
Greetings Good afternoon, good evening
My name is time to Seizway Shimaringa
And this is a special edition of Ritwerp
here on the Black Liberation Media
Platform. Now, even though this is a
special edition, like we always do, in
the beginning please like, share, and
subscribe. Like, share, and subscribe.
Like this video, share the link,
subscribe to Black Liberation Media if
you're not already a subscriber. And if
you are already a subscriber, be a
subscriber to Ritwork and now also
Cooperation Jackson's YouTube channel.
It's called Jackson Rising on YouTube.
Please subscribe to all of these media
platforms. These are black folks doing
what we can on this platform. doing the
best that we can to create our own media
to keep you informed with the information
that you need. Again, like, share, and
subscribe. Special edition of Rootwork,
in conjunction with Cooperation Jackson,
we are presenting the build and fight
formula. The build and fight formula is
both an argument and a proposed
methodology on how to build
eco-socialism from below, meaning through
the self-organized activity, and
institutions of the working class and
oppressed people. The principal
architect of the build-in-fight formula
is Brother Kali Akuno, co-founder,
co-executive director of Co-operation
Jackson, which is based in Jackson,
Mississippi. And Cooperation Jackson, of
course, is committed to building a
solidarity economy in Jackson, anchored
by a network of cooperators and
worker-owned democratically self-managed
enterprises. Collie is no stranger to
the platform. Been here many times. We
appreciate him. And now, Cooperation
Jackson, and we have entered into this
partnership to bring this educational
series to you and your friends. So
again, like, share, and subscribe. So I
need to stop talking so much and let our
guests, Callie Akuno, talk to you all
about what is the build and fight
formula of Cooperation Jackson. Thank you
so much, Collie. Always a pleasure,
Tandi, to be here, especially honored to
be here tonight, to start off this kind
of educational series. We are planning on
doing this. This was it the second
Tuesday of every month. So please be
advised, let your friends know, your
family know, you know, your fellow
cooperators and comrades to join us, tune
in. And as we go along, you know, we're
going to be asking questions. We're
going to be looking for feedback,
pushback, because what we're going to we
are going to go through, we make no
pretension that it is the answer. We
think it is part of an answer. And it
helps to kind of maybe ground some of
where we need. to go, particularly in
these perilous times. Hold on. You want
some pushback. You want some smoke? Oh,
yeah. We want, we want the smoke. We
want to smoke, you know, because look,
it's not smoke for criticism's sake. Let
me be clear about that. Right? We want
to construct a new world. And we have to
struggle with each other to get the right
to do that. right so you know correct
theory should lead us to better practice
well we have to sharpen up our tools and
we have blind spots you know we don't see
or hear everything it's not possible for one
individual one human being one
organization to do that so that's why we
want feedback to sharpen things up
that's how we've kind of come to this and
arrive at this in a number of different
things and it's what you're going to you
know hear for me is quite literally born
as as much failure as it has been a
little bit of success that we've been
able to garner. Right? But it's
learning from every mistake, learning the
best possible anyway, learning from your
mistake, learning from every failure and
trying to iterate at each point how to do
better, right? And doing intense
criticism, self-criticism and deep
reflection on, you know, these are the
things that we need to do. So this is
what this is all based off. So yeah, we
definitely want. and appreciate, you
know, feedback. It doesn't mean we can
get all to it, you know, respond to every
point or be able to get to it, you know,
at every, you know, immediate instance.
But believe me, we take it all in to
reflect because this is part of the study
practice, study process that we have to
be involved in. So definitely get us up,
you know, and be on the lookout. And
believe me, you know, the feedback we get
will inform what we're going to be doing
throughout the rest of the year, right?
That is how we've been building this and
we've been working towards this, you
know, for a minute. So we're going to try
to keep this to an hour each time. Okay.
And any of you all heard me speak,
sometimes that could be a challenge. So
my comrade, time is going to keep me on
point as much as possible. So today
we're going to go through, you know, a
few kind of early points. to just kind
of articulate a framework. And just I
want folks to know, you know, kind of the
basic outline is this intro is really
trying to make a case, building an
argument on why this particular set of
practices, principles, and positions
could lead to a revolutionary
transformation. Okay. And that's in why
it's particularly, we argue, grounded in
the history of this moment going forward.
based upon the concrete conditions that
we are facing and based upon what people
are already doing in the millions, right?
Because we have to start, we argue, with
where people are at and then build upon
that, but then try to fill in gaps, but
also to make some arguments, right, that
need to be made to push us all further
along the road and ask, you know, gives
us to really think critically, why are we
doing what we're doing? How could it be
better? How could it lead and aggregate
to us building? and amassing more power,
us ending certain social kind of
relationships between particularly those
of exploitation. How could it lead to
all those different things? So. Okay. So
what is the building fight formula? So
yeah. So first to lay out the argument.
You know, I want to just lay out off the
top. Like, this is premise on a notion
that concretely, y'all, we don't have
much time to enact a radical
transformation that we don't. need on
this planet. Right? The the capitalist
system is killing this planet and killing
it rapidly. And so we are going to have
to get rid of it before it gets rid of
us. So I want to state that very clear.
Now that's in some respects, many
respects, most respects, easier said than
done. But one of the critical
shortcomings is that is, you know, most
people, have gotten to the point,
particularly over the last 40 years,
where it's easier to envision the end of
the world than it is to envision the end
of capitalism. So we want to challenge
that. Like up front, we want to
challenge that and we have to challenge
that. Okay. And the first kind of
premise of the argument is that profound
radical transformation is possible. And
we want to back that up. You say, well,
you know, prove it to them. We want to
back that up with the critical analysis
of the last like 15 years, but the last
five years in particular. And to really
highlight to folks that we've already
lived through some profound
transformation. Now, it wasn't
necessarily sustained. It wasn't always
consciously, you know, directed, meaning
something that we in our, in the masses
agreed to and deliberately wanted to do
that. It was somewhat spontaneous in
relationship to the conditions. But we've
seen a great. deal of transformation.
Now, what do I mean? I'll go back to
basically, you know, let's go back to
2011. Okay. Okay. Now, we can go back
earlier, but I'm picking that as a kind
of an arbitrary date. And one of the one
of the things people asked me to to cite
in this is some of the sources. And so
one of mention here, I want folks to
check out a book called If We Burn,
right, which is an analysis of the 2010s.
And why all of the social revolution, the
social upheavals, I should say that
occurred during that decade, did not lead
to a revolutionary transformation. And in
many respects, wind up installing the
exact opposite. So if you look at Egypt,
if you look at Syria, if you look at
Tunisia, et cetera. you know what
happened with the the arab spring but
then also if you bring forth you know
what happened here in the united states
was part of that same motion right from
what happened in tahrir square to to the
indignados to occupy right that wind up
leading you can make a clear kind of case
in following history that wind up leading
to the mass uprising that we saw at least
the former character that it took uh at a
george floyd rebellion that happened in
2020 but also the response, which is now
kind of being born out by Donald Trump
and the rise of the MAGA movie. If we
learned by this Blevins. That's right.
B-L-E-V-I-N-S. Check it out or check out
some of their videos. And it's not
necessarily that you have to agree with
all of their analysis. I certainly don't,
but it's an excellent kind of just
documentation of moving through that
decade to you see how these. these
events pick up on each other how folks
are learning from each other you know
internet through social media right
through the past communications channels
how they accelerated time how folks try
to copy each other and what they were
doing you know sometimes to great effect
you know sometimes to ill effect right
and then how the distortion of the media
I think he cites a well good case in
terms of Hong Kong and some of the
protests that happened there trying to
you know that what they call the pro
democracy movement we can argue because
that's what it was or not. But in terms
of the tactics that they employed, one of
the things I think he does a good job of
highlighting, both in his speeches and in
the book, is how they, at a certain
period of time, some of the key actors
pivoted towards acting to elicit the
greatest response from Western media and
abandoned what their people had already
gravitated towards. And so they became
more isolated and more small as a result.
So critical learning. But some of the
tactics. that they wind up
developing there and how to avoid gas,
you know, how to use gas mass, how to
deal with some of that. We wind up
incorporating some of the for rebellion
here from folks making direct
connections. Also folks making direct
connections, you know, what happened
like with Ferguson some years before from
the Palestinians, right, to just bring
this home in this methodology. But the
critical piece I just want to say real
quick in and then move through is that
if we look at the profound the nature of
how those uprisings transform society,
polarized it, if nothing else. That is a
profound transformation that we are
living through. That means more space is
actually open for us to experiment with,
and we need to recognize that and be
cognizant of that because the ruling
class forces in and now, the last during
this period, we need to be clear. They
do not have concrete answer. This is not
like the end of World War II where they
laid out the Britain Woods program that
wind up restructure in the world. The
steel structure is a large part of the
world that we live in. But that was
based upon a clear vision plan, right?
And a clear understanding of they had
control of the various organized forces
that they could deploy to enact their
program. They don't have that now.
They're trying to institute that now.
I'm just particularly citing the United
States. They're trying to do with
Project 2025. So they try to do with
Project 2025. So they try to develop a
level of cadre. But they don't, believe
me, they don't have that all worked out.
It's not all crystal clear despite the
chaos that Trump is trying, is unleashing
on this society. Believe me, it ain't
all worked out, right? And they are, you
know, shooting darts everywhere, trying
to see what sticks, trying to see what
holds. But the difference between us and
them is they have command over the state
apparatus and a command over all the
institutions and instrument of capital at
their disposal to kind of failed and
then pick up. Whereas we, there's more,
you know, we have to more get it right
kind of the first time in order for the
transformation to take place. And we
need a bunch of luck. So the critical
piece is to understand that the space is
open. And then there's a second part of
this I want folks to kind of understand
in terms of this argument around the
possibility of, you know, radical
transformation. being possible and
potentially being on the agenda. Now
that is really going to depend upon us,
and that's what we're going to get into.
But I want folks to just go back to
another episode in 2020, right, which is
the beginning of the pandemic. And this
is one I tried to say that I'll reiterate
it here. You know, I'll go back to to
make a connection. And in 1992, you
know, there was the Rio summit. So the
first big international climate change
summit. And this occurred right after
the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
Eastern Block, right? What most folks
our age, you know, would call kind of the
core of the socialist world, the
socialist experiment. And it collapsed,
leaving only China, you know, in the
main, Cuba, Vietnam to a lesser degree,
being kind of the last major kind of
socialist projects, you know, operating
under that vein. Well, we were told on
the heels of this conference, on the
world scale, that yes, climate change
was a serious issue, but that the global
economy was too complex for there to be
any immediate, you know, answers to the
crisis of carbon emissions. That it was
too complicated. That the scale was
significant, right? That's a lot. Yeah.
Fast forward to 2020. And the political
necessity of grinding the global
necessity of grinding the global. the
global economy and global trade to a halt
comes into play on the account of the
COVID pandemic and deal them with
something that they didn't quite
understand, but knew that it was
spreading like wildfire and they had no
ability or no means at the early stages
to fundamentally contain it without
containing the flow of goods and of
humans migrating or moving from place to
place. So they restricted travel. They
basically said we're only going to allow
essential services, the essential workers
to come, the essential services to be
open. They basically ground global
commerce to a halt. And guess what,
y'all? Climate emissions, methane
emissions dropped dramatically in the
course of months. So much so that we saw
nature within the course of just two or
three months, things rebounding, deer
coming back to the coyotes and stuff.
like in San Francisco and LA, you know,
the animals were just coming back to
spaces and places that they had long
since vacated, right, on account of, you
know, the human interaction there.
Right. And guess what? They stopped
this, right? And then it wasn't for a
long period of time. They stopped it.
And the world system didn't collapse,
right? The sky didn't fall, right? What
we learn from that and what we have to
deduce from that is, radical
transformation can take place if there is
sufficient political will to do so. And
for that very brief moment in time, I say
it lasted about six months at max, there
was sufficient political will. Now,
there was a reactionary move against it,
and we're still living in part with that
reaction, right? But it demonstrated,
and this is just one of many examples, it
demonstrated that change can happen. It
can happen in a profound way. and it can
happen quickly. So I want folks to just
move from that and saying if what we
witness in our own lifetimes should open
up our imagination to envision the
possibility of capitalism coming to an
end and it coming to an end on account
of our organized activities and
deliberate and consequential action. So
the critical thing moving from there, is
that we also then have to kind of deal
with the next piece. We have to deal
with kind of understanding some of the
dynamics of the system itself. This is
the second critical piece of this
argument. Okay. And there's an article,
again, citing a source. There's an
article that myself, two of my comrades,
Doug Norbert, Brian Dr. Lerley, we wrote
in 2001 called Shifting Focus. And
that's an underscrowing argument here,
right? And that was, you know,
organizing for revolution, not for crisis
avoidance. So I want everybody, if you
haven't read that, you pick that up and
look at it. Because it's a subtext to
many, much of what is going to be laid
out throughout the course of this series.
But I'll just summarize it in a couple of
critical points here. For this one, I'm
actually just going to read to make it
quick. You know, I hate, for those you
know me, I hate doing that and I hate
PowerPoints. But I think it's important,
right? So just start with this notion
that we need to be clear, that we need to
be organized and building for a
revolution, not reform, and crisis
avoidance. Just as a piece that, this is
fundamental. Now, what does that mean?
Let's get into that. There's a point two,
right? The deepening crisis humanity
faces is not rooted in human nature, as
many will argue, right? Most of these
arguments are based upon that. Right?
It's included in the economic and social
systems humans have created and have, you
know, developed and have evolved over
time. Mm-hmm. A relationship that
distinguishes the different types of
economic system that have structured most
of, you know, human history, is that
between producers and the appropriations
of surplus labor, which, you know, and
is monetized form is surplus value. Now,
what I'm describing here is the evolution
of class-based societies. just to be
clear. And how they've always had these
kind of distinctions, right, between like
landowner and surf, right? Lord and
peasant. And in our area, the dominant
one being between employer and employee,
right? Boss and worker. And that, and
the last version of this, the capitalist
version, or is the former producer
inappropriate of surplus value, right?
Be clear about that. And that we need to
be clear that we need to be clear that we
need to, from a revolutionary
perspective, that we need to reject all
of these different forms of hierarchy and
domination. That's a simple piece that
we need to be clear upon. And where that
leads is understanding that dynamic and
that relationship in present era, you
know, between capital and workers.
There's another way of putting between
employer, employee, between boss and
worker, right? Between capital and
workers in the main, dominant fees. We
need to be clear, and it's the third
point. I think perhaps the most critical
point for this particular error in
purpose and this argument. What we
fundamentally been getting trapped by
time and time again, I would argue
basically since the Great Depression, is
an argument primarily amongst the left
over which form of capitalist rule we
should be fighting for. Primarily
because we don't believe the radical
transformation I was speaking to earlier
is on the immediate horizon or is
possible. Yeah. And so we wind up
getting into a bunch of arguments about
can the capitalist system be reformed.
And can we help to usher in those reform?
Mm-hmm. Right? Without critically, you
know, making a distinction that number
one, you know, and we're trying to put
this in a global perspective. We want
folks to understand very clearly because
then it helps to arm us in different ways
in terms of fighting back. I want us to
be clear about that. Mm-hmm. But
there's this notion sometimes like that
fascism is something different than what
we understand is bourgeois democracy.
And I'm not saying that they are the
same, but they sprung from, they spring
from the same root. And that root is
capitalism. Okay. And capitalism will
employ based upon various conditions,
right? It will employ different forms of
governance in order to replicate itself
and reproduce itself, right, and to
protect itself in order for it to
sustain. So there's some periods in time,
right? right that we are we're kind of
coming to the tail end of that me and you
probably a good chunk of our audience you
know were born in the 1960s and 70s and
we caught the tail end of what one could
call social democracy right or like the
welfare state now the neoliberal order
that they ushered in in the 1980s is
largely eviscerated most of it not
completely gone i mean they're working on
that now so when you hear this
argument about the republicans talking
about they're going to destroy the
Department of Education. Are they going
to destroy ultimately, you know, Social
Security? They're trying to complete that
neo-liber revolution of privatizing
everything. Right. But just keep in mind
that those things that they existed were
still within the capitalist framework,
right? So security and all those
benefits, they still allow the
appropriation of our surplus value. They
just tacked a certain amount and then
distributed a certain amount, but it left
the rulers in place. Right. They
didn't go anywhere. And the rulers never
completely agreed with that program of
being taxed, right, of being regulated,
and they had fought back. And in this
recent iteration, if you look at Trump or
Irvine or Bodie, you put it on the
global scale, they fought back to
reposition themselves, at least in the
current era, where they are now calling
the shots and dismantling this old area.
And they're ushering a new phase, kind of
a neo-fascist phase. Well, neo-fascism
is just another variant. of the
capitalist system. Now, I'm saying that
because, you know, we need to get past
fighting about with each other,
particularly forces on the left, fighting
with each other over which variant is
going to be better than the other
because we've now, I think, safely can
say in the last century and a half, live
through enough variations of this to know
that if we don't kill it, that the other
form, its opposite form, will just
reemerge. So like if social, Social
democracy doesn't actually move towards
the abolition of capital and in his
undermined. Then it inevitably leaves
the capitalist class and its enablers and
supporters in place to build a
reactionary movement that over 10, 20, 30
years will come back, right? And move
itself and usher itself into power. And
that is where we're at. So we have to
figure out how to end this thing. Now,
the critical piece of what we first
articulating, this is the kind of the
third point. is that starting with where
folks are at, right? We have to end this
deficit kind of mindset that we have a
mindset that we have and analysis that we
have. And what do I mean by that?
Please. We are constantly are, you know,
in this notion that we do not have enough
forces. We do not have enough people.
And if you mean, enough people who are
clearly in line with a particular
politics, program, and worldview, you
are absolutely correct. If you're
thinking about it strictly in kind of a
vanguardist way of moving social
revolution, then you are correct.
However, if you look at what people are
engaged in that has the potential of
transforming social relationships in a
non-capitalist way, we see that there
are millions of people just in the United
States alone, but I would say even more
outside, who are engaged in practices
that if sufficiently coordinated, could
lead to a radical transformation. And
what I mean by radical transformation,
like this is, this is the piece we'll get
into later, but they're within the cycle
of capital. And if you could probably
bring that one up, the one that says
David Harvey, you know, just to go to us
to get people to understand a tundice
ways a little bit and this cycle of
cycle of capitalism David Harvey that one
I'm not seeing that which is a it's a
graphic no I know that but which one is
it I have I think it's David Harvey in
the in the in the in the thing itself or
Harvey is in the the the the title
While Tondy is pulling it up, comrades,
the, the, just a little kind of
one-on-one. So there's- You're not
talking about METCHO-Chief Exchange and
Commodity Exchange. No, not that one.
That is one by David Harvey, but what I'm
getting to that is that there's the
dominant typical form of how we
understand capitalism to move as a
circulation. There it is. Okay. Okay.
But, you know, this circulation, without
going into deep, because we're already at
the 30-minute mark. Yes, sir. We are
trying to up in this particular
valouration of surplus, labor, and
surplus value. And we're going to go
through a part of this, so folks
throughout this course understand this,
but then also an argument of how we take.
take initial concrete steps through the
practices that are articulated in the
solidarity economy as a basic means to
integrate a way to move past this. And
to get to a spot, wherein that we aim our
collective endeavors towards the
production of exchange values, use
values, right, not commodities. And that
we now possess the technical means and
capacity. to move in ways that previous
generations could only, you know, dream
of. And this is the folks to understand
that the computing capacity, how capital
wants to use it, as you listen to Peter
Thiel. Capital wants to use it to
basically subject labor to total
domination and control. There's another
version of this wherein we could utilize
all of this is kind of the wealth of
human ingenuity and the human ingenuity
and the, the accumulated kind of
expression of humanities intellectual
growth, we could use it to transform
society within our means to make our
labors and endeavors easier with the
context of appropriate technology. What
I mean by appropriate, things that are
socially appropriate, that don't require
a great deal of waste or excess
production, too much extraction from the
earth, and then things that are produced
based upon need, not just based upon
endless commodities that often just wind
up in a trash heap somewhere because they
don't produce the amount of profit that
their producers want and so they find of
different ways to dispose of them or they
do you know plant obsolescence instead of
making things that could be durable for a
generation they make them to make sure
that they fit a cycle of consumerism
wearing things you know time out or
break very calculated in intention my car
my iPhone my laptop All these different
things. They can make them a lot doable.
They can make them a lot better. There
are certain dynamics of the market where
they choose not to. So this is part of
the cycle of what we're going to up in.
And what we're arguing for is that if we
take what millions of people are already
doing in the engagement of certain key
solidarity practices that we can create
our own, you know, kind of value change
that then up in this and move us towards
production, towards values in our
future. communities and that we would
argue we have enough critical mass
already that we could be major catalyst
for this for the development of
eco-socialism from below, but it
requires, and this is the piece, it
requires a greater level of political
clarity, intentionality, democratic
coordination, right from below, and
concerted, planning to eliminate excess
waste but to also meet the human need
that exists. Because believe me, right,
there is no reason why in 2025, with all
the excess production of just food
alone, that there should be any human
being on this planet who goes hungry.
Shouldn't be not one. Not one. Not one.
That is a problem not only of
distribution, because some people will
leave it at that. That's one dimension
of the problem as it presently exists.
But ultimately, we have to figure out how
to socialize the means of production and
put all of us in a democratic practice
of being able to access common goods so
that we can meet our common needs from
the collective pool of what humanity has
produced. And the solidarity, the
practice of the solidarity economy are
the anchors to that. That is the
argument. And then what we present as the
formula are steps, a set of steps, you
know, what we call the kind of the
practices of position and the practices
of maneuver. And the first part, we'll go
through the practices of position. And
that's taken from Gramsci, very
intentionally and deliberately. So folks,
Antonio Gramsci, present notebooks for
those who've never read it or don't
understand, you know, want to know what
the sources go back and look at that for
this particular piece. And that's about
how you deal with hedgmonic and
counter-hegemonic, dominant and
non-dominant forces and how the
non-dominant forces can organize.
themselves to form a new both cultural
view, world view, and practice that
distills kind of in an anti-systemic
practice to underscore, undercut, and
ultimately destroy the dominant kind of
perpetuation of ruling class ideology and
practice. So that's what we are trying to
aim with here, right, in these positions
of maneuver. And what we're articulating
with that. And then this is what the
next couple of pieces that go over is
we're going to break down in detail, you
know, using PowerPoint, all this
different stuff. How do you practice
mutual aid and how does mutual aid and
social reproduction lead to gathering
enough information about the concrete
needs that then we can then leverage
that and connect it to doing a concerted
level of planning around autonomous food
production through a scale of program of
meeting all the different community,
small-scale farms to large-scale farms of
independent farmers and producers, tied
them together to meet particular needs.
But then we also have to figure out how
the massive workers into appropriate,
basically, the means of productive, turn
that into cooperative enterprises and
link with each other to put all of the
tools and all of the collective property
into a pool that we could use to meet our
collective needs. That's what the worker
self-organization pieces come in and
we're going to talk about within that.
how we take the cooperative side, the
trade union side, the workers center side
of what is concretely going on now, how
to better kind of link that together in
strategic way to utilize as much power.
We'll break all of those down
individually in that way. Let me jump in
real quick. I don't want to take you off
your focus too much, but this building
fight formula, practices of position,
practices of maneuver, this is going to
be done in conjunction in partnership
with other organizations, correct? Oh,
absolutely. None of this of what we're
talking about is a, is, could be done by
one organization. Okay. None of this,
you know, and why we say we're starting
part of the making the argument of
starting what people are doing. Okay.
Because we don't have, let's be clear,
what the large part of this argument
underscore, we don't have the political
parties of the 1930s or even the 1960s.
That's not what we're at, right? And if
we look at, at least in the United
States, in, in, most of so-called Western
world is profoundly different in the
global south, where in the global
south, you still have, you know,
organized factions of the left in terms
of political forces there, particularly
in Latin America, who can and are moving
on things. And we'll talk about how that
kind of relates. But in our kind of U.S.
context, you know, we don't have
political parties that can move tens of
thousands, if not millions of people
into a concerted program. But what we do
have, right, we have, millions of people
who are involved in projects where
they're doing, you know, farming in their
communities of various scales. It's just
not coordinated, right? It's not being
planned to meet the basic caloric needs
of our community. So most of it's done,
you know, to meet kind of personal needs
or small-scale needs. And I would say,
like, even in cooperation, Jackson, we're
doing, you know, trying to do a level of
scale to reach about 25,000 people. 
Of course. 

***

But
Jackson is a city of 100. 60,000 to
180,000 people, give or take. So, you
know, we have to figure out,
coordinated with other folks in Jackson, how to scale
up production. And that doesn't mean
cooperation Jackson is going to do this.
Our role is to just be a catalystist to
say, hey, if we do this, this is what it
can lead to. Right. We can move from food
security, ultimately towards an element
or aspect of food sovereignty, at least
on a local level, so that we can meet
the caloric needs and we could end food
as a, weapon, but more importantly,
right, we could free up more people's
time, right, from having to pursue the
endeavor of wage, labor, wage employment,
so they have more free time to do more of
what they want to do, and you can kind
of reduce folks' wheels. Now, there's a
system that has to go and that's what
this formula is saying that these
practices have to be coordinated in
conjunction with each other. Otherwise,
they're just kind of isolated endeavors
that may make some things of our of our
lives a little bit easier. But if we
don't deal per se with the broader
dimension of like land decommonification
and the collective stewardship of land,
which is an anchor of what we need to go
for towards food sovereignty, we don't
deal with that and deal with kind of
collective housing solutions, right?
You're still leaving folks subject to all
the predatory things of the market and the
need for ways to meet the market kind of
necessity. that's been
structured within the capital system. So
it's trying to be comprehensive within
the framework of what people are already
doing. And what I mean by in and in this
deficit piece is that if you take the
whole of all of different organizing
efforts that are taking place just in the
United States alone, like in the housing
arena, right, for health and reproductive
justice, right, for workers' rights, if
you aggregate that all, together,
there's a lot of people working on a lot
of stuff. Yes. A lot of people,
millions of people working on stuff every
single day, but because we don't have a
framework to unite it coherently, right,
and one that's co-constructed, right?
And so this is an argument for
co-construction, not one that just kind
of impose something from above because
we've seen, you know, time and time again
that has its advantages, but more
disadvantages than advantages. So a
co-construction of how to do that. do we
get people to plan and coordinate with
each other to aggregate power, right, but
to also transform the system by getting
out of those, you know, that cycle of
MCM, right, money, commodities, money
that is premised, the capitalist
society's premise on, which forces us all
to be, you know, chases of a wage or
another old way of saying to be wage
slaves and be dependent upon that to earn
our livelihood. It's either that. If we
don't, don't build an alternative or be
thrown out in the streets or go hungry,
right? And remember, this is in a
society which produces an overabundance
or world system that produces an
overabundance of all the material goods
that are necessary for all of humanity to
live well. I'm seeing a couple of
questions in the chat. Let me just a
quick reminder. If you come here to play
or not serious, you will be booted out of
this chat. Now, y'all know I'm tech
spice. I see, tech divergent. It might
accidentally hit ban user as opposed to
just deleting your comments. So be
careful what you put in the chat. One of
the questions that we do have here, if
you want to tackle it now, because we are
at 442. And you did say you wanted to
keep it to an hour. I'm sure folks
wouldn't mind hanging out, but let's see
what we can do. Michael Nugent asked,
what about these arguments about techno
feudalism or that capitalism is in
terminal decline. I've been hearing that
for 40 years. change is legit? And do
they change how we fight who the
revolutionary subject is? Great
question. Great question. And I've been
thinking about doing a particular set of
series just upon this from my vantage
point. And let me riff off a comment that
you just said, Tundi, right? That you've
been hearing that for 40 years. Well, it
takes that long for the system to
actually, if not longer, to collapse.
Right? So if we go into some of the
works of say, again, citing sources, I
want people to read it. You don't have to
agree with all of it. But if you look at
some of the world, the works of like
Emmanuel Wallerstein or Undergrinder
Frank in their particular assessment of
the capitalist world system, we see that
things take roughly 50 to 60 years to
sink in and transform. Okay. So if
you're thinking about it within, and this
is part of the, and this is part of the,
a level of consciousness that we have to
kind of ascribe to. So within the
context of our own lifetime, you might
dismiss certain arguments. But if you
look at it in the context of several
generations, you'll see that, yes, this
system is in a very terminal decline.
And I would argue that techno feudalism
is not just a symptom of the decline,
right? but it is something that is going
to hasten and speed it up. And for me, I
had been arguing before, and for folks
who, again, the site or source, if it
hasn't been put in the chat, one of the
main framers, I think the lead framerer
of this techno-futalism argument is
Janus Beric Fawkes. Look up his book on
techno-fetolism. I can't remember the
exact technology. Is that the brother
from Greece? That's the brother from
Greece, the Conrader from Greece, you
know, who. Austerity movement? the
post-osterone. We were in the Sariza
government, which, in my view, wind up
making a class of portrayal of the
people, leading them down a dead end
path. Part of what I was arguing against
around, you know, what the what type of
concessions we can get, you know, from
capital rather than making a clean or
some would argue kind of a dirty break
and going it alone, at least in regards
to them switching out of of being part
of the EU and going back into kind of
their own currency or their own
transactional relationships and then
using that to foster the dynamic growth
of the solidarity economy because Greece
had that at the time and then one
definitely emerged in the in the midst of
their crisis following the financial
collapse of 2007, 2008, 2009, that there
was a profound social movement that they
wound up basically kind of betraying and
gave space to the current right
government. which is now in place in
Greece. But I think, you know, this
move, this terminal decline has led to
the rise of all of these neo-fascist
forces or these right-wing authoritarian
forces, you know, the likes of, again,
outside Modi in India, you know, Erdogan
in Turkey, you know, we can go on. Urban
and Hungary, Malay, in Argentina, and the
list goes on. And unfortunately, we'll
probably have, you know, a right-wing
government in Germany and in France soon
as a result. But this- Are these changes
legit? Are these changes legit? And do
they change how we fight, who the
revolutionary subject is? Legit. If the
answer is the system moving in that
direction, I would say, if that's what
it's meant by legit, clearly that is
what's going on. I mean, we can just
look at what Trump has enabled in terms
of the cabinet and like what he's done
with Doge and Elon Musk, basically kind
of making him his co-president. But it's
not just him, right? It's all the
techno-futal lords, you know, which have
made a very clear and conscious decision
to ally themselves with Trump and the
Maga movement on a very deliberate
nature and why they are very much
invested in a deep race for over AI
artificial intelligence and this global
competition to who's going to get there
first from between themselves being the
United States and China. And why J.D.
Vance in real time is over in Europe now
threatening the Europeans that they
either get on board with the United
States and open up all of their markets
towards the U.S. domination of AI and
work with them or they're going to be
punished. Now, you don't normally talk
to your friends like that. No, you
don't. You're not supposed to. So, you
know, that speaks to a different time, a
different order that is not just about
Trump's personality. Folks need to
understand that. Right? This is about
capitals deep restructuring and trying
to get to a particular place, right, so
that the West remains its hegemonic
control over the earth, over its
peoples, and all of his resources, so
that a certain group of people continue
to benefit at the expense of others. So
that race, is still going on. That is
why Elon Musk, who is supposed to be
running part of the government now, is
trying to issue a hostile takeover of
open AI. Put these things in perspective
to understand what a technical feudalism
piece in the argument why it's legit.
Does that change how we fight? I would
argue we'll go through it. In some ways,
profoundly yes, and in some ways, at
least in terms of what we're
articulating, No. Right? Now, what we
need to be clear on, I think in terms
of kind of like what principles and
program, the piece that we'll get to
where we talk specifically about social,
digital infrastructure, that deals with
how we in community production within
this formula, that deals with how we are
arguing that we should be engaging in
these kind of new technologies, but not
engaging them on capitals term, but to
the greatest extent possible,
appropriating them at the scale that
they could be utilized to open source to
create our own means. And that is why,
just to cite, you can get back to this,
that is why I want folks to go back and
look at, what was, I'm forgetting the
name, deep, deep seek, whatever, the AI
piece that China put together, that was
a profound move, y'all. And I'm not
saying that to like praise, you know, a
China, but that was a pretty concerted
move that opened up a tremendous amount
of space. And what they fundamentally did
by making that open source, they made it
so that folks in Nigeria can take some
elements of their code and work on it
without having to deal with the
proprietorship or ownership. Or me and
you can learn how to code and be involved
in that and help technology, grow, and
function, and ensure it actually
functions to serve human need and not
further, right, the private
appropriation capturing social control
that the capitalists are aiming. towards
very explicitly. If you don't believe
me, listen to what Peter Till said about
two weeks ago. So this can be done
through our labor unions, right, or is
that idealistic? It's going to have to
be done through them and beyond them,
right? And to be clear. Like, we need
those institutions to, you know, be
transformed from the inside. And we need
them in particular to jettison, you
know, the agreements that have confined
them and that, kind of adhered to, you
know, for the greater part of, what,
about 70 years? And what am I
specifically relating to in terms of the
United States, right? Like, we, we have
fundamentally, and I've been part of the
trade union movement, still part of the
trade union movement. But you've kind of
hamstrung ourselves and accepting the
National Labor Relations Act in this
framework that comes out of it, right,
which keeps us from acting in politically
or acting in solidarity in a number of
fundamental ways. And then how that's
supported by the right to work regime,
by the Tav Hartley law, we have to go
beyond that. And we should have been
going beyond that a long time ago.
Right. And so we now have to, you know,
be very clear that to the, to the degree
that the Maga movement is very
intentional about destroying all of the
liberal bourgeois protections that
supposedly are enshrined in the
Constitution. We ain't got no need to
uphold it either. Right? This is where
our, our mind, space has to open up. and
seize the opportunities that exist
amongst the contradictions that they are
creating. So if they're not going to
necessarily play by the rules, there's no
reason why we should either. And we have
to step out of that to now figure out how
do we engage in a broad union kind of
co-op initiative to, like, fund each
other, support each other, build our
collective strength. How do we now move
in a concerted level to like organize one
of the, to link it to the previous
questions? How do we get all of the the
major unions that are part of the AFL-CIO
to now step fullheartedly, wholeheartedly
into supporting the workers at Amazon,
right, to unionize. And then not only to
unionize, I would press, and this is part
of what, you know, one of the times I was
able to kind of sit down with Chris. We
had a brief conversation, a presentation,
Chris Smalls is one referring to.
Cremotation said, don't just settle for
unionization, right? Press for social
control, right? Cooperize the space.
That is how Amazon basically should be
run, basically either as a public utility
or as a collective-owned cooperative. So
open to our imagination towards the
appropriating. We have to, you know, go
back to be very clear about we're trying
to expropriate from the expropriators.
That is a fundamental task that is.
still before us. It's just the means by
which we have to do it and the
instruments we have to do it by. Some of
them have to be reinvented by like the
trade unions. And then some things we're
just going have to create a new, right?
Basically somewhat from scratch, but
starting from where people are already
engaged in the millions in social
activities that speak towards a broader
transformational project. How much of
lack of coordination is due to lack of
physical infrastructure versus lack of
network relationships across difference?
Where is best to put? our energy. That's
a damn good question. I'm glad it was
asked. Real quick, real quick. The
graphic we put up that circle, is there
a link to that or that's in a book?
Folks, there's a series. David Harvey has
been doing a series about a capital for
years now, where he breaks down Capital
Volume 1. There's a series of lectures
that you can go to his a YouTube page or
you can go and look at David Harvey, you
know, and you can get an analysis. Now,
I have some nuance with David's read of
capital. We ask the graphic, bro. Where
can we get the graphic? You'll find it
there. Okay. Or you'll find it in his
book, a companion to, I think, capital.
He has. Okay. Got you. Lack of
coordination versus lack of network
relationships. It's both. Okay. Right.
And, you know, the capital is always, you
know, fostered and facilitated uneven
development. And so this is part of, you
know, part of the legacy of capital only
building things that serve his particular
needs. And so that means certain
sectors, certain people, certain groups
are left out or certain folks wind up
being incorporated into basically
sacrifice zone. Like I would say Jackson
fundamentally, you know, has become, in
essence, a sacrifice zone. at least most
of it, you know, to capital. And so, you
know, a lot of part of what we're
struggling with is the lack of
infrastructure. But the lack of
infrastructure is an obstacle. It's a
barrier that I think the deeper one is
the lack of coordinated relationships.
And that requires the organizing. And
that we have to, you know, look, if we
got to like bicycle to find ways to
connect with each other or walk a couple
of miles to connect with each other,
necessity should demand that we do so to
overcome the infrastructure.
limitations. You know, and this is
fundamentally what we're going to have to
get to. I think if we're serious about
transforming the system. And trust me,
I'm citing things that people do in the
real world all over the globe. Maybe not
in the West, not here now, but these are
practices that people do. So don't think
it's impossible or it's insurmountable.
Well, we have a spreadsheet and a
calendar for coordinating or what? Well,
this is, again, this is what we mean by
social, digital infrastructure. Right.
And we'll probably come up with a better,
you know, tool for that. And I know some
comrades that we're working with, you
know, outside two that the folks want to
look up some of the work that they're
doing. You know, one is grassroots
economics. They just came out with a book
on, you know, how they're utilizing
basic elements of kind of, you know, cell
phone technology to be able to do
complex transactions within, you know,
community and Khalifi community, and
Kaliya and beyond, to help coordinate
and do the type of planning that I'm
suggesting is going to be necessary. And
this is low grid, low tech. Then there's
more, you know, kind of advanced versions
that are being worked on by like the One
project, in particular a piece that
they're kind of, you know, working on
that we've been somewhat, you know, at
least on the advisory end, that I would
cite that people should look at. But,
you know, if you want to look at, I'm
forgetting the name of the book, I will
cite it in some notes and make sure to
bring it further along. But I think the
best example of even a low-tech system or
version of what we're trying to go to
deal with some of the complex problems
of, you know, like some of the socialist
experience, like the calculation problem
that many of the projects, you know,
suffered from and moved through in the
20th century, we now have the computing
power, you know, know, on cell phones to
deal with a lot of things that they just
did not have the capacity to grab
information in, you know, quick instance
of a fraction of a section. We now have
that at our disposal. We're not
utilizing in this means, right, because
it's owned and control. That data is now
a new form of capital being used and, you
know, kind of colonized, if you would,
by the technical field of lowers, but
there is still enough time and enough
know-how that we can redirect our skill
and the techniques to do the kind of
level of appropriate technology to
develop, you know, programs that enable
us to coordinate. And some of this stuff
is already out there. You know, it's not
that spreadsheets can't help, but to
aggregate moving from like a time bank,
you know, it has like 200 people to try
to move something, you know, say on the
scale of Jackson where, again, it's
between, say there's 180,000 people,
we're going to need far more
sophisticated tools to aggregate and
plan that out. And we argue that those
are basically kind of at our disposal.
Doesn't mean that we don't need to tweak
them or work them or to learn more, but
we need the intentionality in the
political direction and agreement around
a program like this, that there's a
necessity to do so that is required. As
someone who focuses on affordable
housing, land stewardship, I'm very
interested in the overlap between food
sovereignty and land stewardship in that
context. Well, that would be the second,
I'm speeding some of this alone,
definitely, take all of the questions
and everything in the comments. So please
keep them coming or to send them to us,
you know, on the YouTube link on the
Jackson Rising or on route work. You
know, we'll pick them up there, Black
Liberation Media, the different places
that this is going to be rebroadcast. We
have people kind of going through that to
kind of tease these out and make sure
that we incorporate these questions in
the presentations that we do. You know,
they'll sharpen things up. And you all
have already, you know, touched upon the
critical things that I think a couple of
these questions, the technical feudalism,
the infrastructure question, all of these
have been very, very helpful. So keep
them coming. But we'll definitely tackle
that particular question around that
intersection, right, in the third
session, which is going to be about food
sovereignty and land decommonification.
And then there's a deeper component of
it, which we actually ultimately have to
need to argue for, both which is somewhat
specific. to settler colonial societies,
but there's a deep element of
decolonization that that program has to
be matched with. It's not true
everywhere. So that's why we kind of left
that out. But for articulation of what we
need here in the United States, this the
colonial project and the need for its
dismantling will be dealing with that
during that section. I am, that was the
David Harvey graphic. I keep seeing more
questions later on for you people who
came in. laid asking about that graphic.
And, well, I did see one, hold on. I
don't know if that's rhetorical or not,
but there's a question for you. Can all
the urban agricultural projects in New
York City feed the city? Is that the
best way to feed the city? If there's an
uprising in New York City, where
surrounding farmers and producers come to
our rescue? In short, the answer to
that? No. No. Can it alleviate some of
the stress and strain? Yes. Can it put
people in new relationships with each
other within the city context? Yes.
Right. Could it help free up some
people's time, labor, energy?
Absolutely. But if it's not coordinated,
right, with a network of farmers outside
of the city into an extended and
intentional value chain that's following
this particular program and politics,
then you just be set up for value. So,
you know, a large part of this is not
just urban, right? We have to figure out
how to do a very integrated piece. And I
would argue, you know, that the more
rural areas are actually far more right
and will become more right for a
particular program like this. I think in
the days going forward as Trump unleashes
more contradictions along this field,
right? And let's go back to just
remember, just briefly, let's go back to
remember when Trump hit China with some
tariffs back in 2017, 2018, the quick
response of the Chinese government and
the surgical nature of their response,
which was targeting primarily, you know,
red counties, the counties that voted for
Trump, which were mostly rural and how it
targeted farmers. And most of that, you
know, market. basically never came back
to soybeans, the Chinese just, you know,
I said, we'll get our sourcing now from
Brazil, right, and support them. If you
all don't want to play, we'll do that
way. Well, that's created a bunch of
contradictions in the heartland that we,
I think, as the left, have not found a
full way to kind of engage or exploit.
A, we don't have the relationships and
have been intentional about creating the
relationships. I'm not saying uniformly,
but I'm saying, like, in mass, that's not
a particular aim. because most of them
are written most of those folks off.
It's like, that's just MAGABAS. Well,
you know, MAGABAS is now facing some
major contradictions. They are already
facing some severe labor shortages on
account of, you know, shooting themselves
and those who supported them, you know,
supporting the deportation, but now no
labor force to do that work. And they're
not going to force U.S. citizens, quote,
unquote, back into the fields, paying
them U.S. wages, standard U.S. wages,
without driving up inflation, which will
make it harder for them. And then
there's terrible. you know, what Canada
and Mexico and other folks are going to
hit back is going to make the life of
those folks very, very painful for a
while. And so, you know, his aim is to
stimulate more industrial production.
That's going to take more than an ocean
and more than just simple investment to
do. We need to step in. And through our
mutual aid work, which we'll go back
into, we need to step in, start building
relationships, and start moving them
towards being a part of our kind of
extended network and meeting some of
their their principal need for resources
and then our principal need for food.
And that there's a relationship that I
don't think we should disconnect. And
I'll cite, you know, a critical piece of
why that's not as impossible as it may
seem. Again, go back to the early days
of the COVID pandemic in 2020. And you
saw that a lot of our mutual aid work,
the explosion of it, particularly in
parts of the south, parts of, you know,
Pennsylvania, Ohio. and over into the
Midwest, there was a mass explosion of
farmers, particularly midsize and small
farmers who took their product directly
to communities and distributed
fundamentally based upon need, right?
Not based upon a profit or exchange and
they came up with mutual ways of it doing
that. That happened within our living
experience. And that is something we
need to be intentional about not only
picking up learning from replicating, but
extending into a broader network. But,
you know, is New York going to feed New
York? No, you just don't have, you know,
enough land to do that. But you can
build relationships in your immediate
environment to do so because that's
where, that's what already exists, you
know, up through the Hudson Valley and
all that other kind of stuff. But we
need a rearticulation of its
intentionality. How do we combat racial
capitalism's ideals of individuality and
encourage connection and material
resource sharing, mutual aid across
groups of people and scarcity is
socialized into us. I want to do a piece
where that particular framework is
actually challenged. And I mean racial
capitalism. So I'll put that in for
another piece because that's elements of
that that that I, framework, that
framework coming from from Cedricin
Robinson, for those who don't know,
largely borne out his book called Black
Marxism for folks for getting citing
sources, you know, to check out. I got
some profound disagreements with that
brother than his work. But that being
said, you know, it's critical conduct
that we make clear, you know, not that
he didn't make any contributions. You
know, I'm not saying that by no stretch
of the imagination. But I think he also
led her down. the fish and lead the
bones, brother. Please for the last
mile. We also have to avoid the pitfalls
in the traps, Tony. That's why I'm-
Fishing and lead the bones for the level
of that. But in terms of the
individuality and courage connection,
right? That is a hard challenge. One of
the hardest, you know, I often argue
that the most successful thing about
neoliberalism the last 40 years is this
actual cultural impact. even more so
than the effort at privatizing
everything. Now, those two go together,
but it's cultural impact. The creating,
you know, breaking down society where,
you know, the prophecy, if you want to
call it, that Margaret Thatcher, where
she said there is no such thing as
society. They're just, you know,
individuals and families. They've done a
damn good job, at least in large parts of
the West, and atomizing things. And we
have to be very intentional about
recreating collectors. And it starts, it
varies small, but it has to start an
aggregate. And that is where the
struggles to build, you know, why, let me
put it this way, just in the interest of
time. There's a reason why we start with
the mutual aid in social reproduction
that deals specifically with your
question rates, because we have to build
trust amongst each other. Right? And we
have to reconstruct the solidarity. We
build that. And without that, you won't
be able to build no relationships and
none of this other stuff will even be
remotely possible, right? It may be, you
know, necessitated by the circumstances,
but if folks don't see it and envision it
and then, you know, work with the
intentionality to create these types of
relationships, we're going to fall
short. And that is a critical piece. So
we'll take that up a little bit more.
I'm going to just stop there on that
question in the interest of time since
it's past our hour. But I can go on.
want us to, timely. Well, I wanted to
get to as many questions as people had as
possible, and I may have, well, let's
see, I've got that one. Did you get to
everything you wanted to get to tonight?
Of course not. But that's why we're
breaking this out throughout the course
of a series. So we will work to get
there, you know, and, you know, you
know, just tonight was just starting to
frame some arguments, but I want to go
into practical components. You know,
that's what the, the meat of what I'm
hoping to get with all of y'all, you
know, encourage everybody is to tune in
and to, you know, join us in this path in
this course throughout the year and help
to sharpen it up so we can get there.
But there are practical steps that I'm
hearing people, well, how do I do mutual
aid? How do we do this? How do we do
that? And we want to, you know, at least
share from our experience of what we've
been doing on how to do these things,
and then collectively draw from everybody
to then put that out. That's what we
mean by the coal construction. Just
going through a couple of comments real
quick. Oh, this is a good one. So,
yeah, one of the critical pieces, you
know, one of the things I didn't get to,
and I'll just state in short here that
deals with this part of this question,
right? you know, not that we could stop
necessarily, you know, by doing things in
a broad democratic manner. There is no
safeguard of stopping liberals or even
reactionaries from coming in and
appropriating, you know, some of these
frameworks. That is going to entail
political struggle. And so there are a
certain set of principles that we are,
you know, encouraging folks that they
that have to be a collier to this
particular framework, right? And the
critical piece, you know, it starts with
anti-capitalist framework and upholding
that. And within that, you then have to
build upon or scaffold upon, you know,
anti-racist, anti-sexist,
anti-homophobic, you know, pro-queer,
pro-trans, all those different things
that we have to be grounded upon. And
it's not to limit like who could be
involved. Because, you know, we need to
struggle with people who come in with
ideas that may not be affirming of
everybody's humanity. We're going to have
to do that. You know, like that's just
where our people are at. How we embrace
people in their difference and, you know,
and be clear about at what point do you
just say, hey, that's something that
could live in this space because, you
know, your behavior. behavior is
oppressing other people, right, or
limiting the life chances to somebody
else. Like, that's real. We got to be
real about that, you know, because, you
know, fascism as is rude, there's the
anti-life politics, right? It is
premised on death as a means of social
control, right? Or social death as a
means of social control, right? both of
them working and collared with each
other. So there's some limits to what we
can't withstand. But we have to be, I'm
going to be real. We got to safeguard.
are some elements of what we are
articulating from liberals. Let's be
real. Right? And their appropriation and
within that, you know, there's there's a
danger that we have about, you know,
certain elements of collaboration with
social democratic forces who want to tie
this, you know, to like, you know, a
certain types of vantage points with the
Democratic Party. When this needs to
mean, it be something that's totally
independent of either of like the two, at
least in the United States context,
independent of either of those political
forces in their particular strategic
relationship and dependency upon capital.
So we have to work outside of that. Now,
that does not mean we're going to move
this without capital. The question is,
how do we do that, right, without
succumbing to its dictatorship. And that
is a very real challenge. And so we will
articulate that, you know, more. And the
start of our next piece to outline that
they're very clearly in terms of, to put
that in writing and what we're going to
do with all of these is, you know, have
little power points from here going
forward to kind of break down some things
that people can use and take. And, you
know, however you want to translate that
into your organization's work or
community work, you know, people feel
free. But we are going to make a strong
argument around fighting against that
reformism very concrete. So tonight was
the introduction of the build and fight
formula under practices of position.
This is going to be monthly here on Black
Liberation Media, on Ritwork, and on the
Cooperative, Cooperation Jackson's
YouTube channel Jackson Rising. It'll
also, we'll also be working in
conjunction with Rosa Clemente and her
Disrupt the Chaos show available on her
YouTube channel. The next session will be
Tuesdays for the rest of the year. March
11th, mutual aid and social
reproduction. April 8th, food
sovereignty and land decommodification.
May 13th, worker self organization.
June, community production, July, social
digital infrastructure. August,
self-defense, September 2nd, People's
Assembly and Planning Councils. That's
under the practices of position, under
practices of maneuver in October. We'll
be talking about general strike. I saw
someone in the comments asking about the
U.A. W's call for general strike in
2028, democratizing the economy in
November, and finally in December, dual
power, and freeing the land. Let's see
here. And I had asked you earlier also,
you said that this build and fight
formula is being done in partnership
with other organizations, and those
organizations are part of the People's
Network for Land and Liberation. And if
I'm not mistaken, community movement
builders, of which Kamal Franklin, a
co-founder of Black Liberation Media, is
a part of that People's Network for Land
and Liberation. Is that correct? That
is correct. All right. So we, it is
515, I believe, in trying to ask, here
to people's time, be respectful of
people's time, as much as I possibly can.
I know these folks in the chat would love
to hang out here all night. That's by
themselves anyway. They would really
love to hang out here with you all night.
I'm not going to do that, though. So any
last words from you, Colleen? Yeah, I'm
more, I just wanted to end, you know,
with the critical piece around, you know,
less organized for revolution, that
crisis avoidance, y'all. And, you know,
give this some serious thought and
consideration. And I just want to, you
know, leave in part with a little song of
inspiration to fight against reformism,
right? And the appeal towards
moderation. which definitely is not the
call of the age, right? And I want to
leave you with a song I play sometimes
for myself for inspiration. This is the
whalers for Peter, Peter Tosh taking the
lead. It's called burial and it's based
upon his notion that, you know, rosters
don't go to, no one barrel, let the dead
bury the dead. So let's leave the
capital system that it's leave it to its
own ruins and let's build what we need
to build together collectively. Right?
With each other, we got a lot of, you
know, issues and struggles to navigate,
but we got to do it together. There is no
other way. All right. So let's take a
listen to this. Bob Marley and the
Whaling Whaling Whal, you know as old if
they say the Whaling Whalers. This is
with Peter Tosh and Bunny. Is it Bunny
Whaler? Was that his name? Bunny, that's
right. Bunny Livingston, my man. 


