💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rj-fiore-the-question-of-solidarity.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:37:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: The Question of Solidarity
Author: RJ Fiore
Date: December 2021
Language: en
Topics: solidarity, organizing

RJ Fiore

The Question of Solidarity

THE QUESTION OF SOLIDARITY

Introduction

“How do we unify and move the people towards real change?”

This is the first question that anyone who enters the trade of change

must ask themselves. Those who seek change are tasked with not only

getting The People on their side, but then inspiring and organizing

these people towards enacting the change that unified them. In the

problem of mobilization, the word we must examine is that of the key

ingredient to pushing any people towards fighting for change –

Solidarity.

The definition of Solidarity is “unity or agreement of feeling or

action, especially among individuals with a common interest, mutual

support within a group” [1]. What does this definition mean though? To

break this down let’s look at the first part of the statement “unity or

agreement of feeling or action”. The unity that we seek in Solidarity

comes from our agreement upon a feeling. ‘Feeling’ may be a bit of a

wide definition for the specific context we seek to use it in. In our

terms, ‘feeling’ refers to an ideology or emotions deriving from our

desire to make change towards the reality that our unified ideology

promises. We let our ideological struggle, one that must remain

malleable to incorporate the intersecting struggles of The People, bring

us together. Once we are in contact with each other collaborating,

sharing ideas, and growing in unison we can start to push our Solidarity

towards the last part of our statement, towards ‘action’.

The second part of our definition, “especially among individuals with a

common interest, mutual support within a group”, hints at the more

significant part of Solidarity: the group aspect itself. For Solidarity

to work, we need to be always seeking out people to unify with. We can

do this by implementing intersectional thinking and a collaboration of

ideologies. We must achieve this goal, or we cannot push ourselves to

inspire and act upon, “mutual support within a group”. Simple

collaboration is not enough. To truly show Solidarity we must create an

impenetrable network of people seeking to support one another in all

their communal or individual struggles. This network must be built upon

an ever-developing system of support. A system that empowers all in

action and prevents any one person’s removal from destroying the

entirety of the movement. Therefore, there can be no Leader, no Messiah,

no one exclusively with all the answers.

A step back from our analysis of the textbook definition of Solidarity

shows that we must not only reach out to others with similar ideas, but

we must raise and develop a network of these people to wholeheartedly

support each other and expand that support to the community and the

world around them.

It is not just enough for us to stop here. We must continue now from the

expanded definition and look at the methods other organizations and

movements have been able to then mobilize these people. Mobilization,

“(also known as social mobilization or popular mobilization) refers to

mobilization of civilian population as part of contentious politics.

Mass mobilization is defined as a process that engages and motivates a

wide range of partners and allies at national and local levels to raise

awareness of and demand for a particular development objective through

face-to-face dialogue” [2]. Mobilization is a workshop full of tools

that we can use to enact the societal metamorphosis we seek to break the

oppression of The Masses. We must examine these tools of mobilization

and strategically choose the right ones to carry The People, who march

in solidarity, towards a gleaming future on the horizon.

Building Solidarity

Before The People can seek our ‘impossible dream’, we must begin

building the network of Solidarity that will make the entire future of

the movement possible. The beginning step is simple: define your ideas.

Whether your goals are to form or join an organization or to act as an

individual you must first understand what you are fighting for, and even

more important, why are you fighting for it.

The best way to do this is to start a process of self-examination. Look

at the hardships and struggles that you go through. Ask the questions

about the nature of these struggles. Find the sources of your hardships.

By then, the answer as to ‘what’ you are fighting may arise, and the

answer to ‘why’ will be a response to that. The ‘why’ will often be

changing your own condition. However, to achieve a state of solidarity,

we must go past our own individualist perspective of our struggles and

instead look at how others may be affected by the same or different

struggles through a process called Intersectionality.

Intersectionality is one of the key tools of solidarity.

Intersectionality is, “The interconnected nature of social

categorizations such as race, class, and gender, regarded as creating

overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or

disadvantage” [8]. Whether an individual’s struggle falls into one or

more of these groups they must continue to consider and react with equal

force against not only their own oppressors, but those of all others.

Intersectionality teaches that there is no struggle that is in

isolation. Therefore, we must constantly look for the links of

oppression and exploitation that we share. Through these connections we

can begin building a network of solidarity. ‘Solidarity through

intersectionality’ should be the main motivation when beginning to

synthesize and refine your ideology. When you are developing your

ideology, reaching out and learning from friendly conversations and

debate will be a great step in finding the different avenues and

networks of people’s different struggles.

Conversation and debate are only the first steps. To build solidarity

you need to unite the people who have engaged with you in conversation

through the networks that may not have been created yet. Further

synthesizing the conversations into texts (manifestos, statements,

essays, etc.), digital media (documentaries, video essays, digital art,

etc.), or traditional media (painting, drawing, posters, etc.) will help

develop these simple words into concepts that others can learn from. For

our purposes, let’s call these recrafted conversations ‘Ideological

statements’.

Social media is an essential and indispensable tool in build solidarity

and spread your ideological statements to the world. There is no uniting

the Left, much less the left side of a city, without the strategic and

efficient use of social media. We have a tool that can help us disperse

endless information as quickly as we can write it. (Let it be noted that

the information you disperse must always be completely fact checked and

peer reviewed. False information is the substitute from those without a

truth to tell.) Social media should be ground zero for the development

of your solidarity network. Direct messaging other groups, liking and

resharing their content, and providing quick and easy access to your

ideological statements are all ways to solidify the foundations of your

solidarity network.

Once you start building upon this foundation you are organizing. Many

ignore that organizing is not synonymous with mobilization. Mobilization

is the product of having organized. Organizing is structuring our

solidarity networks into groups, organizations, or institutions. Endless

books can be written about how to organize; however, we only need to

focus on the core elements of our organizing bodies.

‘Direct democracy’ is a way of organizing that, “Forms a direct

participation of citizens in democratic decision making, in contrast to

indirect or representative democracy”. Open meetings led by the people

of the organization, or selected admins, is the most authentic form of

direct democracy. These meetings (can also be called community councils,

worker forums, etc.) are open to all in the organization and should be

without a hierarchy outside of administrative needs, such as setting up

voting booths or guest speakers. All who desire to vote must be allowed

to in all initiatives, referendums, etc. Direct democracy can only be

successful when the voting process is holistically accessible to all

involved in the body effected by the decisions to be made for and by the

organization [5].

An organization should have a pure democratic system internally. This

mentality should be carried on in communication and cooperation with

other groups. The communication should be as honest and open as

possible. It is important to treat a relationship between organizations

as one would a romantic one. The only way to foster greater trust is to

be honest about our motivations, issues, and internal status. As our

trust develops deeper the solidarity within our groups will form the

heart and soul of solidarity.

In discussions between groups the practice of ‘Free Agreement’ should be

practiced. To paraphrase Kropotkin, Free agreement is the communication

of organizations, by exchange of proposals, and by congresses at which

delegates met to discuss matters of mutual interest. Delegates should be

acquainted with the special question to be discussed at the congress and

sent as delegates – not rulers. The delegates should return from the

congress with no laws in their pockets but with proposals of agreements

to solidify with further voting. Such is the way now (the very old way,

too) for dealing with questions of public interest – not the way of law

making by means of a representative government [9].

The idea of free agreement is to prevent the creation of laws by elected

delegates holding power who can manipulate them to suit their interests.

It maintains that more streamlined discussions between organizations can

occur whilst maintain the final say remains in the hands of the

organizations’ democratic bodies. This balance of direct democracy and

free agreement can be maintained further by monitoring the dangers of

hierarchy and its influence on power.

Hierarchy left unchecked will create a power division within a society.

Of course, there is going to be some need for hierarchy and power. Not

everyone is going to want to fully participate in all aspects of

government and business, so it is important to make sure the power that

can affect people’s live will only be put in the hands of directly

elected local peoples. No executive powers should ever be put into the

hands of one person. There are going to be natural leaders, and people

can follow who they want to. However, having a council rather than a

single or narrow position of power will ensure that the needs of all

people come first, rather than the exploitive force’s.

Mobilization

The major outcome of a solidarity network of groups built upon the

foundations of intersectionality, direct democracy, and checked

hierarchy is the formation of a body of people primed and ready to

mobilize. The mobilization of these people should be civically

disobedient and revolutionary in character. Our mobilization must be

crafted with the ‘intentions of longevity and effectiveness’. The

‘intention of longevity’ means that our mobilization must establish a

change that is to be continued after initial demonstrations and intrigue

stops. The ‘intention of effectiveness’ means that our mobilization must

be consistently focused on addressing the needs of the community; while

thoroughly measuring our impact, honestly communicating that information

to each other, and empathetically developing strategy to maintain impact

quality and reach. Only then can we start using the methods of

mobilization without fear of failure.

Before exploring the methods of mobilization, it is important to see the

source of almost all modern action – the internet. As social media is to

solidarity, the internet is to mobilization – they are the tools that we

must use to achieve our goals of action. In Democratization, Ruijgrok

argues that the internet has four mechanisms that help in the

mobilization effort:

It reduces the risks of the opposition. To be politically active

online is less risky than to be active on the streets. The opposition

can meet online and organize protests without having to meet in a

physical place.

It can change the attitude of the citizens. When news independent from

the government can spread online, people will get a more honest image of

their government. On the long term, even people who are satisfied with

their life can become politically active and be mobilized to protest the

regime.

It reduces uncertainty for individuals. When people see a lot of

people will be attending the protests, people are more inclined to join.

The risk of getting punished is lower when there are a lot of people at

the protests.

Dramatic videos and pictures will reach more people if they are shared

online. People who get to see those images are more inclined to join the

protests [6].

The internet is indisputably the most important factor in the safety of

our movement and its members while being the essential tool for

distributing our message and communicating with others. One of the first

uses of the internet for an organizing group should be researching and

reaching out to mutual aid groups.

On the ground level, mutual aid is the most important factor in

mobilization. Without it, there cannot be sustainable change. Mutual aid

is defined as,

“A voluntary exchange of resources and services for mutual benefit.

Mutual aid projects are a form of political participation in which

people take responsibility for caring for one another and changing

political conditions.” As the definition says, the sustainable change

that is needed for true political progress and further mobilization will

come through mutual aid. As our solidarity network exchanges both ideas

and material, we can all become more and more autonomous from the

dominating power structures of our regions – more on this later. Mutual

aid often comes in the exchange of food, clothing, and other

combinations of resources. The key detail being that the exchange

provides both sides with equal, beneficial change [3].

Mutual aid should not just be within our solidarity network but spread

as far as can be maintained effectively into our communities. Before

reaching out as your organization find others doing it in the community

already – if any. Join these groups and fill the holes that their

organization hasn’t been able to yet. If there are none, then start at

the bottom. Find the unique methods required by the specific conditions

of your community to help houseless people and the working poor. From

there, develop the mutual aid into more complex structures that envelope

more economic conditions and demographics. The ultimate goal of the aid

would be to lead the community to a state of self-sufficiency from the

larger institutional, government powers.

Now that we have built our solidarity network, formed their uniting

organizations, and addressed the material needs of the community and

members of our organization we can begin mobilization in the streets.

The King Center has a “Glossary of Non-Violence” that can provide basic

synopses of some of the major types of mobilization. These are: Peaceful

protests, demonstrations or direct action, civil disobedience, and

bargaining and conflict resolution.

Peaceful protests are very much what they sound like. They are a

mobilization of people in opposition against an oppressing entity

without any violence, follow local and federal laws closely, and often

leave the general community relatively undisturbed. Boycotting is by far

the most effective. As seen throughout the Civil Rights Movement,

boycotts against segregated business and institutions eventually led to

major changes and the eventual dissolution to legal segregation.

Conscientious objection is a type of boycott in protest of specifically

military service based off moral beliefs. Non-cooperation is the refusal

to participate in or with opposition groups. Conversely, selective

patronage encourages purchasing a product or service from specific

companies that support the protestors. Peaceful protests are

historically some of the most effective. However, with police violence

at the beat of fascist drums, the option to be strictly peaceful is not

always an option – purely for defensive purposes.

The next type of mobilization is demonstration, also known as Direct

Action. These include marches, pickets, boycotts, sit-ins, and prayer

vigils. Some of these terms we already know because certain methods of

mobilization can overlap into different types. One of our new terms,

Picketing, is when a group of individuals walk with signs stating their

protest message in front of the site where opposition is operating. The

public is encouraged to ‘not cross the picket’ as a sign of solidarity

with the protestors and at the necessary detriment of the opposition

group. Vigils are one of the most personal and emotionally charged of

any of our methods. Vigils are when protestors stand, sit, walk, or pray

at a site linked to an injustice or symbolically associated with

principles of freedom and justice. Like pickets, they bring attention to

a location and encourages public engagement without disruption.

Sit-ins are a popular, yet self-explanatory form of direct action. A

lesser-known strategy is the Teach-In. Teach-Ins are organized events

including public hearings, lectures, panel discussions, theatrical

presentations, film viewings, role-playing and scenario workshops, and

other educational techniques meant to inform and mobilize the public on

a particular issue. An example of Teach-Ins is the Red Hive’s Education:

Revolution program which will occupy an educational space, as well as an

artistic one.

There are times when peaceful protesting and direct action do not bear

fruit. When this is the case, it is often from opposition intervention

or a lack of necessary tension in the community. Civil Disobedience is

the next step after such actions occur. Civil disobedience is the act of

openly disobeying unjust, immoral, or unconstitutional law to protest

injustice at threat of imprisonment. Due to the more dangerous nature of

these protests, it is highly recommended that they be necessary for

progress in the community. In addition to this, civil disobedience

should be in full control of the organizing parties, who must carefully

watch for opportunists and agitators while having clear and open

communication with all protestors. Since civil disobedience is so

specific to a protest area the methods are vague.

The two big types of civil disobedience are blocking intersections or

roads and reclamation of public areas. Blocking intersections and roads

is one of the most dangerous methods. It must be done with nothing but

safety in mind. Blocking the street must have not only the numbers to be

effective, but the message. Random streets shouldn’t be blocked, but

rather streets that are key to the opposition. The idea is to disrupt

the general public’s traffic in order to encourage opposition to give in

to make the protests stop.

Reclamation of public areas is when the protesting body inhabits a

public space – parks, squares, sidewalks, etc. – in order to force

concessions from opposition. In these areas, mutual aid and temporary

shelters should be the first priority. Close second is safety.

Barricades and shields to protect from police or opposition aggression

should be prepared. Unlike any other form of mobilization, reclamation

pushes our efforts out of mere protest, but closer to a dual power

system. Reclamation should be highly organized, meticulously planned for

safety and material aid, and have a clear goal that is communicated to

the protestors, opposition, and the general public.

The final type of mobilization that we need to discuss is key to the

longevity of change – Bargaining and Conflict Resolution. This is the

last step before we can instill our demands. This when protesting groups

can start collectively bargaining for their demands with the trade being

the ending of current demonstrations. Arbitration is a hearing for a

dispute that is moderated by a mutually-agreed-upon third party. This

method can be binding or non-binding depending on the circumstances of

the protest. Organizers should make sure to prepare evidence,

statements, and any other necessary material far ahead of time to be the

utmost confident entering the arbitration process.

After discussions and bargaining have start to come to resolutions the

process of Reconciliation can begin. Reconciliation is the ultimate goal

of any movement whether or not its non-violent. Reconciliation brings

the opposing parties together in the spirit of community to continue

re-unifying The People for a stable resolution. The public can rest easy

when knowing that these talks and actions are being taken to ensure that

life can be normal again after changes have been instilled permanently

and effectively.

The King Center lays out all of these methods with the legacy of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr in mind. From this short explanation of these

methods, it is encouraged to dive deeper into the history and success of

each one. Organizers should make sure to choose the right type of

mobilization for their current position in the community and analyze and

prepare the necessary progressions before moving forward. In the case of

revolutionary change, there is key step that must guide our motivations

and actions – the creation of dual power structures [7].

The formation of a Dual Power Structure is essential to bringing about

and maintaining revolutionary change. The creation of dual power

structures, “Is a strategy that builds liberated spaces and creates

institutions grounded in direct democracy”. The question may be raised,

“What does dual power, specifically, mean?”. Dual power is referring to

an alternative institution or entity that is to offer a separate source

of mutual aid, resources, governing, and mobilization from the state

body that the movement inhabits. The ultimate goal being that when the

opposition’s power structures crumble there is already an alternative

created by our solidarity network of organizations that can continue to

support society with the ideals and methods desired by the movement.

Dual power structures are comprised of two key components: building

counter-institutions and grass roots counter-power. When our movements

start building counter-institutions we are forming those alternatives to

specific institutions that already exist. This would include creating an

independent system of production to counter capitalist production,

organizing stable networks of mutual aid and distribution, developing

institutions of education, social welfare, and community defense. These

different counter-institutions will help give The People place to put

their faith in. That faith will foster further solidarity and

development of a system - tailored to The People – independent from the

previous power structures that will be a beacon for all to find solace

from the dying capitalist powers [4].

Grass roots counter-power is the building up of resources from the

ground up with other counter-institutions and organizations that creates

a self-sufficiency in the foundations of the dual power. The

establishment of that full autonomy will allow an eventual challenge to

capitalists and their states. These methods may seem out of reach, but

the first steps have already been taken. The creation of unions,

community councils, tenant unions (groups of tenants in opposition to

their landlords), and mutual aid networks. All this with the end goal of

solidifying our mobilization efforts into a permeant power structure

that will survive far longer than any opportunistic and exploitive

capitalist powers. It must be reiterated that none of this progress will

ever be possible without the open minded and intersectional solidarity

of The People.

Closing Statement - The Question of Solidarity

THE OLD METHODS: HATE AND LOVE

In the experience of many modern organizers, the method of gaining

support has been to shout their message louder than anyone else in the

physical and digital world. Only the loudest voices will be heard. Only

the most bombastic leaders will be followed. This is not the way. This

method is most effective for those that spew hate. The white

supremacists, fascists, and Nazis are experts in their hateful rhetoric.

There is nothing that attracts and inflames the hearts and minds of the

lost like a direction to point their hate. In the other camp, there are

attempts to do this same thing. They have failed.

Our questions now become,

“Why have they been able to unify through hate, but we can’t?”

“Why is their hate more impactful than ours?”

“Are our grievances not enough?”

“Are the struggles of The People not enough?”

With all these questions, we lose ourselves in the confusion…unless we

take time with each one to find an answer. Once we have done this we

continue with the rest. If we do this with enough questions our answers

begin to intersect. Our answers change and proof themselves with each

question. Eventually, asking and answering enough questions within

ourselves will give us the necessary knowledge to apply it to both

future questions and to amazing effect in the real world.

It is now time for us to do this with our posed questions. The first,

“Why have they been able to unify through hate, but we can’t?”. In

saying they, we are referring to the hateful and reactionary forces at

be currently embodied by the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right has been able to

unify with hate throughout history, rather easily, by rallying around

simple, yet extremely inflammatory messages. The racial hate messages

are only a single, although the most prominent, topic of discussion that

invades our homes through podcasts, threads, and news media.

Through their racist messaging, the white supremacist factions of the

Alt-Right are easily able to rally the scared and ignorant white people

who feel that their status and wealth – which was built upon the backs

of black and brown people – is being stripped from them unfairly. The

fear of losing the comfort and privilege that white racial domination

has gifted them is fueled by the ‘knowledge’ implanted in them by

reactionary forces that play into their ignorance. Ignorance of the

history of race and oppression. Ignorance of other religions, practices,

and traditions. By far the most important, the ignorance of the role

white people play in racial oppression.

We come back around from our example with an answer to the first part of

our question, “Why have they been able to unify through hate?”. Our

answer now is because their hate feeds on fear and ignorance. As simple

of an answer as it may seem, it is fitting that it responds to the most

paper-thin ideology in all human history – the ideology of hate. Let’s

now look at the second part, “but we can’t”. We, in this context, is

anyone opposing oppressive hate. So why can’t we, people of love against

hate, get as large of strides? It is because love – outside of

passionate lovers - does not get heart rates rising. It doesn’t cause

our blood to boil. It doesn’t blind our mind and eyes with such anger

that we lose the wheel on all morals and ethics. Love strengthens

relationships. Love creates bonds and unions far more powerful than any

that hate can foster. The downside is that the immediate physiological

response that hate fosters is infinitely faster than that in which love

does. Therefore, they have seen rapid success as we are facing the near

impossible task of catching up without an equally effective strategy.

The next question, “Why is their hate more impactful than ours?”. We

have partially already answered this. It is that their hate is fueled by

inflammatory messages playing into people’s fear and ignorance. The

‘ours’ in this question brings up a key flaw of some of our camp’s

current thought. It is the old idea of ‘fight fire with fire’, ‘fight

hate with hate’. This leads us nowhere. The last time our camp gained

success in using hate was when fascists in WW2 were the global boogie

man. Since then, fascism has spread and evolved to hide in plain sight.

They took time to engrain themselves in global practices high and low.

Now, they are the ones with the monopoly on hate. Their hate is the

loudest because they took the world, skewered it on a stick, and started

speaking into it like a microphone. Our hate can’t compare. Our hate,

therefore, must be abandoned as a strategy of gaining solidarity.

Now, we can move away from an examination of the Alt-Right’s strategy –

an entire compendium of a lifetime of writing would never be enough to

complete that examination – and we can move to the next two,

intertwined, questions, “Are our grievances not enough?”, and “Are the

struggles of The People not enough?”. Our grievances are the motives

that inspire the struggles of The People. Despite this process of

unified grievance towards a struggle of The People against their

oppressors, nothing seems to be enough.

Let’s take a step back and ask ourselves, “Will anything ever be

enough?”. The answer is ‘no’. Enough is a word that our oppressors can

never understand because they can never have enough of anything – money

or power. If they cannot show themselves any mercy of finding the limit

of having enough, then how can we expect them to sympathize with The

People’s struggle? How can we expect them to ever see that every single

one of our grievances as individual issues is more than enough to

justify every struggle we engage in? We must stop expecting anything to

change. We must stop expecting that one day we will hit the magic limit

that will have all the oppressors of our world finally reflecting in

unison, ‘The People have had enough, we must give them back their

world”.

With all these newfound answers we are venturing into a world of more

questions. These questions will never stop; so, our answers must never

stop. In our simple proof here, we have already recognized that our

enemy uses fear and ignorance to quickly mobilize people behind the

banner of “HATE!”. Our camp’s inability to mobilize in the same way is

because our camp is instinctually less hateful as we see no

sustainability in a world built off hate, as the current one has.

We have used the method of love in the past to great success. Martin

Luther King Jr. is the epitome of this success. His movement led to a

culture of love within the movement that has not been seen since. It

fostered an attitude that continued on through the second half of the

century into anti-war and peace movements. These, again, were incredibly

successful in their time. However, love doesn’t get us very deep in the

minds of The People today. We have seen that love has been washed out

and strikingly less effective of a buzzword to unify, despite still

being the influence for everything we do in building solidarity. With

this current hurdle in mind, we must search for something that

transcends hate and love. We must search for something that all people,

from the most loving to the most hateful, seek. That illusive and

mysterious thing is hope.

Now, let’s not be too quick to fall into hallmark quotes with watered

down inspiration and oversaturated buzz terms that used to carry

movements from start to finish. When we say hope we are speaking of a

hope for a better community, a hope for a better world, a hope for a

better humanity. Again, hope is too overused and trite for us to be

plastering it on buildings and banners. The solution term is currently

being oversaturated in a blatant attempt to take its significance away;

but the moment we hear it we can’t help but feel something stirring in

every fiber of our being. We can’t help but feel an ounce of hope as the

word grazes our ears or flows off our tongues. The word is simply:

REVOLUTION!

Revolution is not the thing that we hope for. That should be made very

clear. To make revolution our hope we can’t help but only seek out

revolution. However, put our hope in the revolution as a vessel to carry

it to what we actually are hoping for – an equal and just world for all

humanity. Revolution is a word that should be used as minimally in our

vernacular as possible as to maintain its effect. For the purposes of

this work, it does need to be said; but, in our daily interactions we

must keep the word like a card up our sleeves to be dealt when it will

reap the most rhetorical rewards.

Any movement will join the ranks of failures if does not foster an

environment that equalizes all inside or outside of it. This is why our

revolution must be built upon solidarity and direct democracy. We must

use all the tools of solidarity discussed here to build the

revolutionary vessel that will hold our hope through the struggles,

through the fights, through the oppression and carry it safely to the

other side so it can become its true manifestation – the liberated

world.

The Masses must manifest our hope through the vessel of Revolution.

A revolution of truth, justice, and love.

A revolution of solidarity.

A revolution of The People!

Hasta la victoria siempre!

Bibliography

“Solidarity”. Oxford Languages. Web

“Communication for development”. UNICEF. Web

Kropotkin, Peter. “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution”. 1902

“Dual Power: A Strategy To Build Socialism In Our Time”. Caucus

Statement, DSA-ISC, 31 Dec, 2018. Web.

Schiller, Theo. “Direct Democracy”. Britannica. Web.

Ruijgrok, K. (2017). “From the web to the streets: internet and

protests under authoritarian regimes”. Democratization: 498-520.

King Jr, Martin. “Glossary of Non-Violence”. Thekingcenter.org. Web

Taylor, Bridie. “Intersectionality 101: what is it and why is it

important?”. Womankind Worldwide. 24, Nov 2019. Web