A-Infos (en) NEA (Northeastern Anarchist) #8 - Women, The State, And The Family by E. Moraletat, Bete Noire (NEFAC-Montreal)

[Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
    News about and of interest to anarchists
 http://ainfos.ca/ http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
 ________________________________________________

Today, as we begin the twenty-first century, how can we sum up contemporary
feminist struggles? As a start, we can establish that these struggles have
constantly asked for integration into the system. Even through the intense
struggle of the ‘70s, patriarchal and capitalist institutions were left in tack.
Women and the State
Inherent to the structure of capitalism are a number of contradictions.
These contradictions are put upon and resented by the oppressed and
exploited groups within society. They generate movements of dissent,
such as the workers movement, struggles against racism, student
movements… and the feminist movement. In this article we will look
specifically at modern feminist struggles, within the context of capitalism
and a class-divided society.

What we must further clarify is that within all of these struggles, including
the feminist struggle, there is a moment where the movement must
confront the State. In fact, the main function of the State, in a capitalist
society, is to resolve the tensions that arise from the contradictions it
creates. As a result of this focus, no movement can escape the State's
efforts to control struggles against it. The State puts forward whatever
resources it deems necessary to ensure this control. It can use violence, to
varying degrees, or make reforms in the system that alleviate tensions just
enough to allow the system to better adapt itself to its internal
contradictions.

The history of the feminist movement shows well the different statist
readjustments in capitalist society. Indeed, women have obtained the
recognition of many rights and the bettering of conditions primarily from
the State. And even if the contradictions that nourish women's revolt still
exist, the State has thwarted the dynamism of their movement by
dissolving its subversive potential. The fact that many parts of the
movement were aligned with powerful institutions, such as political
parties, churches and government agencied, made it possible, and still
makes possible, the creation of new forms of family organization; these are
social order adjustments necessary for capitalism's survival.

Because feminist struggles failed to succeed in organizing a global
movement against capitalism and patriarchy, the victories of the feminist
movement are often still victories for the State. But before beginning this
analysis, we must examine what pushed women to demand that their
social status, and living conditions, improve in the first place.

The Birth of Feminism: The Origin of Contradictions

The feminist movement can trace its roots to the contradictions that arose
with the development of capitalism. This can be seen when examining the
fact that capitalism was the force behind the transformation of social
production. The changes that capitalism brought on influenced both
domestic, and non-domestic spheres of production. The following is a brief
description of this process, beginning with some comments on the two
spheres of production.

The sphere of domestic production occurs within the family unit. Men and
women are designated positions within this sphere based on their gender.
The relationships within this sphere are conditioned around the idea of
property ownership, and designed so that men have control and authority
over women and children. Trends of exploitation and domination are thus
prominent. Within this sphere, domestic production, taken on by women,
includes giving birth to children, raising them, nourishing the family, taking
care of health needs, doing housework, etc. All these tasks can vary
depending on the society, the class or the era, but women have to deal with
them because they are women. Clearly, it is not the tasks that women do
that define their place in the domestic production, but their sex. The family
is the ideologic and legal institution within which domestic production is
organized.

Non-domestic production is the sphere in which class struggle takes place.
Relationships within this sphere are those of exploitation and domination
by the ruling class. The ruling class uses its ownership and control of the
means of production, products and workers, to ensure its domination.
Non-domestic production is carried out by a variety of administrative
institutions, State organizations, private companies, etc.

These two spheres of social production intersect with each other. The
ruling class ensures this intersection, as it is critical for social cohesion.
This is accomplished through the ownership and control of the essential
components of the non-domestic production sphere. The way in which the
two spheres interact differs between societies, eras, and the stage of
development of society. The ideal representation of social development
can be seen as a two-pole axe. At the first pole, the majority of economic
production occurs at the heart of the family. At the other pole, the family is
submitted to non-domestic production, and most production transfers to
this sphere. The relation between the family and the system can also be
seen as a two-pole axe; at one point, the father has the right to control and
decide the lives and deaths of children, women and slaves. At the second
pole, the father must answer to the State regarding the welfare of children.

With the development of capitalism, the non-domestic sphere expanded to
its detriment. Capitalism brought on an important reduction in domestic
production (which was little by little absorbed by institutions outside the
family). At the same time, the relationship between the two spheres of
social production, were also transformed. The tasks, duties and
relationships of women and men within the domestic sphere were thus
modified. These modifications created a paradox for women. For them, as a
product of femininity, their place in domestic production carries specific
tasks and functions. With the development of capitalism, these tasks and
functions did not remain in their place. Moreover, the place of women in
the domestic sphere affected negatively the conditions of their
participation in the non-domestic production process.

The birth of feminism was the result of this paradox, as women sought new
outlets for their time. Let us now examine how changes within the
domestic and non-domestic spheres of production played out over the
centuries. We will attempt to evaluate the impact of feminism on the
organization of social order.

The State: The Family Gardener

The beginning of the industrial revolution brought with it changes which
obliged the ruling class to pay attention to some of the new realities
affecting the working class. The development of huge industries had
brought many problems to the working class, affecting their health, their
sexuality and their reproductive abilities. First, the need for large amounts
of manual labor in urban areas drove a huge migration away from the
countryside. This obliged the ruling class to control waves of populations
to keep a demographic balance. Secondly, as a result of the surge in urban
populations, urban problems such as dense cohabitation, contamination of
air and water, disease, prostitution and venereal diseases, boomed. During
this era, in these conditions, the working class survived by living anyway,
and anywhere, they could. In huge cities, due to the lack of space, many
people shared apartments. Within the same household it would not have
been uncommon to find a 5-year-old girl, 20-year-old woman, and a
57-year-old man, connected by no family relation, but sharing a space. The
lives of the working class also took place in the street, a place for
discussion, games, and nightclubs. In these conditions, the institution of
marriage crumbled, replaced by concubines, due largely to the fact that
many industrial workers led nomadic lifestyles. The ruling class began to
realize that with all the changes of the era, the working class had become
less easy to exploit. In other words, the disorder of the urban migration,
that helped begin the industrial revolution, was incompatible with the
model for smooth running industries and families. Facing this problem, the
State thus began to demonstrate its ability to manipulate society.

The goal of the State was to put to work a population that lived by the
rhythm of the streets, not the beat of industry. Using a number of
repressive forces, the State began a campaign to clean up the street.
Anti-homeless and anti-beggar laws were put into effect, and particularly
run-down neighborhoods were destroyed. The street became the place for
the State to enforce its control. The first step toward the reorganization of
the family emerged from these changes, as the population began to lose its
control over the streets. The reorganization emphasized, and enforced, the
difference between public and private spaces. While the state firmly
grasped the public spaces, the state also took control of private spaces, by
forcing the public into the private spaces where new family norms would
have to be established. The home became the new center of life, in place of
the street, and closed connections to anyone but those within the family.
This transformation was reinforced by new ideologies, began to make
people recognize previously less important differentiations between
private and public spaces.

The Bourgeois Family Model

The model for the bourgeois family emerged from the growing sense of
distinction between people's private and public lives. Public life was
recognized as everything that happened outside of the family, in politics,
careers, religious activities, etc. Private life was considered to include
everything that had to do with parenting and married life. Within the sphere
of private life, the responsibilities involved in the maintenance of the
nuclear family were divided based on gender. The family thus became a
private, autonomous unit, isolated from the outside world, and
self-sufficient in terms of affection. The bourgeois family model dictated
that a woman's primary and natural role was that of wife and mother. The
ruling class viewed this system to be a guaranty of prosperity and social
order.

The "privatization" of the family, and the model for the bourgeois family,
were enforced by the State. Indeed, the State implemented laws and
policies that worked directly to mold families. These policies were put into
practice by the government, and public, private, secular, and religious
agencies who were all directly influenced by the State. The State
functioned as a centralizing force (and also as a source of funding and
services for those private organizations). All these resources were
provided to regulate, supervise and control the working class.

The articulation of the family with these different institutions of social
control involved a reduction of its own dominating structure. In fact, the
absolute character of the marital and paternal authority in the domestic
sphere, was widely moderated by bourgeois civil rights, like freedom and
equality between people. This led to what some historicians named the
"normalization" of the practices in the private sphere. From the economic
production unit, the family became a control unit, made by and part of the
State, as it is henceforth tightly overlapped in this network of social
control institutions and their articulation is assumed by men's
responsibility.

Another consequence of industrial development was that the demand for
large amounts of manual labor called upon women and children to enter the
work force in factories. This event coincided with the birth of modern
feminism, towards the beginning of the 19th century. During this era the
feminist discourse primarily focused on pointing out the physical and
emotional consequences of working both in the home and also at a factory :
"the hours of work are too long, salaries too low, it is too difficult to
accumulate a dowry, to find a "solvent" husband, to take care of children,
etc." [1]

To relieve the hardships of working women, the ruling class enforced the
bourgeois model of "domesticity" and 'conjugality" by making government
assistance programs for the working class one of their priorities.

Indeed, "children were obliged to go to school and forbidden from being
vagrants. They were put under maternal surveillance, and were under the
vigilance of social workers. To women, legitimate union and procreation,
home assignment, housework responsibilities and children's education
were imposed [...]; finally, marital guardianship and doctor surpervision
beyond the priest's one." [2]

The delegation of men to factories, women to the home, and children to
school was a further step in the division of the working class into family
units and the State’s assertion of more political and economic control.

It is important to understand that during this first phase of the
reorganization of the family, within the capitalist context, the ruling class
felt that in order to discipline, and control the working class, the priority
was to organize them into stable cellular families by will, or by force. The
dominant discourse of the times, asserted that women were to be "queens
of the home". The feminists radically condemned this notion, as well as
that of marriage, but this point of view was beaten by the valorization of
marriages based on romantic love, on parental bond also based on love, but
primarily maternal love, and the natural ability of women to educate and
procreate

Towards the end of the 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century,
after a few signs that the feminist movement was running out of
momentum, the movement suddenly began again with new vigor. The
priorities of feminists became obtaining the right to vote, gaining access to
professional careers, and gaining the right to obtain high-school and
college educations. This period of the feminist struggle coincided, again,
with another phase of reorganization of the family, responding to changes
in how production occurred (within and outside the family), and how the
two spheres of production interacted. On the one hand, women were
becoming more frequently employed in production outside the home. On the
other hand, new industries began to provide goods and services that had
traditionally been provided by the family and households started to be more
technologically advanced.

These changes were all associated with the increasingly "privatized" role
of women as wives, mothers and caretakers of the household. This
process, with its roots in the previous century' s defense of bourgeois
domesticity principles, now grew stronger with new ideological backing.
New propaganda emerged that spread the myth of professionalism in
housework and motherhood (encouraging adhesion to strict rules) that
created a new ideology of femininity. "This new femininity put a heavy
burden on the shoulders of women, particularly those in the working class
who had a hard time accessing the resources necessary to meet the high
standards that the obligations demanded". [3]

This new feminist discourse was in response to demands, particularly
bourgeois feminist demands, concerning the need for education of women,
and the need to have an identity and a value. With the importance placed
on housework, women had to gain knowledge of specific scientific
methods and formulas for the proper completion of housework. Now, it is
more the "privatization" process than the family-dominating structure that
ensures social control.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the feminist struggle was heavily
influenced by the fact that women were in the process of changing their
role within society. One of the primary goals became participation of
women in public and political life. This participation, however, was to be
mandated and supervised by the State, the Church and the organizations
which effected social control (such as political parties, charities, and aid
organizations). Society will consider that women should bring to the public
sector a contribution which is properly feminine such as gentleness, love,
peace, the spirit of sacrifice, altruism, maternal instincts, etc. Society will
thus explicitly appeal to women using a reformist vocation to canalize their
participation in social life into activities that are useful in preserving the
social order. The agencies of control will orchestrate and drive the feminist
social and political engagement to their own interest.

Social and political work of women was allowed, and encouraged, as long
as it did not effect women's expected role and responsibilities as wives,
mothers and housekeepers. Participation was thus limited to the free time
that a woman's family and household were able to afford her. Changes in
women's roles during this time did nothing to actually change the ideology
of feminity, but rather only enforced and followed the traditional model.
Basically, "At the same time as women became more involved in public
activities, and were able to escape some of the subordination within the
family, by husbands and fathers, their activity outside the home put
women, ironically, under direct control of larger and higher social control
agencies" [4].

As far as education, women slowly began to be allowed to attend colleges.
Education for women then developed much more outside traditional
religious communities. As women entered schools, new fields involving
care-taking roles were rapidly developed, such as nutrition, child welfare,
etc. in order to direct women along the proper road. In the workplace,
women were forced into a ghetto of female jobs, such as teaching or
nursing. Although from the 1930s to the 1960s (and even '70s) the feminist
movement eclipsed, wage-earning women did not return to their stoves.
Rather, they continued on with their work, and participated in a number of
struggles to gain women rights.

The 1970s To The Present: The Decline Of Domestic Production

As we saw in the previous sections, certain changes associated with the
development of capitalism affected domestic production, non-domestic
production, and the relationship between the two. Perhaps it would be good
to go over this again, to ensure that this point can be well understood.

First, the introduction of new goods, services, and tools related to
domestic work greatly changed the traditional family model, particularly
affecting the gender roles within the family. As a result of the new
technologies, cooking, cleaning, and other housework became so simple
that they could easily be taken care of by any adult, regardless of their
experience or training. Society thus no longer needed women to stay in the
home in order to specialize in household work.

The downward trend in reproduction was also important during this time.
Because families were having less children, the amount of time and
energy, women were expected to put into childcare, also greatly
diminished. It was the era of zero-population growth. However, children
were being brought into the world, and need to be fed, amused, protected,
supervised and socialized. But in place of women, these tasks were little
by little, taken over by the State and other institutions outside the family
that had control over the non-domestic sphere. For example, children's
education was taken over by schools and daycares, health-care by
hospitals and clinics, and socialization by the media. For example, the
youth subculture notion, fueled by the media, demonstrates how certain
members of the family, in this case youth, have become attached to other
units outside the family.

Poor families are the exception to the rule of the above trends. This is
primarily because they continue to have many children but it is also due to
the fact that they do not have the financial means to obtain the products
and resources that would enable them to cut down on domestic work.
Paradoxically, bourgeois families see a trend in increased tasks to be done
around the house. Due to new amounts of leisure time, the rich can change
their bedsheets twice a week, accompany children on activities, and bake
treats for the family. In this way many domestic tasks are transformed into
hobbies. Many bourgeois families thus doubled their housework, but
instead of becoming problematic, the increase is celebrated as a
pass-time.

The above changes combined with the growing number of women being
integrated into the workplace, and bringing home salaries, led to serious
modifications in accepted gender role divisions within the family. While
these divisions still exist and are private, the relations of domination and
exploitation of men over women that these divisions cause appear to be
deemed unacceptable and unjust to women. Feminists responded by taking
on these issues with vigor, and seized the streets.

The Roadblock to the Women's Movement

During the 1970s traditional roles were first put into question by and for
women. Patriarchy, and assignment to the domestic sphere were
denounced. The movement attacked the family, marriage, and also the
State, by pushing a critical analysis of patriarchy and capitalism. The
question of sexual liberation arose, and women's right to pleasure and
enjoyment was strongly defended. Bras were burned and other restraining
products, such as perfumes and deodorants, which masked the body's
natural smell, were thrown in the trash. The idea of simple existence was
promoted: nudity was endorsed and sex-shops denounced. The desire to
achieve one's goals naturally was supported. Within some political
movements (from the far left to the libertarian movement), women
denounced masculine domination and the machismo of activists. New
forms of intervention were invented: parties, color, humor, noise, and
spectacular shows were endorsed. Taboos such as incest, rape, and
homosexuality were brought to the public light, demonstrating that the
personal was political. However, the women's movement of the 1970s
could not help hitting walls, and being stuck in traps. Why?

The first problem, was the continued celebration of feminine values, such
as maternity, which revealed a paradox within the movement. In fact, the
identification by certain feminists with patriarchal norms left in place the
dysfunctionnal character of this so-called feminity that encloses women in
their traditional roles instead of liberating them from their oppression. The
valuing of "feminine" behavior was thus one of the major traps into which
certain feminists fell.

Next, women participated very little in politics and were underrepresented
in leadership positions, thus maintaining the belief that power and public
discussion were affairs of men. At the same time, the internal dynamics of
certain feminist groups pointed to the falseness of this idea. In fact,
authoritarianism, hierarchy, domination, and hunger for power, were often
equally present in these all female groups.

Women's participation in sororities brought up another problem, often
causing women to lose sight of the link with class struggle. In fact,
denouncing patriarchy without denouncing capitalism creates a
cross-class alliance, giving the movement no voice beyond mere lobbying.
Even if all women faced oppression by men, their situations differed
drastically depending on the material realities that each woman faced.
Ruling class women profited from the capitalist system, and thus did not
reject this system. Women did not, therefore, share a common interest in
challenging the oppressive economic order. Besides, fighting against male
domination did not necessarily mean fighting against power, or for sexual
equality.

In general, the fact that most feminist movements were all women
hindered their participation in other social movements. Indeed, no
revolution can transpire if one of the sexes is in ignorance. In this case
men too hold an interest in combating patriarchy. If women are victims of
patriarchal oppression, men too are alienated by the role that society
imposed upon them. From this comes the necessity to promote a general
social project, to prevent a "war" between the sexes amongst the
exploited. Unfortunately the feminist movement of the 1970s was unable to
accomplish this unity, and without a real contestation of the system, the
feminist demands have been institutionalized by the integration of women
into capitalist society. Again, the State responded to this demand for
integration by jumping in to canalize the change, so that it would fit the
State's interests.

The Family-State

The response of the State to the demands of the feminists again will
coincide with a restructuring of social order. The focus, this time, is on a
transformation of the family, the State, and their reciprocal relationship.
This restructuring will be taken on by the State, and it's affiliates, but also
with the participation of women. On the one hand, this transformation will
rest on the elimination of the domestic sphere of production by the
progressive absorption of the family functions by the State who seeks to
convert them into political functions. This process will favor the
transformation of the domestic sphere in a private space for sociability.
Then, the family will become the only refuge, and the guardian, for
relationships between people that are free and spontaneous, stripped of
constraint and authoritarianism. All personal relationships and personal
affairs become delegated to the family unit, because there is no longer any
public solidarity. This transformation will favor a gender division and
isolation between men, women and children, and will allow the State to
more easily control and intervene in people's public lives.

At the same time, the State will begin to set up, orient and regulate
programs and services of health and safety to satisfy the demands, and
needs, of women. This move will assure the State of direct control over
women and children. For example, it is the State who gain the power to
distribute contraceptives and abortion services. This power gives the State
the potential to impose itself on, and manipulate, the fertility of women.
Also, with the growing rate of single parent households (in which the head
of the house is usually a woman) the State is able to take on the role of
virtual father by providing financial aid.

Moral Liberation

The decline in the need for domestic production led to a relative equality
within the domestic sphere between men, women and children. For women,
the change often led to an improvement in living conditions within the
family, but more importantly led to improvements outside of the home.
Because the accepted inequality of women within the family had long
permitted owners of production (and still does today) to impose worse
conditions on women workers than male workers, this new relative
equality led to changes such as syndicalization, job security, and equal
salaries. Still, obtaining these rights necessitated State intervention, which
guaranteed, and still guarantees, its control over women and their
movement.

We often hear that women have been liberated, even emancipated,
because they have gained the right to equality with men. This view looks
only at a liberation which is limited by the capitalist economy, and by the
politics of the State. If a woman, now, has the same rights as a man, in
work, marriage and social life, etc, she is still "different". After all, she is a
woman. With this idea comes in the eternal discourse on the topic of what
defines feminity. Right now, society is undergoing a change in view on the
properties of feminine nature, to adapt them to modern life. Some
interesting trends within these changes can be seen. If women have really
asserted their right to take control of their own bodies, it is funny that
feminine lingerie and countless b e a u t y  p r o d u c t s still have a huge market.
The myth of beauty has always been, and continues to be, a limiting, and
alienating force for women, and a lucrative business for capitalism. In
addition, the gender divisions of work still exist for working class women
who have no more choice to have a job in the feminine ghetto categories,
which results in low paying, precarious work that profits only the owners
and the capitalist economy.

At the same time as the above changes, we are also talking about sexual
liberation. Funny conception. The possibility of living in a free union with
someone, with or without children doesn't mean at all the right to choose
what type of relationship we want. In fact, these new forms of
"congeniality" were often imposed by the State through politics, legislation
and interventions having to do with marriage, divorce and childcare, etc.
Heterosexuality and monogamy are still the dominant models imposed and
conditioned by the State. In the end, if today, living in concubinage is a
respected choice, it is only because it is not threatening to the State and
capitalism. This choice corresponds more to a personal desire, than to an
attempt at a radical change of society.

Return to Moral Order

Since the 1980s we have been experiencing a return to the moral order
fueled by people's fears of unemployment, and the precarious nature of
jobs. The absence of social solidarity, and dynamics of change, re-ignited
people's interest in marriage, as a social refuge. In the face of AIDS, which
introduced new norms for sexual behavior, fidelity became critical and
stable relationships as well as safe sex, are advocated. Reactionary ideas,
as well as sexist behaviors, flourish in the press and in the publicity.

Today, "The dominant message from society is that you shouldn't take
risks in sexual matters, as in everything. One must think of protecting
one's family, one's body, one's life and the lives of loved ones through
adhering to a series of individual and collective rules and norms. This is a
message which certainly avoids all forms of social agitation, and
contestation of the established social order."[5]

Conclusion

In summary, contemporary feminist struggles demonstrate that feminism
has provided an important influence for the rearrangement of the capitalist
order, and has been indispensable in maintaining the status quo. With the
help of feminism, everything moved, but nothing changed.

Because the feminist movement was linked to the State, and because all
demands were formulated in the language of the State, the struggle ended
up turning against itself. It is not surprising that feminist's demands were
met, but none of the problematic contradictions that provoked them, were
knocked out of place.

We must admit that women did gain certain rights, and it is unquestionable
that certain aspects of the quality of living were greatly improved. Even so,
these gains all carried the negative baggage of allowing the State to more
readily control women's movements. To prove this all we have to do is look
at all the organizations, councils and commissions set up to research
women, to listen to their demands, their opinions and to present them with
"solutions," and even take on feminist projects. In institutionalizing
feminism, its potential to be a subversive force was greatly diminished.

The struggle of women against patriarchy has, without doubt, a potential to
be a subversive force. It puts into question traditional social roles, the
family, property ownership, sexual oppression and domination. In other
words, this struggle demands that all of society be questioned. The
potential of the struggle will never be met unless women engage in a
revolutionary struggle.

To arrive at this point, it is important that class struggle, again, be brought
to the forefront. Feminist struggles are too often defined as a war between
sexes, which takes priority over all other struggles. There is only one fight,
however, the struggle for achieving libertarian communism - the abolition
of a class society and the complete destruction of exploitation and
domination. For in this struggle it is not possible to work towards liberation
if we are divided along gender lines, forbidding men from participating in
the struggle against patriarchy.

What's more, it is critical that we stop drawing divisive lines between
struggles. It is high time that a real class unity, and class confidence be
developed, so that there can be a unified offensive against the system.
With this unity an attack on one would be viewed as an attack on all. In
this sense, "All actions aiming at property destruction or destruction of the
State, are in agreement with the objective of the liberation of women. And,
reciprocally, all actions taken to reverse patriarchal oppression, contribute
to the abolition of property and the State." [6].

===============

Notes:

[1] Nicole Laurin-Frenette, "Féminisme et Anarchisme: Quelques
elements théoriques et historiques pour une analyse de la relation entre
le Mouvement des femmes et l'État." Femmes, Pouvoir, Politique
Bureaucratie: Atleir de creation libertaire. 1984. p. 27. [2] Nicole
Laurin-Frenette, op. cit., p. 27. [3] Nicole Laurin-Frenette, op. cit., p. 29. [4]
Nicole Laurin-Frenette, op. cit., p. 31. [5] Inspired by Libération des
femmes et projet libertaire, Organisation Communiste Libertaire,
Éditions Acratie, 1998, pp.68-73. [6] Vanina, Corps. Rapports Sociaux et
Ordre Moral. Courant Alternatif. Novembre 2001. Organisation
Communiste Libertaire. [7] Nicole Laurin-Frenette, Travailleuses et
Féministes, Montréal, Boréal Express, 1983.

===============

Special thanks to Laura (Sargassum Collective) for the English translation
of this essay.

===============

E. Moraletat is involved with the anarchist monthly 'Le Trouble', and is a
member of Groupe anarchiste Bete Noire (NEFAC-Montreal)

===============

This essay is from the newest issue of The Northeastern Anarchist. The
theme this issue is 'Anarchists in the Workplace' with essays focussing on
class war strategies and analysis for anarchists that go beyond orthodox
syndicalism... Anarcho-communist approaches to labor organizing, strike
solidarity, workers autonomy, base unionism, flying squads, and much
more!

ORDERING INFORMATION:

To order a copy of this forthcoming issue, please send $5ppd ($6
international). For distribution, bundle orders are $3 per copy for three or
more copies, and $2.50 per copy for ten or more.

Checks or money orders can be made out to "Northeastern Anarchist" and
sent to:

Northeastern Anarchist PO Box 230685 Boston, MA 02123
northeastern_anarchist@yahoo.com



*******
                       ********
       ****** The A-Infos News Service ******
      News about and of interest to anarchists
                       ******
  INFO: http://ainfos.ca/org http://ainfos.ca/org/faq.html
  HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
  SUBSCRIPTION: send mail to lists@ainfos.ca with command in
  body of mail "subscribe (or unsubscribe) listname your@address".

  Full list of list options at http://www.ainfos.ca/options.html