarily practised but mental discipline was another
matter: enforced, they thought, by circumstances that were all but enviable,
they submitted to it very often with results unwholesome for them, for
their movement, and for their cause. The less free the thought was that
they permitted themselves, the less tolerance was shown towards other tendencies
and groups within the Left. The whole dynamics of this lead to sterility,
dogmatism, and so on, a process furthered by uncritical solidarity with
the “motherland of workers,” as the Soviet Union, that poor, beleaguered
country was called, where the revolution, like the French one of 1789,
suffered terrible deformations the moe it was under attack, encircled,
and saw its leaders grasped by fear of failure, mutual distrust, and in
the end, since about 1930, obvious paranoia.
Today, the social movements in
Europe and North America by and large reject the idea of becoming monolithic,
disciplined formations. Open internal discussion matters very much. Networking
takes precedence over rigid, centralized oganizational stuctures. Hierarchies
and leaders are suspect, as such. Still, ideals that informed earlier liberation
movements, democracy movements, and the wokin-class movements are not entirely
foreign to them. Once again, the quest for democracy that drove Marx to
play an active role in the revolution of 1848, the quest for the freedom
of dissidents that Rosa Luxemburg defended, the quest for real democracy
that echoes in “State and Revolution,” today, in modern, contemporary forms,
emerges once again in civil rights efforts and ecological campaigns and
peace initiatives. It expresses the always, or again and again, resurfacing
longing of human beings that is already expressed in the Psalms, the New
Testament, and the American Declaration of Independence.
The people active in social movements
today seem to have comprehended that the need for exactly such strategies
as seemed plausible to working-class militants in the 19th and 20th century
are not undisputably necessary, any more. The rapport de forces has changed.
In the 19th century, the working-class, though growing in numbers, was
an emerging class. The block that opposed them was strong in many ways,
also numerically. But who, which social stratum, constitutes the mighty
reaction today? Does it still offer the same frightful obstacle to our
emancipation, when we exist under conditions where many democratic rights
have been attained and where the class antagonism takes a new form? And
this insofar as the wage and salary earning population (those who have
to “sell” their physical and intellectual or, in some cases, mainly their
intellectual labor force, in order to earn a living) is the overwhelming
In fact, if we include in this
“class in itself” (Klasse an sich) those who are pseudo-independent self-employed
workers who own, de facto, no or hardly any share of the (relevant) means
of production, we can assume that the broadly defined (blue and white collar
working class, plus “professionals”, “experts”, “engineers”, “scientists”,
“intellectuals”) comprises more than 90 per cent of the population in Western
Europe and North America. All of them – regardless of their insignificant
share-ownership (where this may apply) are confronted by Capital, by the
significant (or “large”) private owners of the means of production, the
financial institutions, etc.
It is true, those referred to
here as a “class in itself” are confronted and conned and disempowered
today by Capital. And that means, by perhaps 1 per cent of the population.
But seeing the social reality
of this “class in itself”, we also know they are no “class for itself”
(Klasse für sich); they are still split, divided by the divide and
rule logic of the social system and by what are supposed to be functional
“necessities.” Sociologists in defense of the status quo fetishize the
concept of “difference” and speak of “Ausdifferenzierung”: a term signifying
class fragmentation or, in other words, the ideological as well as status-expressed
reflection of different practical functions filled by individuals (i.e,
members of society) in what is called “the” modern society.
Though more than 90 per cent
share the experience of working dependently, in “the” modern society that
is supposed to be “the only one that is possible” (“for there is no alternative”)
and, at the same time, “the best of all possible worlds,” they are
not, in their entirety, and determinedly, asking for empowerment.
And they are not, in their entirety, putting in doubt a social set-up that
enshrines their dependence.
They are, all of them, keeping
a social “machinery” of production´(including science and production-related
research) and distribution running, a machinery that affects their very
lives in every possible way, without demanding that they, all of them,
should share in the debate and decision making processes relevant for the
operation and control of this “machinery.”
They are still split – it is
And all these more than
90 per cent of the population which form the populace, the people today,
suffer the fact that 1 per cent or less of the population monopolize the
exercise of control over the social production and distribution “machinery.”
Yes, and that this tiny minority reaps the profit.
But that is not the worst of
it. The worst is that this minority is at the core of resistance to change:
it is in their interest and on their behalf that the irrationalities of
this social “machinery” are defended, irrationalities of production
and consumption and the oganization of society that produce disastrous
effects.This “modern society” is not the only modern society that is possible.
It is not true that there is “no alternative.”
It is not rational that millions
of children in supposedly rich societies go hungy or are denied a decent
education that would respect their abilities and interests. It is both
unjust and irrational that in this way, potential abilities are stifled
and the imagination as well as intellectual curiosity is not nurtured but
repressed and ignored.
It is not rational that millions
of working people are put to work to a degree and with an intensity and
unscrupulous rigor that is motivated by a quest for maximum profit and
that often leads to severe physical illness, psychic breakdown, premature
death, while millions of others are made “redundant,” with similar obnoxious
It is not rational that unequal
terms of trade and the effects of past colonialism and present neo-colonialism
are preserved. What is referred to today as “globalization” is globalizing
the sway of big capitalist corporations and the capitalist market logic.
It keeps so-called Third World countries poor by arresting or more often,
deforming their development – something that, amongst other effects, perpetuates
global hunger, lack of access to infrastructure that is vital for public
health, lack of decent housing, etc.
It is not rational that a profit-driven
social “machinery” of production and distribution pollutes and poisons
and heats up the planet, destroys the protective ozone layer,eradicates
bio-diversity, exhausts soils, and destroys the last remaining rain forests
that are so vital for the preservation of our chance to combat climate
change. And thus vital for the survival of all species, including the human
When we contrast the objective
interests of the disempowered to finally tackle clear and present dangers,
irrationalities and aspects of injustice, with the uninformed and apathetic
attitudes of many among them, and the preparedness of others among them
to sell themselves to the highest bidder as defenders of an irrational
and unjust status quo, we begin to understand that is above all the awake
and informed, but also many among the compassionate, the tender and warm-hearted,
and the ethically sensitive, who today are the salt of the earth, the yeast
in the sour dough.
They try to learn from the mistakes
of the past, intuitively or consciously. They still have to learn a lot.
Also about organization. Also about how to avoid, in the long run, all
except the mildest and most diffused, decentralized hierarchies.
Power seduces and corrupts,
as do riches. Influence should belong to the many not the precious few.
All should have a voice, all should be listened to.
Spokespersons are needed rather
than leaders. If offices are established, those who hold them for a limited
time must remain tied to the imperative mandate of the grass-roots. The
right of immediate recall must be enshrined, not only with regard to the
spokespersons of social movements. It is essential everywhere, within the
If social movements aren’t depended
on and inspired by “leaders,” it is possible to say, however, that there
usually is something like a “leading” idea or goal and orientation. Perhaps
even a number of leading ideas and ideals can be identified:
- The common good,
- respect for the needs of people,
and satisfaction of real needs,
- compensatory justice,
- a solidaire economy,
- rejection of hierarchies
all seem to figure in one way
or another in.
The open-ended and openminded
way debates are carried out (or are at least
intended to be carried out)
is in line with a longing for a new democratic culture. It demands a number
of ‘virtues’ or rather, a learning process that emphasizes and is expected
- preparedness to listen to
others, accompanied by a desire to be heard;
- tolerance, which amounts to
accepting the existence of a plurality of view, and
a readiness to
listen to them, hoping to find solutions that (to a certain extent) all
can agree to; as
a consequence, misgivings with regard to clever political
scheming or attempts
to outmaoevre others within the movement are likely;
- a sense that a consensus among
the disempowered should be found
and that majority
decisions that result in ignoring or snubbing
the rank-and-file (the common people) are undesirable.
People active in social movements
are likely to be convinced (or, if not, experience gained in the movement
will teach them) that “we need to learn to take the concerns and problems
of others seriously; and not just our own problems and, concerns, our misgivings
This is especially relevant when
the importance of various issues to a social movement is weighed. And when
issues are defined broadly and in context, rather than narrowly (as is
typical of those who have only particular interests in mind). As female
citizens, for instance, is is not enough that we care for the emancipation
of women and their recognition as a gender that has historically suffered
from patriarchal oppression and that is still underrepresented in leading
managerial positions under Capitalism.
If, for one of our sisters,
emancipation of women means that a few women will join the rank of the
bosses, this is not in line with a general orientation that rejects hierarchy
and exploitation of others.
Furthermore, the fight for and
concern regarding the emancipation of women cannot be separated from the
real need of Others to achieve emancipation. For instance, women’s liberation
cannot be viewed separately from concern about the unfullfilled needs of
children in today’s society, from children’s rights and the necessity to
right the wrongs children suffer. (Alice Miller has pointed out to what
extent mothers can hurt the
sane or healthy psychic development of children.)
Nor can women’s lib be separated
from the necessary anti-racist effort. (Some women, just as some men, among
the oppressed and among oppressors, among the exploited and the exploiters,
are racists.) And women’s lib cannot occupy us alone, among all concerns,
as long as there exists millionfold hunger, on a worldwide scale. (Some
women, just like some men, live in rich countries as rich persons, participating
in the exploitation of the so-called Third World, either directly or indirectly,
whereas other women and of course men too, live in abysmal poverty as exploited
citizens of exploited poor countries suffering the burden of unequal terms
It’s possible to add yet other
issues and concerns, such as the concern about global warming or climate
change. Women, even those and perhaps especially those who have achieved
‘emancipation’ in the limited form of ‘rising on the ladder of success’
and ‘building careers,’ can ‘sin’ exceedingly, with regard to the world’s
climate – as can men. As business executives, they can favor ecologically
disastrous policies. As ‘wealthy consumers,’ they can act irrationally.
Citizens of the so-called first world, of both sexes, are hurting the global
climate as fequent flyers, as heavy users of energy (air conditions, excessive
heating in winter time, heated pools, large cars), as consumers of goods
that reach them by plane. Emancipation, as social movements comprehend
it, is not achieved in such cases.
This much is clear: Issues are
interrelated, and social movements can’t be taken very serious when they
remain focused on single issues. At least not, if they neglect the relationship
of their main or central issue with other issues. Blindness to interrelationships,
to contexts, is never good.
Still, concrete historical situations,
a given time and place and its problems, can make it necessary to concentrate
heavily on one issue.
Peace, for instance, when our
rulers are intent on war.
Resistance to deforestation
when we live in a place where mighty vested interests and the authorities
are expanding cattle ranching or soy production (for ethanol) at the expense
of the rain forest.
Open-ended debates, openmindedness,
and intense awareness of the necessary virtues we must develop if grass-roots
democracy is to work within a social movement will almost of necessity
enable such a movement to remain aware of changing situations and
the problems inscribed in them.
Such movements need all who can
contribute in their specific ways to the identification and the solution
- Left Catholics,
- critical, non-conformist Buddhists
and Muslims, and Agnostics, and Jews, etc.,
- Social Democrats, autonomous
in their acting and thinking, perhaps disenchanted with their leadership,
- ecologists, especially when
they are independent-minded rather than faithful believers in Green Party
- anarchists, like Alan Ginsberg,
- commies, like Jesus the carpenter’s
son, or like Alexandra Kollontai, or the Hutterers, or Angela Davis,
- citoyens du monde, like Gary
- and, of course, people who
are just people, concerned individuals who defy labels…
they all can be problem-oriented,
and can agree on a lot of issues.
They can all contribute their
perspective, their ideas and suggestions concerning a possible solution.
But they don’t have to agree on everything.
Debate is good, disputing things
is good, and if done honestly and with respect, all can learn something
new, all can help others comprehend another facet of a problem.
Even views later on shown to
be mistaken can play a role in a learning process. They propel debate and
force us to think about what has been said. And why, perhaps, it wouldn’t
I remember that years ago, somebody
told me: “In a situation of clear and present danger, you can’t have the
grass-roots engaging in a broad democratic debate; you need a leadership
that immediately decides what to do. You can debate that decision afterwards.”
This, I think, was probably true in certain historical situations: when
the American revolution was close to being defeated by the British. When
the allied reactionary forces invaded revolutionary France and the king
tried to flee. Today, in representative democracies that can often be described
as all but sufficiently democratic societies, we have nevertheless the
possibility to assemble, to connect, to voice our views, to form strong
movements that demand change, in a direction we see as necessary, after
extended debates. The goals, the path to be followed, will be defined and
redefined again and again, as the debating populace, the ensemble of social
movements, sees fit. I think, and many think, that nothing compels the
people to leave the debate and the identification of unsolved problems,
the definition of goals, the deliberation concerning the next steps we
want to take, to “leaders” or “experts”, to top members of a political
caste and their advisers.
And still, what can our unquestionable
concerns and our will to develop a genuinely democratic socioculture and
political practice, both inside a social movement and in society-at-large,
in the short or medium term profit society and the movement, if the other
side, today’s high and mighty, with their manipulative tricks, their use
of the still dominant ‘mainstream’ media and their crafty reliance on laws
and courts instituted under their auspices, win the day and decide the
political ‘battles’ in their favor? And this in the arenas they determine
as relevant and decisive…
There are many questions, still,
that lack a convincing answer. One of the most relevant questions is of
course, If, at some stage, 30 percent of the population are activated
and are actually debating problems of their society and hazards facing
the world in the context of social movements and democatic forums, if on
the other hand, a tiny minority among us continues to own and control the
mainstream media, to accumulate vast amounts, to finance the campaigns
of candidates fielded by what still are ‘major parties,’ how can we, active
in movements and asking for empowerment, for social and economic rights,
for participation, limit the sway that the mainstream media have on those
not yet active and resisting? How can we, participants of a movement
that is active on the internet, in clubs and forums and in the streets,
thus outside parliament, effect change inside existing parties in so far
as we are also (some of us, at least) party members fighting for
not yet sufficiently realized internal democracy in these parties? And
thus for fair rules of the game which frequently don’t exist because strings
are pulled by top echelons, whereas dissenters in parties that critique
the leadership are often expelled before they can get the backing of other
These questions concern a weighty
problem or two: first, the inertia of part of the population, those among
our co-citizens who have become accustomed to the practice of letting “party
leaders” decide, while they worry very little to understand what these
people do and why. And second, also the apathy of those who say, “I’m not
satisfied as a voter, but what can I do? Nothing. I’m just a little guy…”
It is clear that social movements,
which are including today the most active and the most concerned, often
the best informed and politically fairly awake citizens, will always be
attacked by the precious few presently controlling the levers. And they
will be attacked as “not fully legitimized” because they are “a minority,
even though a large one.”
We can only respond that those
who form party leaderships, who pull the strings inside parties, who deliberate
with big business behind closed doors, who profit from the support of a
handful of media corporations, and who have placed their trusted friends
on boards of directors and in advisory bodies of public television and
public radio (the latter being true at least on the Continent, in Europe,
in a number of countries), are a far smaller minority.
The problem remains that they
still garner considerable support at the polls during national and regional
elections. It is a well-oiled machine, and the grease is money. The old
boys networks worked in Britain and still do. And something of the sort
matters on the Continent (in Europe) as well as in the U.S. It is
up to us to change that by mobilization and by spreading information, in
other words, solid knowledge, well documented facts.
Sometime, the obstacles posed
by the power of the dominant media and of entrenched business interests
as well as the unthinking loyalty of many voters to political parties that
disregard burning problems of our time and disappoint their constituents
again and again seem, for moments, to be quite overwhelming.
We see, however, that the movements
that have the burning issues of our world at heart, are growing. In many
countries. So why should we despond, rather than hope?
A last word, perhaps, an apology
to readers from so-called Third World countries. The focus here has been
on social movements in the “West,” in Europe and the U.S.
This is not out of some Eurocentric bias or because of disregard for movements
in the South of our planet. There, movements and populations, at least
in some places, seem to be truly ahead of us. I just don’t know enough
about it to write about this part of the reality of social movements that
try to change the world for the better, in our still young 21st century.
Hopefully, somebody or some authors from the South will fill this lacuna.
Occupy Wall Street
We Are Change
decentralized solidarity movements
Occupy Wall Street protests
Z Communications AND Z mag
of the U.S. Left", in: Z Communications
Occupy Wall Street Entreaty &
Spanish Anarchists Interview
(Z Communications, Sept.2011)
Local to global.org
Schneider, "From Occupy
Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere"
(The Nation, Oct. 31, 2011)
GERMAN LANGUAGE SITES
of the world, rise up"
Aufruf von K21 zur Demo am 15.Okt.
Echte Demokratie jetzt
Echte Demokratie jetzt
Aufruf zur Demo
am 15. Okt.
zur Demo am 15.Okt.2011
15 October Net
Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen
Die Gruenen [Green Party, Germany]
Demo am 15.Okt
Die Linke (Left Party, Germany)
DIE LINKE unterstützt die weltweiten
Proteste gegen die Diktatur der Finanzmaerkte und für mehr Demokratie
We Are Change Austria
We Are Change - CH
IN ENGLISH (ON SPAIN)
Democracy real YA!
Democracia real YA!
'Indignant' Protests Heat Up Election Campaign"
(IPS news net, Oct.4,2011)
Demonstrators Marching to
Brussels to Protest Effects
of Crisis" (IPS news net, July 30, 2011)
Drago, "Spain: Streets Paved
with Evicted Families" (IPS, Oct.7, 2011)
GREEK SITES (HELLAS)
the general strike (Oct.19-20,2011)
on the general strike
Athens (Greece) indymedia
POESY'S CALL TO JOIN
THE GENERAL STRIKE
Argyros on the general strike
Real.gr, Oct.20, 2011)
Students in Chile are protesting against
the privatization of higher education that took place
under Pinochet, and against the underfinanced
public education system
net, Oct.20, 2011)
Al Ahram Weekly
Arab Spring and the crisis of the elite"
Azouz, Egypt govt mulls
raising workers' incentives
in bid to thwart labor strikes
Fouad Najem, "Forbidden"
Speech before U.S. Congress, March 31, 2011
(The Nation; April 4, 2011)
Hayden, "The Defunding
of the Peace Movement"
Not in our name
US Attorney General Testifies for Plowshares Activists"
Justice with Peace
(United for Justice with Peace
Support Julian Assange
Forum Social Mundial