The Problem of the Biodegradibility of Revolution

Four years ago, I wrote an essay called Revolution of the Small: The Uselessness of Global Action and the N.... The main point of the essay was that a person's voice is only meaningful within the range where that voice can be heard. Actions where people try to speak beyond the immediacy of our senses (as when people vote, or buy consumer goods, or join national advocacy organizations) are not meaningful actions because each of our voices becomes such a small fraction of the entire whole. However, because all of our actions do have consequences that reverberate across the universe, it is possible to take local actions which have revolutionary consequences.

I want to piggyback off of that essay to consider a complementary problem of revolution. Because the systems of oppression in our society are so large - global capitalism, global-scale environmental destruction, nuclear weapons, huge nation states - one cannot pretend that a small group in Montana can (or should) successfully pull off the destruction of these systems by ourselves. If we were somehow able to bring capitalism, for instance, to its knees, what would that say about us? Would it say we are damn effective? Or, rather would it say that either we had far more power than any small group of humans should possess, or that we just somehow happened on hitting a leverage point in the system that brought the whole thing tumbling down? We should think the second case more fortuitous except for this point - what next? What happens if the system just unexpectedly crashes down because of a random action somewhere? Are we suddenly to expect liberty and justice to spread throughout the land? Will the hierarchies of abuse simply be gone because the governing and economic systems were thrown into a momentary state of chaos? I would think not, if only because there would have been no cultural change in society. Where would the racists have gone? Would people stop trying to be greedy? Would people stop trying to get others to work in the new factories? Will others not try to get their hands on nuclear weapons?

The truth is that revolutions of this type have happened occasionally in history. The most obvious example was in Russia, where the disaster of World War I finally was the impetus for many decades of radical movement-building to bring about the collapse of the tsar and eventually the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The ultimate autocratic society crashed and along with it its capitalist institutions. What replaced it? - autocracy and graft and persecution of anyone who did not tote the party line. Defenders of Bolshevism say that this was due to the pressure and ostracizing from the rest of the world, which necessitated the hardships and ugliness of autocracy, but if you read works like Emma Goldman's Disillusionment in Russia and Living My Life one will quickly realize that what happened in Soviet Russia was not at all a revolution and its horrors could not be explained simply by outside intervention. And, that was at the beginning. After many decades of Communist rule, it would be hard to say that the Soviet Union was anything akin to a transitional state to a revolutionary stateless society.

So, even if you doubt your intuitions that a sudden collapse brought about by a few people would not provide the revolutionary change we seek, search through the sudden revolutions of history (from France to Russia to Egypt last year) and see what little such a view of revolution has accomplished.

I want to note two points from this discussion. The first is that a small group of people by themselves cannot bring about a meaningful and lasting revolution. The second is that there is a problem in identifying what will bring about a meaningful and lasting revolution.

If revolutions must begin with small groups of people, but that it must also involve many small groups of people so as to be large enough to take on the system, obviously this raises a lot of issues - many of them I cannot discuss here and frankly I cannot answer. How do small groups coordinate in a way that they can become big while activists work only within the small local context? That is another problem we will need to turn to in another discussion and one that people are discussing. The problem I want to get at, rather, is the notion of the size, scope, and form of a revolution. That is, revolutions must arise out of small groups (if my previous essay from four years ago is correct), but revolutions must be large enough to have any hope of being meaningful and lasting. What form should they take so that they will not simply be transfers of power from one large group to another?

I call this the problem of biodegradability. That is, revolutions must be biodegradable in the way that the consumer products we use should be biodegradable. The power we use to take down the systems of abuse in society must not itself become the new power that lords over everyone else. The power must decompose and not quickly come back. Eventually, any manner of injustice may come back and rise again, and so let me be a little more precise. I think it is enough to be meaningful and lasting if it is not likely to come back during a generation of life, the span in which those who brought about the revolution can live freely without imposing or being imposed upon in any essential way by someone else (that is yet another question we cannot delve into in this essay in any meaningful way and is another huge question). What can bring this about? What allows for small groups of people to band together to take on global power structures that just as quickly fade away?

One controversial thing I'll say to start is that I think that this sort of revolution must then exclude the notion of an armed revolution. It is not necessarily to say that guns need fade away or be eradicated. The truth is; it's hard to see that happening. It is to say that the use of guns cannot be the power that produces revolutionary change. The reason for this seems simple to my mind. If guns are the power that produces revolution, does the power dissipate once the goal has been accomplished? Does not power now reside in those who used the guns to bring about the change? Why should we not expect a new Soviet Union? Why should we call this revolution? We will have killed people; will we have killed a system of hierarchy?

This again is not to say that guns will be gone; the point here is one about power. What power is used to bring about change such that when it is finished, it too is finished? Revolution may in that way be seen more like a cancer on the system. Once the body is killed by cancer, there isn't something left over called cancer that rules the now lifeless body. It too is gone, and the body rots into the earth.

What kind of power then eats at the system but is gone as soon as the system is gone? This is another reason to suggest that revolutions must be led by small groups of people. However, it is not any kind of small group of people. They must be small groups of people who do not function like the hierarchical systems that they resist against - that is, small groups of people who work on principles of consensus and mutual aid function in respect and solidarity with one another. If their actions are directed against abuses in the system, and those small groups are multiplied enough, then the cumulative effect of their actions should matter. If for instance, everyone opted out of the banking system AND worked on creating systems of material aid and support that worked within their very small community, then you would not only be hurting the system but also you would be doing so in a way that was culturally different. If things fall apart, then that small group has been developing the means to care for each other's basic needs. Revolution, then, is a simultaneous effort of large numbers of small groups taking direct action against leverage points in the system while developing and caring for the particular material needs of a group in a non-hierarchical, non-oppressive manner.

Now, that sounds highly unlikely even if I cannot understand how it would be impossible. It may be why I would have trouble finding actual examples of revolution in history. However, it is not impossible. I challenge anyone to show me the contradiction in the model proposed. I do not find one, but I admit that I have no idea how you are going to have a movement so large composed of so many smaller groups of people working on a culturally just model who simultaneously take actions against the overarching system. Yet, that to me seems exactly what is required. It requires taking actions at a local level, not knowing whether anyone will be doing the same in sufficient mass, and doing so on a non-hierarchical model. Wow ... but is it any wonder that history is the sad story of humanity run amok?

What's more, is it any reason not to work for it? The truth is, all of us are better off even if revolution remains elusive to try to go down this route. We will have greater voice the degree to which we engage each other within the range of our actual voices. We will be better off if we find ways to take care of each other. We will be better off if we force the powers that control the system to spend resources to try and quash us. It may not be enough for everyone and our world, but what other choice is there, really? Why should we expect a quick and easy solution? We want a magic bullet, but that is a large part of our problem. We want to get rid of the powers that abuse us, but we think that happens by some quick and aggressive power? This does not involve any meaningful revolution; it will only produce new devils.

Right now, I'm reading about Alexander Berkman, who spent 14 years in prison for attempting to kill Henry Clay Frick during the Homestead steel lockout in 1892. Berkman saw what he was doing as an attentat, a violent act of propaganda, not so much against Frick, but against the system that Frick represented. Frick would die, and the people might see the power they possess through that act. The truth is that Frick didn't die, but even if he had, all that was likely to happen was that Frick would have been replaced. Even if somehow the act of propaganda had served its purpose and the strikers managed to win a pitched battle against Pinkertons and the militia at Homestead would see themselves suddenly as proletarians (somehow fully understanding the import of Berkman's act), why should we imagine that anything is likely to have changed in Western Pennsylvania? I wonder if ultimately that is the lesson that Berkman would have to learn the hard way when he too became disillusioned in Russia so much so that he wrote a book called The Bolshevik Myth.

If we shoot and hit or shoot and miss, that means nothing. What matters is that we do something that has the potential for revolution. We won't get there by traveling to the seat of abuse where no one knows us and doing something where our voice will fall flat. Action must begin for me here in Bozeman and project at the tentacles of power that reach here. From there, you have to build growing overlapping circles of smaller groups, and then you have to hope. That's all we can do; if we really want profound change, we must toil and be workers. Revolution will come if and only if a critical mass embraces that cultural change.

A lot has gone unsaid, and I hope that there is a path that is somewhat easier than the one I have outlined. At this point, I'll throw it out for discussion, particularly within the smaller groups in which I actively engage.

Views: 185

Comment by Jim Macdonald on March 19, 2012 at 7:19pm

There is certainly some cogent points in ecofeminism - am particularly impresse by Karen Warren's talks about the logic of domination ... that humanity's fallacious logic of domination over the natural world is logically the same as what man has done to women ...

So, I certainly agree that feminism offers crucial metaphors for revolution.  Ultimately, whatever point of analysis you take on the systemic problem of hierarchy, I think the solution always is to bring us to a world that is inhabited less by the arbitrary abstract delineations of humanity since the rise of civilization and always toward one closer to our sense experience.  Where we find voice is with each other - in the kinships of family and close friends; we don't find it in political / national / capitalized / global society.  Navigating that insight with the obvious fact that we are not anywhere near that in our daily lives is the launching point for the discussion I raise here.

Cheers,

Jim

Comment by Jim Macdonald on March 20, 2012 at 1:20am

I'm not in any way opposed to taking inspiration from movements of anyone who is historically oppressed.  What I worry about, however, is a kind of soft racism and sexism that often comes from a romanticized ideal of what it is to be indigenous or a woman often imposed from without.  Indigenous peoples and societies are and were highly complicated, many of them particularly flawed; I have indigenous friends who insist on that point; they grow angry at the idea that there is a homogeneous notion of what "indigenous" is supposed to mean.  In fact, they'd argue that the label is a white man's imposition.  That said, of course, there is a lot to learn from the brutal  genocide of first people's that was and is ongoing; one of the issues I have worked fervently on is the respect for wild buffalo in the area in and near Yellowstone National Park - it is obvious to me that buffalo were destroyed to control nomadic, largely decentralized peoples who followed and took inspiration from the herds.  There is so much to learn from that particular relationship, from watching the buffalo move.

Likewise, feminism is not a monolithic philosophy.  Within it are a whole range of ideas that span contradictory ranges.  If there is a core to feminism, it seems to me a pointing to a consciousness to the chauvinism in every facet to our society.  Now, some who call themselves feminists still embrace very patriarchal tendencies; others are obviously quite radical and anti-patriarchal.  I think ultimately the point from my standpoint as a white male is to embrace that latter critique - that I have privileges as a white male that I'm scarcely aware of and that the more I explore and own up to those tendencies, the better we can break further artificial boundaries that exist between men and women - indeed, the whole idea of gender.  One of the patriarchal tendencies is to treat women as having objective natures distinct from men that should be valued as a particular homogeneous class.  This like worship of the "Noble Indian" ideal is actually, I'd argue, sexist.

In many ways, these isms are historical and sociological constructs that exert what I'd say are abstract and logically fallacious boundaries that keep people from being completely free.  Obviously, we cannot simply be rid of them the way some of the soft bigots suggest by simply denying the problems and the history.  It takes so much more than that.  Ultimately, the goal is the same - revolution against patriarchal power structures in all their forms while simultaneously developing a new culture - (or better, an old one - one governed by the laws of nature - which for a human should rest in dealing first with the problems that result from our five senses - that's problem enough for us). 

So, perhaps, you should explain better what you mean by guidance from women and indigenous peoples; how are people guided?  What makes a particular woman an intellectual?  Are they a homogeneous bunch who lead us a particular place, or are you presuming an a priori template onto what you are looking for?  If you begin to answer those questions, I'll have a better idea how to fit it (or reject it) in the context of the narrow focus of my essay, which is merely a problem about the form of a revolution (how do you have enough power to produce a revolution without that power becoming in the end counter-revolutionary, i.e., the new authority; meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Comment by Ben Roberts on March 20, 2012 at 10:02am

Thank you for this thoughtful post, Jim.  I think there are many people who share aspects of your vision, as articulated here:

...[Re]volutions must be led by small groups of people. However, it is not any kind of small group of people. They must be small groups of people who do not function like the hierarchical systems that they resist against - that is, small groups of people who work on principles of consensus and mutual aid function in respect and solidarity with one another. If their actions are directed against abuses in the system, and those small groups are multiplied enough, then the cumulative effect of their actions should matter. If for instance, everyone opted out of the banking system AND worked on creating systems of material aid and support that worked within their very small community, then you would not only be hurting the system but also you would be doing so in a way that was culturally different. If things fall apart, then that small group has been developing the means to care for each other's basic needs. Revolution, then, is a simultaneous effort of large numbers of small groups taking direct action against leverage points in the system while developing and caring for the particular material needs of a group in a non-hierarchical, non-oppressive manner.

I am looking for ways that our local actions can network together, as you describe here, so that they not only have impact on our communities but also reinforce (r)evolutionary shifts globally.  Some have called this "glocal" action.  I am also fascinated by the prospect of creating "local" groups virtually.  Face to face interaction is very hard to replace, so it is possible that the more workable model is a network of small f2f groups that together form something like a virtual village or town.

You express some concern about how all this could happen at scale:

...I admit that I have no idea how you are going to have a movement so large composed of so many smaller groups of people working on a culturally just model who simultaneously take actions against the overarching system. Yet, that to me seems exactly what is required. It requires taking actions at a local level, not knowing whether anyone will be doing the same in sufficient mass, and doing so on a non-hierarchical model. Wow ... 

I would like to suggest that the internet makes this entirely feasible, and that it may already be happening without our being fully aware of this fact.  And as you also point out, inaction is not an option.  So let us act as if this global network of local action is already forming and do our best to help it develop.  You might take some comfort from chaos theory, which suggests that very small actions can, when the conditions are ripe, cascade in unexpected and powerful ways--the proverbial "butterfly effect."

Comment by Jim Macdonald on March 20, 2012 at 1:14pm

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the kind words and thoughtful comments.  I really appreciate it.

I must admit that I am not as optimistic about the internet as you, though hope to be wrong.  It isn't that the internet does not facilitate mass scale communication networks - the kind that we're ultimately talking about for a model where large numbers of small groups can remain autonomous while coordinating.  It's clear that the internet provides a kind of mobilizing power that the revolutionaries of the past could scarcely dream about.  Certainly, developing the tools and possibilities of the form further are important, and I've worked on that myself - developing interactive websites, even an indymedia project here in Bozeman. 

Yet, the truth on the ground in our towns - at least from my experience and what I find anecdotally - is that it's harder to get people to engage in groups with each other.  People have an endless stream of entertainment.  Relationships via this medium often replace relationships in person - often even of people who live in the same town!  The tool seems to tend to become an end in itself, a way of not dealing with the difficulties of sensual life around us (picture the guy texting away while his date tries to get a word in edgewise).  If we can't find friends, find them online.  If you can't find love, find it online.  If you can't find ideological affinity, find it online.  I am as guilty of that as anyone.  Our physics is reduced to lines and syntax.

Thus, it is a tool that also has the potential to co-opt us out of our revolutionary ideals.  We see this on Facebook and Twitter.  For the first time in my life, I can be in touch with all my siblings - scattered across the globe - and all kinds of relatives and even people whom I've never met.  Yet, conversation is reduced to incidental anecdotes; we go on to be entertained or charmed by life - all in tune with the language of a pop culture but rarely with our eyes open to the sights and sounds around us.  Even now, I'm writing from a windowless cubicle, conversations about things I know not buzzing around me - frankly, I don't care about them; I care to be heard here - but where am I?  And, then, you realize that there is great peril of losing the freedom you so desperately desire - to breathe and smell the sulfur air from those amazing fumaroles not too far from where I am.

However, of course, we must engage the tool of the internet.  One thing - as an anarchist - that I reject is that you can simply withdraw from society.  Society - like it or not - lives here.  And, to the extent that we can harness the tool in this simultaneous deconstruction / construction, we obviously should.  We do need to find the life that lives in black marks on a white background and use that to draw important lessons as well as for organizing and resistance.

***

Incidentally, I am certainly convinced that actions reverberate.  My physics and metaphysics is plenist (nature abhors a vacuum) - and my philosophical idol is Leibniz.  Obviously, the question isn't whether our actions have consequences but what those consequences are.  We have little control over that; we should try to have little control over that and not presume to know.  That is why, ironically, in a world where all are actions are connected, we should focus on the immediacy of our environment as much as possible - at least ideally.  We cannot know what power we will unleash on the world; we are better off dealing with the concerns of the senses with a humility about how we go about things.  However, we cannot live so fully in the world as it's currently constituted do that because humanity has imposed systems of power that are unleashing consequences on us and everyone around us in every direction.  That vanity is disastrous and must be resisted.  Several years ago, I wrote essays on this subject as well - dealing with what I call the dogma of property rights (heck, the d

Comment by Jim Macdonald on March 20, 2012 at 1:17pm

the dogma of rights). 

So, while I do take heart that our actions can have universal impact, I also am humble at the thought.  That is one reason I'm very interested in the process whereby the power to resist disintegrates as a force the moment it achieves its goal.  This isn't to say resistance stops (there will always be some injustice and woe in life); it's to say that the particular force we used for resistance does not become oppressive.  The internet may have some of that promise; will it rot away?  That's a key question.  I'm not entirely convinced there aren't people who know how to use its powers like one would the barrel of a gun; on the other hand, maybe the rotting of industrial infrastructure will make the internet's power go away with it.

In solidarity,
Jim

Comment by Pawel Klewin on March 20, 2012 at 4:32pm

Jim, I am the one who share many aspects of your vision. I would like to refer to Ben's comment in view of our previous interrupted discussion. I hope new meaning of "revolution" can be discussed:

==

I am sorry to be importunate Ben, but thoughtful post by Jim seems to entitle me to try again. I think we cannot avoid exploring the role of consciousness in recent phase of system (nature, not social) development.

The thought/idea has become the prelude to any human organized action.

Thinking we/humans have created the systemic problem (dehumanized global social system).

The assumption that only thinking we can solve it is logically entitled.

Jim speaks about leverage point(s) in the system.

Let me quote Rudolf Steiner, who has inspired my thinking about the path towards solution.

When Archimedes had invented the lever, he thought that he could use it to lift the whole cosmos on its hinges, if only he could find a secure point to set his instrument. For this, he needed something that was supported by itself, not by something else. In thinking, we have a principle that exists through itself. Starting with thinking, then, let us attempt to understand the world. We can grasp thinking through itself. The only question is whether we can also grasp anything else through it. ( … ) We cannot deny that, before anything else can be understood, thinking must be understood.

He said it over 100 years ago. I would like to suggest that the internet makes [now] this entirely feasible. We could try to observe the way we think from outside, creating the reference standard (leverage point) in the web. Understanding thinking/consciousness we can understand our problem – and the conditions are quite ripe to make same understanding cascade in a way creating solution.

I don't know if I (and Steiner) are right. I don't know either why you reject the discussion, why I sense thought, logic, consciousness are kind of a taboo in the cafe.

Comment by Jack Strasburg on March 21, 2012 at 6:28pm

Well, Jim (this is addressed to all but addresses Jim's posts most specificly), I have been an active activist for over 30 yrs and had spent time thinking, talking and a little writing about the current topic b4 then. Early on it became apparent, from my perspective at least, that the system, both nationally and internationally, had gone so far amok that fixing it would be much more difficult than creating a new one from the ground up. Kind of like if you have a termite infested house. Up to some point it makes sense to rid it of termites and fix it. After that point it becomes more efficient to build another house (the new paradigm). Taken another step, I agree with Bucky Fuller “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” (similar to your notion of the need for a change in culture) Thus began my quest to participate in creating the New Paradigm. Tho I view the NP as encompassing the whole of life, the centerpiece, the primary thing to start on, would be the construction of an alternative economy. You gotta eat and if you're depending on someone else to get that done you ain't free.

The way I see to do that is to develop a broad range of intentional communities much like the Intentional Communities that already exist with many forming, except perhaps more organized, focused, and coordinated as a group. Of course the hope is that we would all work towards working together more effectively than currently seems the case.

If you look at the communities as small groups and building the alternative econ as learning to care for each other, then our ideas seem quite comparable/compatible. A significant part of why I bring this up is to spt your notion that the coordinated action of many small grps may be the most realistic way to make major, lasting change. Altho I shy away from absolutes, I will mention that after over 30 yrs, a better idea, again in my eyes of course, has not appeared. If we want a better reality, we will have to build it ourselves, has become more and more entrenched in my thinking to the point that I'm ready to take action. Have been ready for a long time, really, but my activist friends fairly regularly responded that tho it is a good idea, people are not going to do anything til they feel they absolutely have to. That kind of thinking seems downright stupid to me but the reality of it seems obvious. And tho I tend to see the time as being ripe for human consciousness to ascend to another level b4 it is (its a bitter taste), the occupy movement among other things has gotten me thinking that the time for us may be getting near.

There is much more to this but maybe enuf for now tho I will make a couple short cmnts b4 ending.

Intentional cmntys are maybe biodegradable as far as retaining oppressive pwr is concerned. Many, probably most are anarchistic and are not going to want to band together any more than necessary.

1st Having power and control over others is not part of the mindset for most of us. Of course pwr is corrupting so we need be watchful. 2nd Coordination is one thing when it means having fresh strawberries to eat. Quite something else when it's purpose is to build and retain pwr ovr others. There is a certain amnt of independence you have to give up, long meetings, other than ideal allocation of resources, the need to be nasty at times, and many mor

Comment by Jack Strasburg on March 21, 2012 at 6:38pm

The end of my post seems to have been cut off, So here it is:

Intentional cmntys are maybe biodegradable as far as retaining oppressive pwr is concerned. Many, probably most are anarchistic and are not going to want to band together any more than necessary.

1st Having power and control over others is not part of the mindset for most of us. Of course pwr is corrupting so we need be watchful. 2nd Coordination is one thing when it means having fresh strawberries to eat. Quite something else when it's purpose is to build and retain pwr ovr others. There is a certain amnt of independence you have to give up, long meetings, other than ideal allocation of rsources, the need to be nasty at times, and many more requirements to be successful. Most of us are not much into that.

And finally, one of your cmnts concerning the internet: “I'm not entirely convinced there aren't people who know how to use its powers like one would the barrel of a gun”. I'm entirely convinced there are, but that's not going to stop me from using it. Unfortunately, any useful/powerful tool can be abused. It's just the way it is.

Comment by Jim Macdonald on March 21, 2012 at 6:50pm

Hi Jack - thanks for those comments.  (By the way, we are also discussing this on our indymedia site over in Montana - feel free to participate at http://www.rockymt.org/?q=node/382 - no user account necessary and a lot of similar themes arising).

I think I want to emphasize that the program I am suggesting (that I think you find in other anarchists of the past like Kropotkin and syndicalism in general) is twofold.  Small groups must be the spearhead of any lasting and meaningful revolution; however, they do not simply act within their own spheres.  That is, it is extremely important to think of what the mass of power that takes on the system and then rots away is.  What I left somewhat, unstated, I suppose, is the assumption that small groups are part of a resistance movement.  We are in that way not just building a new house because the old one can't be saved (that's true! - we are building something new) but we are also the termites finishing off the old house.

So, we see the destruction of the house as a good thing, and we don't really want to see another anything like it.  We'd much rather see anthills than castles.  We don't want new logs to burn; we want to see what we can make of a world consisting of ashes (is that so bad?)  Now, that sounds desolate, I imagine.  But, what I'm really saying is that we will be much freer if we seek to live within our immediate environment than seek to impose a new order on it.  We are better off feasting on the fruits of the earth as they are rather than merely cultivating them and harnessing them and capitalizing off of them. 

Metaphors!  In life, in America/in the world, I don't really know what it looks like.  I have a sense that we need to have a real discussion understanding what the system's leverage points are, how we as small groups can push on them, and what we can do to re-create better structures.  In Bozeman, we're working on a divestment campaign against Wells Fargo.  It is the active engagement of a local occupy group trying to function on a better model, but it's just the slightest bit of a start without a great deal of hope of success.  So, our thoughts I think need to be about how we can foster the growth of small groups and yet orient those groups toward acts of resistance - to chewing up the decaying edifice that still lords over us and blocks the sun.

Okay ... geez ... too much for someone who lacks any practical answers - I'm more curious what specific ideas people might have (though we can and should talk forever about whether this model of social revolution makes sense).

Comment by Pawel Klewin on March 22, 2012 at 5:56am

Jack, in my attempt to pursue logic I would like to ask you a question:

What is the material you suggest to use building new house/new paradigm?  Do you have a supply of new, non-infested and sterile elements?

The parallel question arises speaking about local communities. The “small groups learning to care for each other” is exact description of a tribe at early stage of consciousness rise. The world we live in is the materialization of their recurring and growing dreams. They were motivated to work for future generations - meaning us, using the same motivation to consume fantastic effects of the work.

Is there any logical ground for your hope that different groups all over the globe would work towards new meaning of together (even upon strictly hypothetical assumption of non-inertial process)?

Can you (or anybody) specify what would be the element of novelty?

Comment

You need to be a member of Occupy Cafe to add comments!

Join Occupy Cafe

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2018   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service