https://socialistaction.org/2017/04/14/ecosocialism-is-more-than-a-strategy-its-a-project-for-civilization/
Ecosocialism is more than a strategy, it’s a project for civilization
/ 10 hours ago
April 2017 ClimateAlexandre Araujo Costa, a Brazilian ecology activist,
spoke to Belgian ecology writer and activist Daniel Tanuro on a range of
questions concerning ecology and ecosocialism.
For many years, left-wing organizations did not pay much attention to
environmental issues in general but at least since its 15th Congress,
the Fourth International seems to be increasingly concerned about what
we call an “Ecological Crisis.” What has changed?
Indeed, most left-wing organizations missed the point in the 1960s when
the so-called “ecological crisis” emerged as a new question of broad
social interest (though one can pin a symbolic date on this emergence:
Rachel Carson’s book, The Silent Spring, published in 1962). The main
reason for this is that these organizations focused mainly on the
anticolonial wars and revolutions in the dominated countries (Cuba,
Algeria, Vietnam…), on the mass movements against the bureaucracy in the
East (Poland, Hungary), and on the convergence of youth and workers’
radicalization in the West.
But this reason is not the only one, in my view. One must also consider
that left organizations couldn’t easily cope with the ecological crisis
from a theoretical standpoint. For instance, many authors felt
uncomfortable with the denunciation of capitalist technology and with
the very idea of limits to growth. Actually, Marx’s work is very rich on
these topics, but it was as if his successors had forgotten his
contributions (on the enclosures, on capital’s rupture of the
humankind-nature social metabolism, on the consequences in forestry,
agriculture, land management, for instance). This is even the case for
very creative and open revolutionary Marxist thinkers like our comrade
Ernest Mandel.
I want to be clear about this: in my view, to speak of Marx’s ecology is
a bit overstated; the tensions and contradictions in Marx’s and Engels’
work must be taken into account. But the ecological aspect of Marx’s
heritage is truly impressive, and his criticism of political economy
provides us excellent tools to make it flourish. So, how should we
explain the fact that most of the Marxist left missed the ecology train
in the 1960s? Stalinism bears a great part of the blame, of course, but
this explanation is not very convincing in the case of anti-Stalinist
currents… I think there has been a very broad contamination of the left
by productivist and scientistic conceptions. It began in social
democracy at the end of the 19th century, and was not really rooted out
in the communist movement —perhaps because Russia, where the revolution
took place, was a backward country.
I think what has changed is threefold: firstly, the nuclear threat has
fostered a growing consciousness that technologies are not neutral;
secondly, poor peasant and indigenous struggles showed the social
dimension of ecological questions; thirdly, a few authors began to
revisit Marx on nature and exhume his legacy. Nevertheless, the majority
of the left was content with a pure propagandist approach, telling the
people that no ecological alternative is possible within the framework
of capitalism, which is true but doesn’t mean we do not need concrete
ecological demands and reforms, articulated with social demands in a
transitional programme.
An important step in the direction of this programme was the
Ecosocialist Manifesto written by Michael Löwy and Joel Kovel in 2001.
The initiative of this manifesto was fostered by the deepening
ecological crisis and its global character, with climate change as a
major threat. At the same time, more and more activists in our
organizations are involved in social movements on the ecological
challenge, particularly the climate movement and the movement for food
sovereignty (which are closely linked, given the important part
agribusiness plays in global warming). Since its last congress, the
Fourth International has defined itself as an ecosocialist organization.
From your viewpoint, how worrying is climate change? Is it simply a
matter of using the right technologies such as substituting fossil fuel
by renewables? Can the Earth’s climate be set right by a combination of
carbon capture and geo-engineering?
Climate change is extremely worrying. Actually, it is probably the most
dangerous social and ecological threat we must cope with, with huge
consequences in the short, middle, and long term. I won’t go into too
much detail, but one must know that a 3°C temperature rise will most
probably provoke a sea-level rise of about 7 metres. It will take us a
thousand years or more to get there, but the movement will be impossible
to stop. In the short term, specialists think a sea-level rise by
60-90cm could occur by the end of this century. It would mean hundreds
of millions of refugees.
If you take into account the other effects of climate change (extreme
weather events, decrease in agricultural productivity, etc.), the
conclusion is frightening: above a certain threshold, there is no
possible adaptation to climate change for a humankind of 8-9 billion
people. Where you place the threshold is not (only) a scientific
question but (above all) a political one. In Paris, the governments
decided to act in order to maintain the warming well below 2°C and to
try to limit it to 1.5°C. An average 2°C warming should be considered a
catastrophe.
Obviously, climate change is not the only threat: other threats are the
massive extinction of species, the acidification of the oceans, the
degradation of soils, the possible death of marine life due to nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution, chemical pollution, the depletion of the
ozone-layer, overuse of freshwater resources and aerosol loading of the
atmosphere. But climate change plays a central role and is connected,
directly or indirectly, to most of the other threats: it is an important
factor in biodiversity loss, ocean acidification is caused by the rising
atmospheric concentration in CO2, the excessive amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus in the oceans come from agribusiness, which plays a central
role in freshwater overuse and soil loss, and so on.
The fact that most problems are interconnected entails that it would be
wrong to isolate the response to climate change from the response to the
other challenges. However, all these ecological challenges have the same
fundamental origin: capitalist accumulation, quantitative growth driven
by the race for profit.
This means that climate change is far more than a technological issue.
It poses the fundamental question of a global alternative to this mode
of production. And this alternative is objectively extremely urgent.
Actually, it is so urgent that, even from a technological point of view,
the strategy of green capitalism is biased.
Of course, it is perfectly possible to rely only on renewable sources to
produce all the energy we need. But how do you produce the PV panels,
windmills and other devices? With what energy? Logically, you have to
take into account that the transition itself will require extra energy,
and that this extra energy, being 80% of fossil origin when the
transition starts, will provoke extra CO2 emissions.
Thus, you need a plan, in order to compensate these extra emissions by
extra cuts elsewhere. Otherwise, the global emissions can continue to
rise even if the share of renewables improves quickly, which means you
may be exceeding the so-called “carbon budget,” which is the amount of
carbon you can add to the atmosphere if you want to have a certain
probability of not exceeding a certain temperature rise threshold before
the end of the century.
According to IPCC, this carbon budget for 1.5°C and 66% of probability
is 400 Gt for the period between 2011-2100. The global emissions are
about 40 Gt/yr, and they’re improving. In other words, the 1.5°C carbon
budget will be spent in 2021. So, we have already hit the wall. This is
the concrete outcome of the capitalist frenzy for profit and of its
refusal to plan the transition in function of the necessary emissions
reductions.
This, indeed, opens the debate on carbon capture and geoengineering.
Within the framework of the capitalist productivist system, carbon
capture and geoengineering are the only possible “solutions” to offset
exceeding the carbon budget. I use quotation marks, because these are
sorcerer’s apprentice solutions.
One of the most mature technologies is so-called bio-energy with carbon
capture and sequestration (BECCS). The idea is to replace fossil fuels
by biomass in power plants, to capture the CO2 resulting from the
combustion and store it in geological layers. Because growing plants
absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, a massive deployment of the BECCS should
permit to reduce the greenhouse effect, and, as a consequence, improve
the carbon budget.
It’s a very hypothetical solution, among other reasons because nobody
knows if it will be technically possible to keep the CO2 underground,
and for how long. At the same time, it’s an extremely tricky response to
the problem, because producing the necessary biomass will require huge
land surfaces: about the equivalent of a fifth or a quarter of the land
used by agriculture today. On the one hand, conversion of cropland to
biomass plantation would be detrimental to food production. On the other
hand, establishing industrial biomass plantations in non-cultivated
areas would entail a terrible destruction of biodiversity, a phenomenal
impoverishment of nature.
It is, let’s say, highly questionable that 95% of the IPCC climate
scenarios include the implementation of such a technology. Between
brackets, this is further evidence that science is not neutral and
objective, especially when it comes to making social-economic projections.
It is important to note that the fact that the carbon budget for 1.5°
will be exceeded and that the 2°C budget will most likely be quickly
exceeded too, does not mean that we should accept capitalist
technologies as a lesser evil. On the contrary. The situation is
extremely serious, the fact is that reducing and cancelling carbon
emissions won’t suffice.
Saving the climate requires removing carbon from the atmosphere. But
this objective can be better achieved without resorting to BECCS or
other dangerous technologies. The reason capitalism opts for
technologies such as BECCS is that they suit the race for profit.
The alternative is to develop and generalize a peasant organic
agriculture and careful forest and land management, respectful of
Indigenous peoples. In this way, it will be possible to remove great
amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and to store it in the soil, while
fostering biodiversity and providing good food to everybody. But this
option means a fierce anticapitalist battle against agribusiness and
landowners. In other words: the solution will not be found in the
technological field, but in the political arena.
Recently Oxfam presented a study showing that eight men alone control
the same amount of wealth as half of humanity. We also broke the global
temperature record (again), and our atmosphere surpassed 400 ppm of CO2
concentration. Are climate change and inequality connected?
Of course they are. It is well known that the poor are the main victims
of catastrophe in general and of climate catastrophe in particular.
Obviously, this is also true for climate catastrophes due to human
activity (more accurately: due to capitalist activity). It is already
the case, as we have clearly seen in all regions of the world: in the
Philippines in 2014 with the typhoon Haiyan, in the United States in
2005 with the hurricane Katrina, in Pakistan in 2010 with the great
floods, in Europe in 2003 with the heat wave, in Benin and other African
countries with the droughts and the rising sea level, and so on.
Furthermore, the capitalist response to climate change works as an
accelerator of this social inequality. This is because this policy is
based on market mechanisms—in particular, commodification/appropriation
of natural resources. It relies mainly on the “internalising
externalities,” which means the price of environmental damage has to be
assessed and included in the prices of the goods and services. Of
course, this price is then passed on to the final consumers. Those with
money can invest in cleaner technologies—electric cars for instance—the
others cannot, so that they pay more for the same service (in this case,
for mobility).
In the deepening of inequalities, the insurance sector plays a specific
role: it refuses to ensure growing risks in areas where the poor live,
or improve the premiums people have to pay to the companies. The
financial sector in general plays a major role, because it invests in
the carbon market, which is highly speculative. For example, it invests
in forests because the function of forests as carbon sinks has become
commodified. As a result, indigenous peoples are banned from their
livelihoods, in the name of the protection of nature that they have
shaped and protected for centuries. A similar process of expropriation
and proletarianization is under way in the agricultural sector, due to
the production of biofuel and biodiesel, for instance. Here too, the
protection of nature is used as a pretext for a policy that deepens
inequalities and enforces corporate rule.
It is likely that these market mechanisms of commodification and
appropriation of resources will become more and more important in the
future, generating more and more social inequalities. This is obvious in
the light of what has been said before, about the implementation of
geo-engineering, BECCS in particular.
But it goes even further than that. The last report by the Global
Commission, a very influential think-tank chaired by Sir Nicholas Stern,
is dedicated to the role of infrastructure in the transition to a
so-called green economy. The document defines nature in general as
“infrastructure,” explains the necessity to make the infrastructures
attractive to capital, and concludes that a key condition for this
attractiveness is generalization and stabilization of property rules.
Potentially, capital wants to incorporate nature in general as it
incorporated the workforce (though the workforce also is a natural
resource).
Could you talk a little about the connection between ecological crisis
and immigration and how you think the tendencies for the future?
This is one of the most horrible consequences of climate change. As told
before, above a certain threshold, there is no possible adaptation to
climate change for a humankind of 8-9 billion people. The most
endangered are those who will be forced to leave the places where they
live. This process is already underway in several regions, for instance
in West Africa, where it combines with the effects of war, dictatorship,
terrorism and land grabbing by multinationals. It is also underway in
Bangladesh, Vietnam and some small islands state.
What do the people who flee do? They concentrate on the outskirts of
towns. Their social structure is broadly affected—gender relationships
in particular, with a loss of economic power for the women. Some of
them, mostly males, try to migrate to rich countries. If they survive
the journey, they try to send money to the family. It’s a huge disaster.
How do you evaluate the rise of Trump in this context?
The figure I have given for the 1.5°C carbon budget means Trump comes to
power at a moment where we are on the edge of runaway climate change.
During his campaign, Trump said climate change is a hoax created by “the
Chinese” in order to make U.S. manufacturing uncompetitive, and he
promised to quit the Paris agreement. His staff is full of climate
deniers, and the person he chose to lead the EPA wants to destroy it
from within, after having tried for decades to destroy it from outside,
as an attorney general of Oklahoma.
All this is extremely worrying. We do not support the Paris agreement,
nor do we support Obama’s “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) to
this agreement: both are completely inadequate from an ecological point
of view and deeply iniquitous from a social point of view. In
particular, we know there is a huge gap between the objective of the
Paris agreement (1.5-2°C) on the one hand, and the cumulative impact of
the NDC (2.7-3.7°C) on the other hand. In terms of emissions, this gap
will amount to about 5.8 Gt in 2025.
To assess the impact of a U.S. decision to quit the agreement, it must
be known that the U.S. NDC amounts to an emissions reduction by 2Gt by
2025 (compared to 2005), and that these 2Gt represent about 20% of the
global effort included in the NDC of the 191 signatories of the
agreement. As a result, Trump’s programme, if put in practice, means the
U.S. would add 2Gt carbon to the gap of 5.8 Gt between what the
governments of the world have promised to do and what should be done not
to exceed a 1.5°C rise in temperature. In other words: with the U.S., it
will be very, very difficult not to exceed the 2°C, as I have said
before; without the U.S., it might be impossible.
I think the majority of the ruling classes worldwide are now convinced
that climate change is a reality, a huge threat to its rule, and that
this threatening reality is “of anthropic origin.” This has not changed
with Trump’s election, as shown by the reactions of China, India, the
EU, etc. Even Saudi Arabia confirmed its commitment to the Paris
agreement, and its NDC. But the effect of the U.S. defection, if
confirmed, will be that the other countries will be even less disposed
to step up their efforts in order to fill the gap. From this standpoint,
the EU’s very conservative position says a lot.
We should demand everywhere that governments step up climate efforts: in
order to fill the gap between Paris and the NDC, on the one hand, and to
offset the U.S. defection, on the other hand. This is not possible to
achieve within the framework of current capitalist policy: it calls for
reforms breaking with market logic, such as free public transport,
public initiatives to insulate buildings, support to peasants against
agribusiness and to Indigenous peoples against mining and logging
companies etc.
It is true that it won’t be easy for Trump to achieve his goal, because
part of the U.S. climate policy depends on states, cities and
businesses, on the one hand, and because CO2 is filed as a polluter in
the Clean Air Act, on the other hand. But the problem must be seen in a
much broader context. It’s not only the problem of Trump’s climate
policy, but of his policy in general.
Trump’s project is to counter the decline of U.S. hegemony in the world.
This is also what Obama aimed for, but Trump’s method is different.
Obama wanted to achieve this objective within the framework of global
neoliberal governance. Trump wants to achieve it through a nationalist,
racist, sexist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, brutal policy. He is mainly
focused on capitalist China, the rising power that could challenge the
U.S. in the future. This project entails a serious danger of war, even
of a third world war.
There are analogies both with the decline of the British empire and the
rise of Germany before WWI, and with the rise of Hitler in a context of
a very deep economic, social and political crisis before WWII (I don’t
say Trump is a fascist, that’s not the point). Yet, in this situation,
by force of circumstances, the urgency of the climate crisis could be
relegated to a secondary question, although intelligent people in the
ruling classes are aware that it is not.
Every cloud has its silver lining. The positive side of the situation is
that the polarization in the U.S. benefits not only the right, but also
the left. The Women’s March, the mass mobilizations against the “Muslim
ban” and the March for Climate on 29 April, among others, show it is
possible to defeat Trump. The challenge is huge, not only for people in
the US but for all of us, worldwide. In the present situation, defeating
Trump is the best way to fight for the climate. In all countries, we
should try to jump on the bandwagon of the social mobilization in the U.S.
The women’s movement in the U.S. has just launched an international
appeal to join their struggle on the 8th of March (International Women’s
Day). That’s the example to follow. In the same spirit, we should try
everywhere to organize demonstrations for the climate on 29 April (or
22, date of a March for Science in the US). Not to support the Paris
agreement, of course, but to put forward radical ecosocialist demands.
As we live in a world that is so deeply modified by human activities,
many scientists agree that we have entered a new geological epoch: the
Anthropocene. What implications do you think this must have in the
revolutionary left programme and strategy?
This is indeed a very interesting debate. The scientists consider that
the Anthropocene started after the Second World War. This is because it
is only from that moment that the impact of human activity resulted in
geological changes, such as sea-level rise, nuclear waste, accumulation
of chemical molecules that did not exist before, etc. From a geological
point of view, this cannot be contested: the date relies on objective
facts. But there are two underlying social and political debates: about
the mechanisms driving this objective change, and about the implications
in terms of programme and strategy. Both debates are linked.
The debate on mechanisms is a debate about the reasons why humankind is
destroying the environment. Of course, capitalism bears the most
responsibility for this destruction: its logic of growth, of production
of abstract value and of maximization of profit is incompatible with
ecological sustainability. The exponential character of the curves
showing the evolution of the different aspects of the ecological crisis
as a function of time is a clear illustration of that: all these curves
(GHG emissions, depletion of the ozone layer, chemical pollution,
aerosol loading of the atmosphere, species loss, etc.) show an inflexion
point after the Second World War. The link with the long wave of
capitalist expansion is absolutely obvious. To deny the major
responsibility of capitalism, to pretend that the Anthropocene is an
outcome, not of capitalism, but of Homo sapiens, and even of the genus
Homo, is ridiculous.
But this is not the entire story. For environmental destruction existed
before capitalism, and existed on a massive scale in 20th century
non-capitalist societies, as well. There is a certain similarity with
the oppression of women: it existed before capitalism and continued in
the so-called “real existing socialist societies.”
The conclusion of the analysis is the same in both cases: abolishing
capitalism is a necessary condition for women’s emancipation and for a
non-predatory relationship of humankind with the rest of nature, not a
sufficient one. In the field of women’s liberation, the implication of
this analysis is twofold: women need an autonomous movement, and
revolutionists should build a socialist tendency within this movement.
Here, we have clearly the limit of the comparison, because no autonomous
movement of nature can intervene in the social debate, of course.
What conclusion should we draw from that? That some humans must
intervene on behalf of nature in the social debate. That’s what
ecosocialists want to do. Thus, ecosocialism is much more than a
strategy to link social and environmental demands: it is a project of
civilization, aiming for the development of a new ecological
consciousness, a new culture of the relationship with nature, a new
cosmogony. Nobody could determine the content of this new consciousness
in advance, of course, but I think it should be driven by respect, care
and caution.
We know that humankind has a huge capacity to dominate. It is a product
of our intelligence. But the “domination” can be understood in two
senses: as an act of brutality and appropriation on the one hand, as the
capacity to understand, to solve difficult questions, on the other hand.
We should urgently stop dominating nature in the first sense and try to
“dominate” in the second sense – as a good student completely knows
their subject. We have caused a lot of destruction, but there is no
reason why our intelligence could not be used to take care of nature and
rebuild what we have destroyed, if possible. Though, contrary to what
Jared Diamond says, some other societies in the past took care of their
environments very wisely, thanks to a very deep knowledge of it.
What we need, in short, is not only a social revolution but also a
cultural revolution. It has to start immediately through very concrete
behavioural changes, but it is not a pure question of individual
behaviour; changes have to be fostered socially and will progress
through concrete struggles, too. Indigenous societies are a source of
inspiration.
I think the small peasants will play a decisive role in this process,
for obvious reasons. And women, too. Not because they would be more
sensitive “by nature,” but as a result of their specific oppression.
Firstly, because they produce 80% of the food, women are directly
confronted to the reality of the degradation of nature and its
consequences. Secondly, as a result of patriarchal oppression, women are
most often in charge of reproductive tasks within the family: this gives
them a specific point of view about the importance of the three drivers
I have mentioned: respect, care, and caution.
This article first appeared in International Viewpoint, the on-line
English-language journal of the Fourth International. Photo: Joe Brusky
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
April 14, 2017 in Environment. Tags: climate
Related posts
S. Africa: Toward a mass workers party
Climate chaos and the global ecological crisis
How to be Effective in Abortion Clinic Defense
Post navigation
← Socialist Action statement on the U.S. missile strike on Syria
Help defend Gaël Quirante! →
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month April 2017 (7) March 2017 (13)
February 2017 (19) January 2017 (13) December 2016 (12) November
2016 (19) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August 2016 (10)
July 2016 (14) June 2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April 2016 (12) March
2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015 (11)
November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015 (10) August 2015
(7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015 (12) March
2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September 2014 (6) August 2014
(10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014 (11) April 2014 (10)
March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014 (11) December 2013
(10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013 (13) August
2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April 2013
(14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012 (19) September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012 (3) May 2012 (19) April
2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19) January 2012 (17)
December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011 (14) September
2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011 (19) May 2011
(19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011 (16) January 2011
(15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October 2010 (6) September
2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (2) May 2010 (9)
April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January 2010 (9)
December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009 (16) September 2009
(3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009 (7) April
2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10) December
2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (16) September 2008 (14)
August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008 (3) May 2008 (2) April
2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January 2008 (11)
December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11)
November 2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September 2006 (15) August 2006
(11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (14) April 2006 (6) March
2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (9)
November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September 2005 (12) August 2005
(9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005 (16) April 2005 (12)
March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005 (15) December 2004
(14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September 2002 (22) August
2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002 (21) February
2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October 2001 (24)
September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October 2000 (17)
September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June 2000 (26)
May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February 2000 (18)
January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October 1999
(25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999 (38) June 1999
(24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February 1999
(29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook
View SocialistActUS’s profile on Twitter
View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools
Elections Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International
Labor Latin America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History
Middle East Palestine Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Uncategorized Vote
Socialist Action Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.