First Skirmish: Ten Thousand Grocery Workers Strike Kroger

By Lisa Xu 

February 11, 2025Z

Source: Labor Notes

Image by United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7

Ten thousand members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 are on strike all across Colorado. They work for King Soopers grocery stores, owned by Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the U.S.

When their contracts expired January 16, they voted by 96 percent to authorize a two-week-long unfair labor practice strike, including high-traffic Super Bowl and Valentine’s Day weekends.

Even with scabs staffing the stores, these holiday weekends should give the boss a headache. Amanda Bateman, a Local 7 steward and a seafood department head at a store in Colorado Springs, said customers have trouble finding shopping carts during these times, and it’s a challenge to keep the shelves stocked.

For Valentine’s Day, the floral department and general merchandise (which is in charge of candy) get hit hard. “Entire aisles just get wiped out, like at the beginning of Covid,” she said.

The union is asking Colorado customers not to shop at King Soopers for the duration of the strike.

WILL SET A PATTERN

Much more is at stake than the contracts in Colorado. This is the critical first skirmish of this year’s large-scale grocery bargaining rounds—contracts will expire covering more than  130,000 members  at Kroger and Albertsons across a dozen UFCW locals. In all, UFCW represents more than 700,000 workers at these two companies.

What Local 7 wins could help set the pattern for many more grocery workers. A top priority is to get the companies to schedule more workers per shift—the lean staffing approach has led to a shortage of hours for workers, unsustainable workloads for those who are on shift, and deteriorating customer service.

Workplace safety is another priority; violent incidents involving customers have risen since the Covid pandemic began. In 2021, a King Soopers store in Boulder was the site of a mass shooting that left 10 dead. Among other things, workers are asking for more diligent notification from the company when a dangerous emergency occurs within a few miles of their workplace.

The low pay has gotten dire: two-thirds of grocery workers are now unable to meet basic expenses, and 14 percent have been homeless in the past year. The union is asking for $4.50 in hourly raises over four years for all employees. Kroger is offering such an increase only to top-rate associates, department heads, and pharmacy techs. And the company insists on paying for these raises with $8 million from retiree health benefit funds—a proposal of dubious legality that is the subject of one of the unfair labor practice charges the union has filed.

Rather than meet the union demands, Kroger has prioritized $7.5 billion in stock buybacks for shareholders—which it announced in December immediately after the courts blocked its  attempted merger with Albertsons, a close competitor.

The union also charges that Kroger has been illegally interrogating and surveilling workers, disciplining them for wearing union gear, and withholding sales and staffing information that the union is entitled to in bargaining. Kroger has also flown 1,650 scabs into Denver, reportedly from the South, and has been intensively training them for weeks.

In negotiations, the company reps are high-handed and dismissive. “They say they have more money than God. They’re very arrogant about everything they do,” said Local 7 President Kim Cordova.

“They have disdain for the people who work for them,” said deli clerk Conor Hall, who is on the bargaining committee. “We’re trying to be a partner in improving these stores, but they see us as the enemy.”

On the other hand, Hall says Local 7’s inclusive approach to bargaining has been energizing. “We have huge bargaining committees,” Cordova said. “Every member is invited to bargaining. Sometimes we have hundreds of people there.”

UNITED WE STAND

The strike covers 77 stores in Denver, Boulder, Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Parker, Pueblo, and surrounding areas. Other UFCW locals are depending on the strikers to hold strong, because this contract will set a pattern.

Local 7 is part of a pioneering coordinated bargaining coalition with three other locals representing a large chunk of Kroger and Albertsons workers in the West: Local 3000 (Washington and Idaho) and Locals 770 and 324 (both in southern California). More than 100,000 of the workers with expiring contracts this year are in the Western U.S.

After Colorado, the next contracts will expire on March 2 for a cluster of locals in Southern California. Other major contracts will expire in Georgia in March, Northern California in April and June, and Indiana and the Pacific Northwest in May.

Until recently, most of these locals bargained separately; the UFCW lacks master agreements even when grocery workers have the same employer. But in 2022, Locals 3000, 7, 770, and 324 coordinated their bargaining in earnest for the first time.

When Local 7 went on strike in 2022, the other coalition members lent organizing and communications support. The coalition also pooled resources to produce a research report on the declining living standards for grocery workers, which helped set the stage for a showdown.

As a result, Cordova says, Local 7 won its best contracts ever, with raises of $4 over three years—the highest in the UFCW. Coordinated bargaining is a necessity for taking on Kroger, she says, because “we’re not dealing with a regional player or a mom-and-pop store.”

This year, all four locals have been attending Local 7’s bargaining table since October, and they have resumed coordination of communications, research, and member actions and trainings.

MERGER STOPPED

These four locals already have a major victory under their belts: they formed the nucleus of the Stop the Merger campaign, which managed to torpedo the $25 billion mega-merger of Kroger and Albertsons late last year.

The merger flop cost Kroger hundreds of millions of dollars, and the company stands to lose another billion or more if Albertsons wins an acrimonious lawsuit against it for breach of contract. Regardless, Kroger was posting year-to-date profits of $2 billion by December 2024.

After this slapdown in the courts, Kroger is playing hardball with Local 7. “They’re trying to make an example and harm workers for standing up,” said Cordova. The company is also trying to extend the contract so it expires in 2029 instead of 2028, to get Local 7 off the coalition’s three-year contract alignment cycle.

Now Kroger has also filed a lawsuit against Local 7, accusing the union of “forcing the Company to bargain with labor unions from Washington and California” and prioritizing “out-of-state special interests.” The suit is an attempt to intimidate the local and drive a wedge into the bargaining coalition. (Kroger, of course, had already been scheduled to bargain with UFCW locals in Washington and California this spring.)

In a statement, Local 7 called the lawsuit “frivolous” and argued that Kroger itself has a history of  illegal collusion with another employer, Albertsons—the subject of an ongoing class-action lawsuit filed by the union, charging that during the 2022 King Soopers strike, Albertsons agreed not to hire strikers or solicit King Soopers pharmacy customers.

Unfortunately, the international union has not been proactive in offering support or even publicity. As of February 10, UFCW international has posted once on social media about the strike but issued no press release, nor otherwise made public reference to any upcoming Kroger or Albertsons contract expirations. The international also stayed largely on the sidelines of the merger fight.

Not coincidentally, the same locals were almost alone in standing up for reform at the union’s 2023 convention.

SUPPORT ON THE GROUND

Members who know about coordinated bargaining strongly support it. “It’s all the same company,” Hall said. “The only way we’re going to get anywhere is if we work together.”

Essential Workers for Democracy, the organization of members pushing for reform in the UFCW, has launched a solidarity pledge for members around the country to sign in support of coordinated bargaining for Kroger and Albertsons. On its page dedicated to 2025 grocery bargaining, members can also order contract unity pins and print solidarity signs. And to support the strike, EW4D is helping members travel to the picket lines in Colorado.

Bateman, in Colorado Springs, has been helping spread the solidarity pledge. She says, “I believe everyone deserves a fair contract and living wage across the entire country. It would be nice if we could travel to different places and support each other and band together.”

Unionized Grocery Workers Are a Sleeping Giant

Colorado Kroger workers are striking this week, and 130,000 union grocery workers are bargaining contracts this year. Reformers see it as a chance to transform the UFCW from America’s largest private sector union into a fighting force.

By Caitlyn Clark, Isaac Soto , Jacob Eshom

February 10, 2025
Source: Jacobin


Image credit: UFCW International

In the first six months of 2025, grocery contracts covering over 130,000 union workers are set to expire. The contracts span five states, a dozen local unions, and several employers — namely the grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons.

United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 just announced a two-week strike at Kroger brand King Soopers, beginning Thursday, February 6. Ten thousand Colorado grocery workers will be on strike at seventy-seven stores across the state through Super Bowl weekend and Valentine’s Day. It’s the first major grocery contract expiration in 2025 and will set the stage for the contracts bargained for the rest of the year.

Kroger’s last, best, and final offer included abysmal wage increases, with thousands of workers offered $0.25 or less in the first year of the contract. It failed to address worker concerns over understaffing, low wages, two-tier discrimination, shorter wage steps, and protections from automation.

Grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons’ $24.6 billion mega-merger was blocked in court after a coalition of UFCW and Teamster locals, including UFCW Locals 7, 324, 770, and 3000, organized a powerful “Stop the Merger” campaign. But the fight to win better wages and better working conditions is still ahead. And to take full advantage of grocery workers’ numbers and leverage, we’ll need to change how we organize.
What We’re Fighting For

Over the last few decades, grocery jobs have changed from good union jobs with wages and benefits comparable to those of United Auto Workers (UAW) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) members into gig economy McJobs. In California, the statewide fast-food minimum wage outpaces starting grocery wages to the tune of $4 an hour.

Wage tiers are a dime a dozen in many UFCW grocery contracts. Take Fry’s Food & Drug, a Kroger brand in Arizona. A look at the contract bargained with Arizona UFCW Local 99 in 2023 reveals that workers hired before 1986 get a Sunday premium of time and a half. Employees hired after that will qualify for an additional 50 cents per hour on Sundays, with some employees eligible for Sunday pay after working nearly four thousand hours. Fast-forward some, and those hired after 2004 get not a cent more than their regular rate on Sundays — Sunday pay, for most, is now a thing of the past.

With more tiers than a wedding cake, past grocery contracts have slowly chipped away at solidarity and workers’ ability to fight back. On the shop floor, we are left hopeless, disengaged, and spread thin to the point of desperation. We’re given the minimum we need to survive, perform our jobs well, or feel the sense of pride that we deserve to feel as essential workers. The bosses target those least likely to speak up about their mistreatment.

With inflation and the cost of living exceeding wage growth, many of our coworkers live paycheck to paycheck. To cut costs, management has reduced some part-timers’ hours to just twenty-four hours a week. Fewer workers for the same amount of work, compounded by automation like self-checkout and electronic price tags, leaves us overworked and unsafe.

Corporate consolidation in grocery has accelerated over the past several years — but while the big grocers get bigger, grocery union leverage is shrinking. Union grocery workers still lack national master agreements for some 800,000 UFCW grocery members across North America. Instead, contracts are bargained local by local and employer by employer. As a result, workers’ collective bargaining power is divided, and members pay the price.

With starting wages barely above minimum wage, chronic underscheduling, and a growing trend of deskilling, grocery retail workers are among the lowest-paid union workers in the country. Grocery workers who kept stores open during the pandemic deserve significant wage increases, improved staffing, and safer stores. But to get them, we need a union willing to fight for them.
No Union Democracy, No Union Revitalization

At the 2023 UFCW International Convention, reformer delegates with our group Essential Workers for Democracy (EW4D) put forward commonsense resolutions for change: investment in organizing, first-day strike pay, salary caps for top officers, and a one-member, one-vote policy. The leadership’s fierce opposition — from procedural roadblocks to direct intimidation of rank-and-file members by paid staff and officers — revealed a union structure more invested in maintaining control than adapting to meet workers’ needs.

We believe the UFCW should put its $566 million in assets toward organizing better contracts with higher wages for workers. We also think we have more leverage to win with a national grocery bargaining table, combining the leverage of nearly 800,000 union grocery workers against the corporate giants. Right now, we negotiate separately even when dealing with the same company. A national table would give workers the power to set industry-wide standards and prevent companies from playing locals against each other.

National bargaining tables were big news in 2023, when 340,000 UPS Teamsters narrowly averted a major strike and the UAW led 150,000 workers on a “stand-up strike” against the Big Three automakers. Both of these unions have won a one-member, one-vote policy through rank-and-file reform movements just like EW4D. Following their example, we believe increasing union democracy and national coordination will energize and strengthen our union.

Grocery workers have already proven what’s possible when we work together. A coalition of UFCW Locals 7, 324, 770, and 3000 helped defeat the largest proposed grocery merger in US history between Kroger and Albertsons. Now these locals are collaborating on contract negotiations and sending support to the King Soopers strike in Colorado. We don’t have a national bargaining table yet, but EW4D members understand the value of solidarity between locals across the country, and striking Colorado workers have our full support.

Winning a more democratic union and putting members in the driver’s seat will allow us to build a more militant union — with more strikes, more organizing, and bigger and better contracts. At 1.2 million members, the UFCW is the largest private sector union in the country. But size only translates to power when workers organize to use it.

What If We Ran The Economy?

By Andrew Sage

February 9, 2025

Source: Andrewism

Can you imagine libraries of tools, clothing, and even housing? The library economy can be the bridge to an entirely new world of human flourishing. Let’s explore what the library economy is, what may or may not be included, and what it might take to bring it to life.

Introduction – 0:00

The Library Economy Philosophy – 1:24

A World of Commons – 4:05

Libraries of Things – 9:06

A Library of Concerns – 11:42

How To Start A Library Economy – 20:07

Thanks to Sean Bodley for the thumbnail art, also featured in the video. Be sure to support him at / seanbodley .

Good News by The Piano Says | / thepianosays

Music promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.com Creative Commons / Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC BY 3.0)

Andrew Sage is an anarchist writer, video producer, and organizer from Trinidad and Tobago. He is the founder of Saint Who and Andrewism. Follow him on Twitter @_saintdrew.

 How the U.S. Uses ‘Aid’ as Soft Power to Dominate the World w/ Matt Kennard

By Matt Kennard, Rania Khalek

 February 15, 2025

Source: BreakThrough News

FacebookTwitte

For decades, U.S. imperialism has operated not just through military force but through a vast system of economic coercion, media manipulation, and covert operations. The World Bank, IMF, and USAID present themselves as tools of development, but in reality, they enforce American dominance under the guise of aid. Now, with Trump and Musk cutting USAID, many see this as a shift, but in reality, it’s just a restructuring of the empire. What does this tell us about the evolving strategies of imperialism? How does economic warfare, soft power, and media complicity allow the U.S. and its allies to maintain control with minimal backlash?

Investigative journalist Matt Kennard, co-founder of Declassified UK and author of The Racket: A Rogue Reporter vs. The American Empire, joins Rania Khalek to expose how U.S. and British intelligence operations, including spy flights over Gaza, are deeply entangled with global imperial control.

Aid, Dependence, and Ideological Warfare

Foreign aid has never been just about assistance—it enforces political, economic, and social control, keeping recipient countries in a cycle of dependency.

By Pontsho Pilane

February 10, 2025

Source: Africa is a Country

President George W. Bush and Namibian First Lady Monica Geingos at the Windhoek Central Hospital cervical cancer screen and treatment room in 2017. Image credit Paul Morse for the George W. Bush Presidential Center via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.



Donald Trump sent shockwaves across the world in his first week as president. Of all the domestic and international executive orders he signed, arguably the most consequential was the executive order that froze all US foreign assistance programs for 90 days while his administration reviewed their alignment with his policy goals. This order, signed on his first day in office, was also accompanied by others that are detrimental to global health equity and outcomes, such as withdrawing the US from the World Health Organization and reinstating the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule. Most devastatingly, the US foreign aid freeze also applied to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and all USAID programs, which have been instrumental in the fight against HIV for over two decades.

The foreign aid freeze and the subsequent stop work order memo sent out by the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio days later set off a chain reaction of uncertainty and alarm across the globe—including here in South Africa, where some US aid-funded HIV non-profits announced they would stop operating to comply. In the last few days of these perilous times, Rubio signed a partial waiver for “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” which applies to the continuation of “antiretroviral medications and treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV,” Devex reported. But anxieties continue to loom as many local non-profit organizations await official communication from Washington before resuming services. Many were oblivious to the extent of assistance and influence that PEPFAR and USAID programs had in our local fight against HIV until the Trump executive order. About 44% of PEPFAR allocations (equating to approximately $3.1 billion) in 2020 were made to South African NGOs, according to the Foundation of AIDS Research (amFAR).

But how did we get here?

South Africa’s dependence on foreign aid for health is not an accident; it’s a consequence of history. The country’s public health system was deliberately underfunded and fragmented under colonialism and apartheid, leaving deep structural inequalities. Even in a post-apartheid era, it remains challenging to bridge these gaps. In this vacuum, foreign aid became the solution. Programs like PEPFAR and USAID stepped in to fund massive HIV interventions. This dynamic turns what should be a partnership into a hierarchical relationship where donor countries hold power and enable ideological and political soft power to rear its head. US foreign assistance isn’t just about altruism—it’s also about influence. Aid serves as a form of soft power that advances US political, ideological, and economic interests.

PEPFAR was established in 2003 under President George W. Bush as a response to the global HIV crisis, particularly in Africa. Leading Democrats, including Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus, had been advocating for a worldwide HIV program for several years and, through the Bush administration, were able to reach common ground that received bipartisan support that became PEPFAR. It was the most significant commitment ever made by a single country to combat a disease internationally. Initially funded with $15 billion over five years, PEPFAR aimed to provide antiretroviral treatment, HIV prevention services, and care for those affected by the epidemic. However, from its inception, PEPFAR was tied to conservative and evangelical values that restricted how the funds could be used. This included funding abstinence-only programs and limiting support for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services.

Its bipartisan support hinged on Republican demands that its programs reflect faith-based morality. This compromise resulted in significant restrictions on how funds could be used. For instance, early PEPFAR legislation mandated that one-third of all prevention funding be allocated to “abstinence and be faithful” programs driven more by religious ideology than scientific evidence.

One of the most overt examples of ideological coercion through aid is the Global Gag Rule, which prohibits organizations receiving US funding from providing, discussing, or advocating for abortion services. Formally known as the Mexico City Policy, it was first introduced in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan. It prevents foreign organizations that receive US government funding from providing, discussing, or advocating for abortion services, even if those services are funded through non-US sources. The policy has been rescinded and reinstated multiple times depending on the political party in power in the US. Republican administrations have historically enforced the rule, while Democratic administrations have repealed it. The policy has had a chilling effect on global health organizations, forcing many to choose between receiving funding or providing essential reproductive health services. South African NGOs that depend on PEPFAR funding have had to navigate these restrictions, often choosing between financial survival and comprehensive service provision.

In 2019, I reported on an amFAR survey of one-third of 247 global HIV organizations funded through the PEPFAR and how they had altered their services due to the policy. The study found that about one-third of the changes made by NGOs were unrelated to abortion. The Gag Rule led to a reduction in critical HIV services, including testing, cervical cancer screening, and adolescent health care. A key issue was the over-implementation of the rule, where organizations—fearing the loss of funding—applied it more strictly than required. The ambiguity of the policy was intentional, creating a chilling effect that limited reproductive health services even beyond what was mandated. This strategic vagueness allowed the US government to indirectly influence compliance through fear and uncertainty. Although South Africa’s liberal abortion law provided some room for organizations to offer abortion referrals, the policy remained restrictive. NGOs feared losing US funding, with nearly one-third of surveyed organizations reporting that 90% of their budgets depended on US global health funds. This financial dependency forced organizations to choose between compliance and survival, severely impacting countries with high HIV prevalence.

Marginalized groups, including young women and LGBTQ+ communities, were (and will be yet again) disproportionately affected. Trump’s iteration of the gag rule also fractured civil society, isolating organizations that continued advocating for reproductive rights. The study dismissed claims that the policy did not impact PEPFAR-funded organizations, revealing a widespread suppression of health information and sexual rights advocacy.

While it is unsurprising that Christian evangelical ideology played a role in shaping US policy on abortion, its broader ethos of morality also influenced PEPFAR’s approach to other issues, including sex work. PEPFAR includes an Anti-Prostitution Pledge, a policy that works to silence sex worker advocacy by opposing sex work and requiring PEPFAR-funded organizations not to use funds to promote or advocate for the decriminalization of sex work. Not only does this clause conflate sex work with human trafficking—a well-documented tactic used by Christian conservatives—this provision has forced many HIV organizations to sever ties with sex worker advocacy groups, despite the well-documented role of sex work in HIV transmission.

These policies illustrate how foreign aid undermines national health sovereignty by dictating who organizations can serve and how. Foreign aid structures maintain a neo-colonial dynamic of donor control and recipient compliance. When donors set the agenda, recipients face pressure to conform or risk losing vital resources. However, this influence extends beyond public health. The US has used aid for broader political leverage, shaping civil society landscapes in recipient countries. Evangelical organizations have disproportionately benefited from PEPFAR funding in its earlier years, enabling their expansion and reinforcing conservative social norms.

The history of PEPFAR is a cautionary tale of how foreign aid, even when beneficial, can be wielded as an instrument of control. While donors may not explicitly dictate policy choices, they exert pressure through funding requirements, reporting mandates, and performance benchmarks. The long-term impact is a constrained policy environment where national priorities are shaped not by local needs but by the strategic interests of foreign governments.

But there’s a golden thread running through this history and the Trump administration’s actions since January 20: the foreign aid freeze and the reinstatement of the global gag rule are not just politics. This isn’t just Trump pushing an “America First” agenda. This is part of a bigger project: the platforming and expansion of right-wing evangelical beliefs. It is about advancing right-wing evangelical Christian nationalist ideology. Trump hasn’t just cut funding to global health in various ways—he has also slashed funding for LGBTQI programs, DEI initiatives, and reproductive health services. These cuts are tools to reinforce conservative Christian values across the world.

The promotion of a broader evangelical Christian nationalist worldview is about positioning the US as a divine protector of traditional family and biblical values. It aligns with right-wing evangelical interpretations of biblical prophecy, the idea of American exceptionalism, and the belief that the US is God’s chosen nation. It is a way to entrench a worldview that extends beyond international assistance into ideological warfare. And we need to see it for what it is. This is about rewarding those who uphold conservative Christianity, particularly evangelical conservatism, and punishing those who do not. The message is clear: countries that align with conservative Christian values will be rewarded; those with progressive social policies will be punished.


Pontsho Pilane  is a feminist writer, communications expert, and author of “Power and Faith: How Evangelical Churches Are Quietly Shaping Our Democracy.”

Clarifying Especifismo: A Response to DSA-LSC



 anarchistnews.org
Feb 11, 2025



From https://www.blackrosefed.org/clarifying-especifismo-lsc-response/


This is a response to an article titled ‘A Letter to the Libertarian Left’, published by the Libertarian Socialist Caucus of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA-LSC) in August of 2024.

Over the course of several months, members of Black Rose/Rosa Negra (BRRN) devoted time to discussing and debating this letter internally, as well as with our comrades abroad. After arriving at shared conclusions, some members of BRRN were tasked with penning a response. The final draft, which you see below, was endorsed as a federation statement via membership referendum.

We appreciate the patience of the comrades in DSA-LSC and as we state below, welcome the opportunity for further dialogue on these topics.
Introduction

We’d like to thank the comrades of the Democratic Socialists of America – Libertarian Socialist Caucus (DSA-LSC) for their statement, ‘A Letter to the Libertarian Left.‘ We want to briefly respond to LSC’s “Letter” (as we’ll refer to it) while also addressing the wider anarchist and libertarian socialist left to invite deeper dialogue and debate. We hope to clarify some shared terminology as well as aspects of Black Rose/Rosa Negra’s (BRRN) general strategic orientation.

We’re happy to see wider engagement with the politics and strategy of especifismo. At the same time, we feel that LSC’s Letter tends to misunderstand or misrepresent core concepts of this growing current. Social insertion and the mass, intermediate, and political levels are frameworks for understanding our relationship to mass movements and informing our practical activity as part of them. They also shape how we strategically build popular power and forge political alliances to form a front of dominated classes as the basis for our ultimate objectives: social revolution and libertarian socialism. To misunderstand or misapply these concepts has real consequences for our work.
Understanding Especifismo: On Social Insertion, Mass, Intermediate, and Political Levels


“The level of the social, popular or mass organizations … This level is characterized by those organizations who bring together a single actor of struggle, regardless of their political leanings (trade unions, student unions, community associations, etc.).”

The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.


“[The] intermediate level, brings together members of a single popular subject with a certain political leaning: this is what makes it different from the above level. This leaning, though, cannot be as defined as of one of a political group or party. Certain activists or militants that share outlook … come together to form a certain tendency inside of a bigger movement or organization. A good example can be a tendency in a trade union…”

The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular Organization, José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005.


“The political level of organization brings together anarchist militants who share a common ideological perspective and political program. This level requires a high degree of political and tactical unity and is aimed at cultivating a ‘militant minority’ of revolutionaries to engage in collective analysis and strategy, active involvement in movements, and political education in and outside of the organization.”

Tipping the Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic, Enrique Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, 2021.

LSC’s Letter advocates “applying the strategy of social insertion to the context of organizing within DSA.” The idea of social insertion has generated a lot of interest on the libertarian left in the US recently. This has been accompanied by both misunderstandings and conceptual contortions. Social insertion doesn’t refer to just any political activity or involvement within a larger organization. It refers to the practice of anarchist militants, who are members of a political organization, collectively implementing a strategy within mass organizations and movements, e.g. unions and the workers’ movement or tenant unions and the tenants’ movement, to “influence their everyday practice and orientation in an anarchist direction.”1

On the surface, this might seem to apply to LSC. On a deeper level, though, it begins to warp especifismo’s conceptual tools, undermining the political practices they inform. While the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is by far the largest left organization in the US, it should not be mistaken for a social movement. In especifist terms, it is a political organization.2 It may be, as the LSC Letter observes, a political expression of a “variety of socialist tendencies […] under the banner of democratic socialism.” It may allow for a “big tent” of ideas and contain within it a number of more unified competing political poles (i.e. caucuses), but above all DSA is a political organization with its own political program rooted in the tradition of democratic socialism.3

The fact that a party or organization has caucuses and factions doesn’t change that it is a single political organization. BRRN itself has the rights of caucuses, minority positions, and factions written into our constitution. Caucuses within political organizations are just that—groupings of like-minded members that try to influence the analysis and strategy of the political organization and how it, in turn, relates to mass movements. Calling these caucuses “political organizations” within the “mass movement” of DSA or BRRN can only breed confusion.

We need to clarify the term “mass movement” as well. The concept is not defined by mere numbers. From the point of view of the conceptions of especifismo, it’s a question of clear content and character based on social sectors. Sectors are defined by identifiable “actors of struggle” who are shaped by: “1. Problems that affect them immediately and their immediate interests; 2. Traditions of struggle and organization sprouting out from these sets of problems and interests; [and] 3. A common place or activity in society.”4 Mass movements (or social movements) “bring together particular actors of the dominated classes—workers, tenants, students, immigrants, indigenous peoples, etc.—on the basis of defending or improving their immediate conditions.”5 In other words, mass movements are made up of ordinary people, independent of political affiliation, organizing where they live, work, study, and so on. Democratic socialists—like anarchists—are not themselves a mass movement. Instead, they are political organizers who try to create and/or influence mass movements.

To be fair, LSC’s Letter suggests that DSA is not so much a mass movement as “an intermediate organization, also known […] as a grouping of tendency.” But this only moves the conceptual problems down a level and multiplies the confusion. For especifismo, a grouping of tendency or intermediate organization exists in between the mass and the political levels. Intermediate organization typically exists within a mass organization or in the context of a larger movement. They bring together people who share certain affinities around methods and goals but who aren’t united ideologically in the way members of a political organization would be.6 Examples include caucuses within labor unions, or formations that begin with dedicated activists organizing wider layers on the basis of a shared strategy, such as the Labor for Palestine network of union organizers, as well as the Koreatown Popular Assembly and East Boston for Palestine neighborhood groups.
On the Front of Dominated Classes


“[The] Front of Dominated Classes seeks to unite the broad base of the dominated classes in all their diversity, in all their organizational expressions and demands. While the organized working class remains a critical component of this front, our fundamental task is to build bridges between the full range of organized social forces fighting against the system of domination”

Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power, Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 47.


“We understand the popular organisation [the front of oppressed classes] as the result of a process of convergence of diverse social organisations and different grassroots movements, which are fruit of the class struggle.”

Social Anarchism and Organisation, Federação Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro, 2008, p. 34.

LSC’s Letter argues that “DSA has the potential to be an organization which can unite the socialist tendency of the entire struggle and produce a force great enough to topple capitalism—what Black Rose Anarchist Federation describes as the front of dominated classes.”

Like other terms so far discussed, we feel that the concept of the “front of dominated/oppressed classes” is being misapplied here.7 That the LSC Letter posits that DSA—a political organization in especifist terms—is, variously, a social/mass movement, an intermediate organization, and now a possible “front of dominated classes” suggests that we all need to be more grounded in our terminology. The latter concept is borrowed from a Latin American context and could use greater theoretical elaboration in English but nonetheless, at a basic level, it refers to a coordination of independent social movement forces.8

Although political organizations may work towards the common end of helping to create a front of dominated classes, neither Black Rose/Rosa Negra nor any other political organization that works with this concept should aspire to bring such a front under their own organization’s discipline and banner. The front of dominated classes is a coordination of independent social movement forces—brought together by their common social relationship to domination and united by a shared strategic program. Crucially, by virtue of its democratic and federalist structure, the front of dominated classes is fortified against centralization under the solitary authority or leadership of one group or organization.
On Popular Power and Dual Power

Much of the left (including anarchists) spends its energy caught in rudderless cycles of protest mobilization, isolated spectacular actions, inward-facing activist projects, and electoral efforts (either cynical or sincere) that lead to predictable deadends. As BRRN we’re attempting to carve out an alternative path, focused on building and revitalizing a certain kind of class power through mass movements, what we call popular power. As we state in our program, “our general strategy stems from the recognition that only social movements have the potential for revolutionary transformation, for sowing the seeds of a new society.”9

We are surprised and heartened to see references to popular power in LSC’s Letter. Surprised, because historically LSC has embraced the notion of dual power—a concept that, while nominally similar, is distinct from what BRRN and other especifista organizations mean by popular power.10,11 While both strategies recognize the necessity of accumulating the social force required to transform society, proponents of dual power tend to emphasize counter-institutions like worker cooperatives, community gardens, mutual aid groups, and even credit unions as the means to achieve this transformation.12 These tactics have their roots in mutualism, which can be traced back to Pierre Joseph-Proudhon’s vision for social transformation, one that does not involve a violent revolutionary confrontation between contending classes, but instead a gradual process of counter-institutions subsuming and replacing existing state and capitalist structures.13

LSC makes clear in their caucus’s founding documents that their own understanding of dual power does not reject fighting organizations such as militant labor or tenant unions, but that these mass organizations are simply part of a wider tapestry that can generate a situation of so-called dual power.

BRRN diverges from LSC on this strategic question in two ways. First, we view strategies that center on counter-institutions like worker cooperatives and credit unions as ineffective. These efforts are far too tied to—and deformed by—capitalist social and economic relations, do not build independent combative class power, and fail to confront the power of capitalism and the state.14 Second, we think an “anything and everything” approach that incorporates all manner of projects—from tenant unions to alternative banking—forgos an analysis of conditions that can clarify which tactics best serve a strategy aimed at building and leveraging our power, instead placing qualitatively different modes of struggle on an equal footing in a way that makes it difficult for us to develop a clear and actionable strategy.

To be clear, we don’t on the whole view projects like worker cooperatives negatively, as they can serve discrete tactical goals. But we also contend they are no substitute for fighting class organizations that attend to the most immediate tasks of organizing the unorganized and engaging in everyday conflicts that increase the confidence and leverage of the dominated classes. Therefore, we disagree that such counter-institution projects should be strategically prioritized by revolutionary organizations. Instead, strategically concentrating our efforts in specific sectors—workplaces, neighborhoods, schools, and sites of incarceration/policing—where we are building or participating in fighting mass organizations, allows for a deliberate and calibrated approach to focus our limited time and energy to advance and grow a combative, and one day revolutionary, popular power.15
On Forging Alliances With Other Political Actors and Organizations


“The policy of alliances of an anarchist organization, of a tendency, or of a social movement basically responds to two questions: with whom and how we are going to unite to achieve a certain objective, be it short (tactical objective), medium or long term (strategic line). […] The discussion of the program precedes the discussion of alliances.”

Un Debate sobre la Política de Alianzas, Rafael V. da Silva, Anarkismo.net, 2012, [Translated from the Spanish, original in Portuguese; emphasis our own].

It’s common for those on the left to form groups and organizations based on ideological labels rather than political practices. This creates fairly heterogeneous organizations under very broad banners, often with little concrete agreement about practical details. In contrast, the organizational dualist approach to which BRRN adheres doesn’t seek unity based solely on shared political ideology (much less shared labels), but considers unity of strategy and tactics to be just as important.16

While we welcome the opportunity to dialogue with groups who share similar principles, our approach to deeper collaboration is based primarily on shared organizing work and strategic alignment. We tend to concentrate, as our political program says, on “developing relationships and alliances with individuals, organizations, and institutions that are broadly in line with our general strategy.”17 This means that we forge alliances with groups who share an overlapping strategy in common sites of struggle—i.e. where we are in the same workplace fights, tenant and neighborhood struggles, anti-carceral campaigns, and beyond. In many cases, this leads us to work with groups and members of political organizations who do not emerge from the libertarian socialist tradition, but who do share or have strong overlaps with our short-term strategic priorities.
Conclusion

Again, we want to thank the comrades of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus for opening this dialogue. Although there are differences in principles, approach, and ideology between our organizations, we are encouraged by the significant steps that LSC has taken recently to grapple with important political and strategic questions.

Our above reflections are not meant to be pedantic or sectarian. LSC is a unique historical formation: a libertarian socialist caucus within a larger political organization. This being the case, we think that this unique formation deserves its own novel theoretical and strategic apparatus. Trying to shoehorn it into pre-existing especifista concepts does both a disservice to the particularity of LSC’s struggle within DSA as well as confuses and dilutes the concepts of especifismo to a point that renders them vague and imprecise.

Political debate and dialogue are critical for any robust revolutionary movement. We hope to continue this discussion both in public and in private, and we think LSC has usefully honed in on questions that are crucial to organized anarchism and to a wider audience.

Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation
February 2025
Notes“Turning the Tide: An Anarchist Program for Popular Power,” Black Rose/Rosa Negra Anarchist Federation, 2023, p. 42. ↩︎
For a discussion of the levels of organization framework which informs our perspective, see: “The Problems Posed by the Concrete Struggle and Popular Organization,” José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005; “Tipping the Scales: Popular Power in an Age of Protest and Pandemic,” Enrique Guerrero-López and Cameron Pádraig, Perspectives on Anarchist Theory Journal no. 32, 2021. ↩︎
“2024 DSA Program: Workers Deserve More,” 2024.dsausa.org. ↩︎
“The Problems Posed by the Concrete Class Struggle and Popular Organization,” José Antonio Gutiérrez Danton, 2005. ↩︎
“Turning the Tide,” p. 40.; See also the definition for ‘social movement’ offered on p. 34 of FARJ’s “Social Anarchism and Organisation”. ↩︎
“Tendency Groups,” Felipe Corrêa, 2010. ↩︎
Black Rose/Rosa Negra refers to this formation as the “front of dominated classes”. Other organizations, such as the Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (FAU) and Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) have used the phrase “front of oppressed classes” to refer to the same concept. ↩︎
For the concept’s historical roots see “The Strategy of Especifismo,” Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa, Anarkismo.net, 2009. For a historical example of the Front of Dominated Classes, see Anarchist Popular Power, Dissident Labor and Armed Struggle in Uruguay, 1956–76, Troy Andreas Araiza Kokinis, AK Press 2023. ↩︎
“Turning the Tide,” p. 36. ↩︎
It is important to note that the use of ‘dual power’ by anarchists, particularly in North America, extends back at least three decades. Now dissolved anarchist and other libertarian socialist formations—including those which Black Rose/Rosa Negra directly descends from—such as Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, Bring the Ruckus, and North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists deployed the concept of ‘dual power’ at points in their history. Confusingly, each organization used the concept somewhat differently, with some hewing closer to the original definition as articulated by Lenin and others incorporating the gradualism described in the body of this writing. ↩︎
For more on the concept of popular power specifically, see: “Create a Strong People: Discussions on Popular Power,” Felipe Corrêa, 2010; “The Strategy of Especifismo,” Juan Carlos Mechoso and Felipe Corrêa, Anarkismo.net, 2009. ↩︎
“Our Principles,” dsa-lsc.org. ↩︎
See “The Third Revolution: Popular Movements in the Revolutionary Era”, Vol. 2, Murray Bookchin, 1998, pp. 39-43; “What, if Anything, is a Dual Power Strategy?,” Wayne Price, The Northeastern Anarchist no. 5, 2002; and “Anarchists and Dual Power: Situation or Strategy?,” Matt Crossin, Red and Black Notes, 2022. ↩︎
For a more in depth discussion on dual power and the evolutionary strategy of building alternative institutions, we would refer readers to Overcoming Capitalism, Strategy for the Working Class in the 21st Century, Tom Wetzel, 2022, pp. 214-221. Available online here. ↩︎
“Going on the Offensive: Movements, Multisectorality, and Political Strategy,” Lusbert Garcia, Regeneración Libertaria, 2015. ↩︎
For a discussion of organizational dualism, see: “Organizational Issues within Anarchism,” Felipe Corrêa, Institute for Anarchist Theory and History, 2022; Anarchist Communist: A Question of Class, Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici, 2003. ↩︎
“Turning the Tide,” p. 46. ↩︎

Rebellion and Queer Sweetness Manifesto


 anarchistnews.org
Feb 12, 2025



From Rebellion and Queer Sweetness

January 7, 2025

INTRO: PURPOSE

Attempts at reenvisioning our future as a place of solidarity, mutual aid, equity and degrowth require questioning existing power structures. Addressing social inequities is at the very heart of criticising authoritian structures and without it, we can never enable egalitarian and equitable relationships that are key to any anarchist vision.

In Zagreb we as anarchists see the need to explictly approach one of these systems of inequity and domination: the patriarchy. As an established system of domination, it continues to contribute to the marginalisation, exploitation and violent repercussions against us who do not obey the strictly defined, submissive roles surrounding the figure of the dominant cis-male. Even in our anarchist collectives and communities, these power strukctures are reproduced and too often go unchallenged and unquestioned. This enables violence and further subjugation/marginalisation/domination and poses a direct obstacle to our visions.

WHO ARE WE?

We are an autonomous, self organized group of queer anarcho feminists that want to create a safe space for adressing the problems of opression and fight against all forms of discrimination based on gender and sexuality.

We are anarchists because we are against any kind of domination and exploitation and we want to create a free society in which such domination and explotiation will be abolished.

Our group was formed as a response to the present state of patriarchal society and tolerance to physical and sexual violence to women and queer persons in our society. This is also visible in our circles and there is a need to raise awareness and condemn this kind of behaviour starting from our spaces and groups and spread our principles in wider society.

We are based in Zagreb but we come from different parts of the world, “countries” and cultures. Also, we have different experiencies and ways to be involved in activism and we want to share different ways to fight against the patriarchal system and talk about methods that could be different depending on our previous experience and background, to get more cultural diverse knowledge about how to act, or what strategies we can use.
​​​​
GOALS/AIMS

Specifically addressing anarcha-queer-feminist topics within and outside of anarchist organisations in Zagreb, including examining existing structures and projects claiming to be anarchist from an anarcha-queer-feminist angle, and so identify places where development of inclusivity is still needed

Building a support network and places to share experiences with patriarchial violence so that these can be properly adressed, called out and places free – as far as possible – from such violence can be created

Educating – through our own organizing, by embodiying the values and world we want to create and through more direct knowledge sharing efforts we aim to encourage a cognitive shift in how we perceive the world and dismantle all forms of domination – the state, gender, hetero- and cis-sexism, marriage and the nuclear family and so on

WHO DO WE WELCOME TO JOIN OUR STRUGGLE?

We support trans and cis women, trans men, genderqueer, two-spirit and non-binary people, intersex people, queer people, people of all races and ethnicities, people on the move, sex workers, undocumented and criminalised people, people with different physical abilities, neurodivergent persons, people of all beliefs (as long as they don’t clash with our values), and many more who are marginalised and oppressed by the current system. Those of you who share our values, listed below, please reach out and let’s turn our fury into a constructive aim to change this doom and gloom world in which we live!

Ultimately we wish for cis-men to fight alongside us, seeing as we all suffer under the patriarchy. However, the same patriarchial domination schemes are bound to be repeated; even in anarchist circles we see how male voices are heard and received more and how they often take the leading role. Confirming this, some of the reactions to the forming of this group reflect the common misunderstanding that excluding the dominant group from marginalised self-organisation is somehow “discrimination” (as if you would invite the bosses to the initial stages of workers unionising). But many of the aforementioned behavioural patterns are best eliminated by simply not allowing cis-men into the group, at least while we are gathering our bearings and establishing a healthy group dynamic.

That said, we do offer help to anyone and everyone that comes in peace and solidarity.

This paragraph, along with the rest of the manifesto, was written at the very beginning of our coming together. Now, a year into our organizing, we have decided to reevaluate again and have determined this decision has expired. While this has been a continued conversation throughout the year, alongside discussing our rejection of identity politics, we are aware we made it consciously, mostly out of pragmatic reasons – it was simply easier than having to engage in transformative processes when the group is still young and on bambi legs. We have collaborated with cis-men in actions and our educational efforts, but have kept the core organizing closed to them. We now feel more confident in our non-hierarchical, caring structure and think we are ready to deal with any machism and patriarchal behaviours that might come our way and are excited to open up the space for participation by cis-men. We do however ask that everybody – but especially cis men – focus on acting without dominating spaces, listening and reflecting their behaviours – so we ask for the discrete presence of cis male comrades who want to learn.

OUR VALUES

– anti-authoritarianism – we consciously strive to call out both formal and informal forms of centralised power

– care – we notice patterns of the patriarchal neoliberal economy – such as competition and aggressive communication and behaviour – being perpetuated in social relations within and outside our groups. Instead, we want active care and camaraderie as the basis of our social relations and communities

– eco-feminism – recognizing that the patriarchal culture and capitalist economy subjugate and exploit women and other marginalized groups much in the same way as they do with nature is critical in connecting (and better understanding) these struggles, making us more aware of repeating patterns of domination and more thorough and tactical in dismantling these systems of opression (which makes us stronger and more aware of problems in our society)

– anti-speciesism – we vouch to respect and care for all living beings, regardless of their proximity to the human condition

– anti-colonialism and anti-racism – bearing in mind our privilege, we are actively trying to unlearn colonial and white supremacist biases and fight cultural domination. we see specific forms of racism and xenophobia occuring in our regional context (anti-roma sentiments, violence against refugees..) which we vouch to help dismantle, and in turn aid the free movement of people

– anti-nationalism and anti-fascism – recognizing the violent history (and present) of the Balkan region and still unreconciled ethnic tensions, we believe that explicitly fighting against nationalist movements is central in building a better community

– anti-capitalism – instead of allowing patriarchial neoliberal capitalism to undermine the entirety of our social relations and watch how commodification of all aspects of life takes place (this includes homonormative consumerism and pink capitalism!!), we are actively working on the basis of mutual aid, solidarity economy, sharing practices and ‘everyone according to their ability, everyone according to their needs’. we can’t have constant economic growth, but we can have more of what really matters.

– intersectionalism – all forms of marginalization and violence – racism, sexism, heteronormativity, amatonormativity, transphobia and transmisogyny, ableism, sizeism, nationalism, classism – work in sync to keep up the opressive structures of domination; we cannot ignore any of these if we want to achieve equity and peace

– anti-assimilationism – we refuse to have our identities and expressions subdued and molded in order to be more palatable and ‘better tolerated’ within the current society and strive to create spaces of plurality where we operate, work, look and feel in divergent ways

– bodily autonomy – we refuse to have our experiences and decisions regarding our bodies goverened and strictly controlled by the state and instead opt to fight to have a bigger agency in regards to reproductive and sexual health, gender affirming care, mental healthcare and more

– anarcha-queer-feminism

HOW DO WE OPERATE?

– prefiguration – we believe the way to create a new world is to take steps to create it and live the life we want to live. we want our actions and way of organising to reflect the future society we would like to live in

– local response – we share our concerns in the groups and circles where we are active to raise awareness about problematic situations and persons and create a safer space for the affected persons, we organize within the local context to address and aid in specific needs of our communities and create bonds with other groups that share our values and work towards the same goals but that may fight on different fronts

– anti-authoritarian, holistic approach to living and organising – we want to work on strengthening our bodily, mental, emotional, interpersonal and other instincts and to engage both practically and theoretically

– a horizontal, non-hierarchical organizing structure operating in a participative way, on a consensus basis – any ideas or concerns you might have are welcome!

Through our growth, we plan to organize different workshops and campaigns; you’ll be more than welcome to use every one of those, or just one – whatever you need.

HOW TO GET IN TOUCH?

vrrrane@riseup.net <3

We Have Two Paths


 anarchistnews.org
Feb 15, 2025


From Organise! Magazine

he following is a transcript of the speech given by Marion Koshy of Space City Anarchist Organisation at the Houston Organizing Fair on the 8th of February 2025.

I was at a show a few ago, and a couple of folks were giving speeches. After the first couple speeches, a comrade told me that these speeches were amazing, but they made her feel so hopeless. I think an important part of speeches like these is that it shouldn't be just to agitate and educate the folks that we're trying to get up and act, but to inspire them to organize. So I just want to say that, that every single one of you has the ability to act now towards a better future. The Biden Presidency have been nothing but badly negotiated peace. There are literal armed Nazis with swastika flags marching in the streets, an emboldened Trump administration hell-bent on cutting our rights, the Zionist entity continues to oppress the Palestinian people, and slowly, our planet continues to heat up. So now, we have two paths, Path A, and Path B.

Path A

Path A goes something like this. You wake up without power, covered in sweat. Hurricane whatever knocked out our shitty power grid. You turn on your phone, and with the last bits of power left, you doom scroll through the apocalypse. Watch as every job is automated out, egotistical technocrats push AI into the economy, destroying our creative output, and our already dreadful work turns into overt slavery. Christian fundamentalist cults conspire together to create a theocracy, their coffers flooded by ghoulish oil barons that want to erase any aspect of queerness in our society. Nazi march in our street once again, attacking political dissidents, and marginalized communities in their path. Government services fail, privatized by the likes of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Meanwhile, we gamble our futures away in the political system, and we continue to bark without teeth. We work endlessly as landlords and bosses extract our very lifeblood and turn it into profit. And maybe in the next election the bad guy is finally voted out, people go back to brunch. But climate change, fascism, and poverty only worsen, and with a gasp, we go silently into oblivion.

I know I said that I'd try to not make people hopeless, but bear with me here. There is also Path B.

Path B.

You wake up, and take a breath. The world is burning outside your window, but you know that the only way out is through. You and your comrades join together somewhere, whether its a park, someone's apartment, a library, a resource centre. Different communities, different people from all walks of life who have been marginalized one way or another meet together, determined to make things better however they can. In struggle, they find a passionate way of living that allows them to take back their lives. A diverse range of talents, skill sets and wills join together to build a movement. Everything for everyone, everything a tool, everything a weapon. Workers in essential utilities, tired of incompetent administrators and bosses, take over their workplace and start distributing their labour for free. Autonomous supply lines break strangleholds as people realize hallowed words: "ALL HELD IN COMMON". We learn skills lost to the ages, and through repeated skill shares, skirmishes, and bookclubs, people find courage to break through.

We live in a time of upheaval. It is no secret that the system that we live under is not sustainable. A system in which every 10 years, there's an economic crisis is not a system that we can live under. We wake up, do the same routine over and over again, while out of touch politicians gamble with peoples lives. Pay check to pay check, month to month, our collective stress is what hangs over our heads. Our labour is what keeps this world alive, it is what makes this world go around, but in the end, we don't feel apart of it. We're packed into suburbs, dreary offices, with jobs that ensure that there is no free time for what we want.

We want a more dignified future. A future where we can determine our own destiny. All you have to do is think, "If I had the ability to do so. what would I be doing?". You are not alone. Through our collective alienation, our suffering, our loneliness, is where lies our solidarity with each other. You may think that you are powerless, but I promise you: you all have the pieces to build something together, a life in common, a life where you can determine your own future. The age old question of "Shall we only hope for heaven when we're dead?" is only answered with the realization that the Only Way Out Is Through.

To begin, we must find each other. We are born into a world of demoralization, isolation, defeat, but we're capable of living differently. Take stock of what you have, who your friends are, what your skills are, your capacities, your connections. You have the ingredients to build a life in common.

We do not live in isolated struggles or context, we must participate in social struggles around us. You'll find that other like minded people, who are tired of how this world works are also fighting. We have the ability to directly act against our oppression. We can engage in blockades, fight against fascism and the state, organize a food or clothing drive, build a community garden. We can have a little audacity to do change in our communities. We must have audacity to demand a better world for ourselves.

In order to build, we must cast away oppressions such as class, gender, race, nations, capitalism and other authoritarian implements that seek to destroy our autonomy. We must develop structures to help build a better world, building on small term gains that over time, build into a larger movement for liberation.

It is important, now especially, to start organizing. We are living in the aftermath of an election that has put an administration that is bent on destroying the futures of black, brown, trans and disabled people. It is clear that elections don't work in keeping our communities safe from creeping fascism. Politicians don't have the answers to what is impacting our daily lives. The only solution to them is to show up to elections and put your vote in the ballot box. Elections don't stop hate crimes, homeless people freezing to death, climate disaster, or people who have been abandoned by the system.

It is intimidating to face oppression or injustice, but you are not alone. No politician, no saviour is coming to stop suffering, it is up to us, regular people, to organize and to save ourselves.

You can get involved, even if you think you don't have the skills. Showing up is already half the battle completed. I started out taking notes at meetings and handing out water to renters on strike.

So if you want to do something, but don't know where to start, feel free to approach the SCAO table, and talk to us about organizing. We have a Thursday distro that feeds our un-housed neighbours, we operate a free store that gives out goods for free, and we do direct action against local Nazis.■

Marion Koshy
Marion Koshy (they/them) is an anarchist and anti-fascist organiser based out of Houston, Texas. In their spare time, they raise chickens, garden, and participate in the furry fandom.