OCUPE A PIEDADE

he International Journal of Badiou Studies The International Journal for Badiou Studies is an international, peer-reviewed, open-source journal dedicated to the philosophy and thought of, and surrounding, the French philosopher Alain Badiou. The IJBS is dedicated to original and critical arguments that directly engage with the works of Badiou, as well as pertinent intellectual colleagues and related concepts. The aim of the IJBS is to develop a clear and transparent site for scholars interested in his ideas to come together from around the world to share their research and develop productive dialogues.   The IJBS is particularly concerned with maintaining a fidelity to Badiou's thinking without collapsing into hagiography or celebrity fetishism. We therefore encourage papers that actively critique Badiou's currency as an established philosophical figure. In this, we share similar aspirations with our partner the International Journal of Žižek Studies. Badiou's engagement with a variety of different fields also demands an interdisciplinary forum. Thus, the editorial staff and board is formed of scholars from a variety of disciplines across the Humanities and the Sciences. Call for Papers: Badiou Now!   The inaugural issue of the IJBS will be dedicated to the idea of 'Badiou Now!'  Why?  Because Badiou's philosophical interest is fundamentally contemporary and political. The notion of Badiou Now! captures the urgency that Badiou sees in combating the 'Thermidorian' spirit, reactive and obscurantist subjects that deny the necessity of rupture, events, acts, new truths, who replace action with political apathy, and radical democracy with a return to 'pure' transcendental notions.  In contrast to the Evental-negating/denying subject, Badiou is concerned with the question of how to maintain fidelity to the event, while remaining aware of competing subjective forces and of the materialist dialectical need for endless events, for perpetual breaks

Transcript: Slavoj Zizek at St. Mark's Bookshop BY SARAHANA » Fake leftist melancholia; obscene Zionist pact. Slavoj Zizek at St. Mark's Bookshop First part of the talk is a theoritical discussion on melancholy, mourning and prohibition, addressing Judith Butler and Freud. It's followed by a discussion on Wall Streets protests, including (1) a dissection of Anne Applebaum's recent column in the Washington Post that claims democracy is incompatible with globalization, but also that the Occupy protests (which react to the consequences of globalized economy) are incompatible with democracy (2) the idea of a fake leftist melancholia as it applies to these protests (3) the need to preserve the vacuum the protests create, by refusing to engage in a dialogue with those in power, just yet. Later parts of the unscripted talk discuss the obscene pact of Zionism that allows pro-Zionism and anti-Semitism to co-exist in the same group (like American Christian fundamentalists). Towards the very end, there's a brief mention of the anticipated pact between the Egyptian army and the Muslim Brotherhood. October 26, 2011 at St. Mark's Bookshop. -- TRANSCRIPT -- I will simply begin by certain historical observations. You probably notice how some people, and I think precisely the wrong people, started to celebrate the Wall Street events as a new form of social carnival: so nice, we have there this horizontal organization, no terror, we are free, egalitarian, everybody can say whatever he or she wants, and so on, all that stuff. It is as if some kind of a carnivalesque collective experience is returning. And this tendency, much more than here, is alive, as you can expect, on the West Coast. A couple of days ago at Stanford they told me that - the other Sunday, about 9 days ago - that in the center of San Francisco, a guy speaking on behalf of those who occupy, said something like, "They are asking you what's your program. They don't get it. We don't have a program. W

"If hope is an impossible demand, then we demand the impossible."- Judith Butler at Occupy Wall Street video By Kishani Widyaratna / 24 October 2011 Judith Butler, author of Frames of War and Precarious Life, visited Occupy Wall Street to lend her support to the protesters there. In a rallying speech, amplified through the human microphone, she gave her thoughts on the reception of the movement and its demands. I came here to lend my support to you today, to offer my solidarity, for this unprecedented display of democracy and popular will. People have asked, 'So what are the demands? What are the demands all these people are making?' Either they say there are no demands and that leaves your critics confused-or they say that the demands for social equality and economic justice are impossible demands. And impossible demands, they say, are just not practical. If hope is an impossible demand, then we demand the impossible. If the right to shelter, food and employment are impossible demands, then we demand the impossible. If it is impossible to demand that those who profit from the recession redistribute their wealth and cease their greed then yes, we demand the impossible. But it is true that there are no demands that you can submit to arbitration here because we are not just demanding economic justice and social equality, we are assembling in public, we are coming together as bodies in alliance, in the street and in the square. We're standing here together making democracy, enacting the phrase 'We the people!'   A video of Butler delivering her speech at Occupy Wall Street is available below. More in #Occupy Share

From Protest to Disruption Frances Fox Piven Frances Fox Piven has spent decades writing about and participating in social movements in the United States. She was gracious enough to sit down for an interview with Chris Maisano, a writer and activist in the New York local of Democratic Socialists of America, where this interview first appeared. They discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests, the complex interplay between social movements and electoral politics, and the future of the occupation movement. Chris Maisano [CM]: What have you thought of the Occupy Wall Street protests so far? Frances Fox Piven [FFP]: I think they've been pretty terrific. And I really am hopeful that it's the beginning of a new period of social protest in this country. I think a lot about the protest is absolutely on target, it's so smart. It was so smart to pick Wall Street because Wall Street looms so large not only in the reality of inequality and recession policy, but it looms so large in the minds of people now because everybody knows that they're stealing the country blind. So they picked the right place, they had somehow - I don't know how self-consciously, maybe self-consciously - absorbed a kind of lesson from Tahrir Square of staying there, because usually we have demonstrations and marches and parades and things, and they're over in a nanosecond. And all that the authorities have to do is wait, because they're gonna be over. So what they tried to do is take this classical form of the mass rally - they didn't do it alone, obviously it happened in Egypt too - and connected it with the disruptive potential of mass action because they said 'we're staying.' And 'we're staying' is more troublesome. Not only that, 'we're staying' makes it possible for them to organize and mobilize throughout the course of the action, which is what they do. So that part of it was pretty, pretty smart. Frances Fox Piven interveiwed by Democracy Now! (October 4, 2011). They are sm

Occupy Wall Street: Beyond the Rhetoric Matthew Flisfeder One of the distinguishing features of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is its apparent lack of central leadership. Not only does the movement seem leaderless; it does not appear to be organized around any clearly defined 'demands.' This has been perceived as something quite positive for participants and supporters of the movement, while being the primary point of criticism from opponents, particularly the mainstream media. Clearly, OWS stands against the unfair balance of wealth distribution in the United States (and around the world, for that matter), the unfair neoliberal politics that have swept the globe over the last four decades, corporate greed (especially in the financial sector), and various forms of systemic violence resulting from structural inequalities built into the capitalist system of exploitation. But what media pundits are looking for is something that they can represent: something, that is, with a timeline, that defines when the protestors will be 'satisfied.' This makes OWS qualitatively different from the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings that took the world stage last winter, popularly touted as the 'Arab Spring.' These groups had clearly defined 'demands': first and foremost was the overthrow of their political leaders. OWS is distinguished from the Arab Spring to the extent that its definitive aims and goals have yet to be defined. Activists meet October 7th in Toronto, in a pre-October 15 General Assembly. The movement has gone beyond the various '-isms,' labels that media pundits and the corporate elite find easy to dismiss: 'communism,' 'socialism,' 'anarchism,' 'Leftism,' etc. Commentators outside the United States have started to take notice. CBC business personality, Kevin O'Leary made a mockery of himself last week during a live interview with the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Chris Hedges, by referring to him as a "Left-wi

Which way for the ecology movement? Murray Bookchin 0 Resenhas AK Press, 1994 - 75 páginas In the essays that make up this book, Murray Bookchin calls for a critical social standpoint that transcends both "biocentrism" and "ecocentrism." A call for new politics and ethics of complementarity, in which people, fighting for a free, nonhierarchical, and cooperative society, begin to play a creative role in natural evolution. Bookchin attacks the misanthropic notion that the environmental crisis is caused mainly by overpopulation or humanity's genetic makeup.
He resolutely points to social causes--patriarchy, racism, and a capitalistic "grow or die" economy--as some of the problems the environmental movement must deal with. These ideas have to be confronted by environmentally concerned readers if the ecology movement is not to destroy its own potential as a force for social change and the achievement of a truly ecological society.
Murray Bookchin's writings have profoundly influenced ecological thinking over the last forty years. Now in his 80s, he has been a life-long radical, a trade union activist in the 30s and 40s, an innovative theorist in the 60s, and a leading participant in the anti-nuclear and radical wing of the Greens in the 70s and 80s. His ideas on social ecology have been important contributions to left libertarian thinking.

Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions for the environment Susan Hanna, Carl Folke, Karl-Göran Mäler, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics 0 ResenhasIsland Press, 1996 - 298 páginasProperty rights are a tool humans use in regulating their use of natural resources. Understanding how rights to resources are assigned and how they are controlled is critical to designing and implementing effective strategies for environmental management and conservation.Rights to Nature is a nontechnical, interdisciplinary introduction to the systems of rights, rules, and responsibilities that guide and control human use of the environment. Following a brief overview of the relationship between property rights and the natural environment, chapters consider: ecological systems and how they function the effects of culture, values, and social organization on the use of natural resources the design and development of property rights regimes and the costs of their operation cultural factors that affect the design and implementation of property rights systems coordination across geographic and jurisdictional boundaries The book provides a valuable synthesis of information on how property rights develop, why they develop in certain ways, and the ways in which they function. Representing a unique integration of natural and social science, it addresses the full range of ecological, economic, cultural, and political factors that affect natural resource management and use, and provides valuable insight into the role of property rights regimes in establishing societies that are equitable, efficient, and sustainable.« Menos

Cooperation Law for a Sharing Economy A new sharing economy is emerging-but how does it fit within our legal system? Time for a whole new field of cooperation law. Document Actions Email Print Feed  Share by Janelle Orsi posted Sep 23, 2010 Residents of cohousing communities could benefit from the advice of "sharing lawyers." Photo by Joe Behr What do you call a lawyer who helps people share, cooperate, barter, foster local economies, and build sustainable communities? That sounds like the beginning of a lawyer joke, but actually, it's the beginning of a new field of law practice. Very soon, every community will need a specialist in this yet-to-be-named area: Community transactional law? Sustainable economies law? Cooperation law? Personally, I tend to call it sharing law. We need sharing lawyers to help people like Lynne: Lynne lives in an urban cohousing community and shares ownership of a car with two neighbors. Every day, she fluidly shares, borrows, and lends (rather than owns) many household goods, tools, electronics, and other items. She is a member of a cooperative grocery, through which she receives significant discounts in exchange for putting in a few monthly work hours. She grows vegetables on an empty lot and sometimes sells the veggies to neighbors. She has a successful rooftop landscaping business, which she launched using 20 microloans and investments from friends and family. She often barters, doing odd jobs in exchange for goods and services. She also owns a 5 percent share of a hot springs retreat center outside of town, which she acquired through sweat equity. With the help of sharing, cooperation, and collaboration, Lynne has managed to craft an affordable, comfortable lifestyle, put her skills to use, do varied and self-directed work, and live/work in a supportive community. She has "financed" property ownership and launched a thriving business off of the traditional financial and banking grid. Lawyers Are Going to Have a B

Can Communities Reclaim the Right to Say "No"? Many communities trying to keep fracking, drilling, or big box stores out are finding they don't have the legal right to say no. Their response? Take on the very structure of law. Document Actions Email Print Feed  Share by Mari Margil posted Aug 24, 2011 Strong community activism led the Pittsburgh City Council to pass an ordinance banning drilling for natural gas within city limits. Photo by Parker Waichman Alonso It's no wonder that many communities want nothing to do with the natural gas drilling procedure known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." The practice, which involves pumping chemical-laced water underground at high pressure, results in millions of gallons of frack wastewater that's been found to contain dangerous levels of radioactivity, carcinogenic chemicals, and highly corrosive salts. Last year, 16 cattle died after being exposed to the wastewater; a famous scene in the documentary Gasland shows a resident lighting his tap water on fire. But communities trying to protect their drinking water from fracking haven't found it at all easy to do. No Right to Self-Government? In June, the city council of Morgantown, West Virginia-which draws its drinking water from the Monongahela River, just downstream of a new natural gas well-passed a ban on horizontal drilling and fracking within one mile of city limits. Two days later, a company seeking to drill sued Morgantown, claiming that because drilling is regulated by the state, it wasn't within the city's authority to keep fracking out.  When communities try to exercise authority to protect themselves, they are met with threats of corporate lawsuits and state efforts to override their decisions. In August, a circuit court agreed, invalidating the city's ordinance. In her decision, Judge Susan Tucker ruled that municipalities are but "creatures of the state" without jurisdiction to legislate on drilling or fracking wi

Turning Occupation into Lasting Change Can the Occupy movement transform the legal structures that give corporations their power over the rest of us? Document Actions Email Print Feed  Share by Thomas Linzey, Jeff Reifman posted Oct 14, 2011 Photo by Andy Sternberg The history of populist uprisings like Occupy Wall Street isn't a reassuring one. The last one to have any staying power was the populist farmers revolt of the 1800's, and it was aggressively dismantled by everyone from the two major political parties to the banks and railroad corporations of its day. Most revolts are snuffed out well before their efforts impact the political scene-not because their ideas and issues aren't relevant, but because the major institutional players within the system-that-is rapidly attempt to snag the power and energy for their own. In the eyes of the Democratic Party or the national environmental groups, this revolt is merely seen as an opportunity to assimilate newly emerging troops back into those groups' own ineffective organizing. After all, if those institutional groups have actually been effective all of these years, why the need for a revolt at all? Our current system, in which a corporate minority wields a stranglehold over 99 percent of us, won't change just because one bill is introduced into Congress, or promises are made by financial institutions. It's when these revolts become mainstreamed by their "friends" within existing institutions that they lose their steam, and become just one more footnote in an endless stream of footnotes of revolts that have burned out early. The pundits and "experts" are already trying to put this revolt in its place. A recent New York Times editorial declared that it "isn't the job of these protesters to write legislation." That, the editorial argued, was what the national politicians need to do. The Times couldn't be more wrong. If the Occupy movement is to succeed over time, it must follow the

Of Corporations, Law, and Democracy: Claiming the Rights of Communities and Nature by Thomas Linzey Twenty Fifth Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures October 2005, Stockbridge, Massachusetts Edited by Hildegarde Hannum ©Copyright 1999 by the E. F. Schumacher Society and Thomas Linzey May be purchased in pamphlet form from the E. F. Schumacher Society, 140 Jug End Road, Great Barrington, MA 01230, (413) 528-1737, www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications.html. Introduction by Christopher Lindstrom, Staff, E. F. Schumacher Society It was above all the concept of decentralism that brought me to the Schumacher Society, the idea of citizens coming together in their communities to find ways of creating a sustainable life on the local level rather than thinking our needs can be met by large and cold corporations and governments. Decentralism involves searching for solutions on an individual and family and community level. In this regard it is my privilege to be introducing Tom Linzey, co-founder of and staff attorney for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which provides free legal services to grassroots, community-based environmental groups and rural municipal governments. Tom provides the tools for communities to organize and take a stand against corporate power. He has awe-inspiring stories to tell, archetypal David and Goliath tales. His bold charisma and his relentless commitment to defending the rights of community and the environment have provided inspiration and hope to people throughout this nation. Last year I heard Tom speak at the Bioneers Conference in California. There was a cast of truly extraordinary speakers, and they were all given a standing ovation at this conference. When Tom finished speaking, not only did the audience of two thousand people roar their approval but people could not settle for just standing up; the majority stood on their seats and started jumping up and down and whistling. It was really remarkable. That gives you a s

Diversity of Tactics and Democracy By George Lakey Clamor magazine March-April02 Last fall while working with activists in Europe I had the chance to hang out more with young people from Otpor, the resistance movement that brought down dictator Slobadan Milosevic in Serbia in October00. These Otpor activists were ages 19-23, typical ages in the movement that catalyzed the downfall of Milosevic (pronounced "Milosevitch"). They taught people twice their age some powerful lessons about how to overthrow a dictatorship, including how to keep going despite years of arrests and beatings. Some of the young people who started Otpor in 1999 had already been doing direct action in 1996 in the student pro-democracy movement. There they learned a hard fact: as the demonstrations grew the government paid infiltrators to pretend to be activists and do property destruction and street fighting. The government's tactic was brilliant because it scared away the potentially hundreds of thousands who were getting ready to join the movement, and gave back to government the moral high ground. Refusing to be discouraged, those who made a fresh start in 1999 made a critical decision: in order to win, Otpor would establish a policy of nonviolence. The stakes were too high, they reasoned, to have the luxury of everyone doing their thing. Milosovic was desperate, and surrounded with thugs who had no scruples. Only a policy of nonviolence could avoid the mistakes of 1996. I was impressed by the fast learning curve. Most movements do have a learning curve that enables them to benefit from their experience, but Otpor confronted a very hard lesson and quickly changed their policy of tolerance for diversity of tactics. Maybe their youth gave them an advantage in flexibility. Was Milosevic's tactic unusual? So many powerholders have used the tactic of what the French call "agents provocateur" that it is virtually predictable. Not only the "bad guy" authoritarians like Milosevic do it; liber

#AMERICANAUTUMN What 'diversity of tactics' really means for Occupy Wall Street by Nathan Schneider | October 19, 2011, 12:02 pm Occupy Wall Street marchers watch from the pedestrian walkway as hundreds of their comrades take to the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1. Even as Occupy Wall Street shapes the public conversation about high finance, political corruption, and the distribution of wealth, it has also raised anew questions about how resistance movements in general should operate. I want to consider one of the matters that I've thought about a lot over the past month while watching the occupation and its means of making its presence felt on the streets of New York and in the media. "Diversity of tactics," in the context of political protests, is often treated as essentially a byword for condoning acts of violence. The phrase comes by this honestly; it emerged about a decade ago at the height of the global justice movement, especially between the 1999 demonstrations that shut down a WTO meeting in Seattle and those two years later in Quebec. While all nonviolent movements worth their salt will inevitably rely on a variety of tactics-for instance, Gene Sharp's list of 198 of them-using the word "diversity" was a kind of attempted détente between those committed to staying nonviolent and those who weren't. Consider this characterization by George Lakey: "Diversity of tactics" implies that some protesters may choose to do actions that will be interpreted by the majority of people as "violent," like property destruction, attacks on police vehicles, fighting back if provoked by the police, and so on, while other protesters are operating with clear nonviolent guidelines. Those who extoll the importance of total nonviolent discipline-as Lakey eloquently goes on to do-might be disappointed to learn that Occupy Wall Street has made "diversity of tactics" its official modus operandi. However, the way that the occu

Occupy Wall Street é o movimento mais importante do mundo hoje DOSSIER | 16 OUTUBRO, 2011 - 02:26 | POR NAOMI KLEIN "Porque estão eles a protestar?", perguntam-se os confusos comentadores da TV. Enquanto isso, o mundo pergunta: "porque vocês demoraram tanto? A gente estava a querer saber quando é que vocês iam aparecer." E, acima de tudo, o mundo diz: "bem-vindos". Foi uma honra, para mim, ter sido convidada a falar em Occupy Wall Street na 5ª-feira à noite. Dado que os amplificadores estão (infelizmente) proibidos, e o que eu disser terá de ser repetido por centenas de pessoas, para que outros possam ouvir (o chamado "microfone humano"), o que vou dizer na Praça Liberty Plaza terá de ser bem curto. Sabendo disso, distribuo aqui a versão completa, mais longa, sem cortes, da minha fala. Occupy Wall Street é a coisa mais importante do mundo hoje. Eu amo-vos. E eu não digo isso só para que centenas de pessoas gritem de volta "eu também te amo", apesar de que isso é, obviamente, um bónus do microfone humano. Diga aos outros o que você gostaria que eles lhe dissessem, só que bem mais alto. Ontem, um dos oradores na manifestação dos trabalhadores disse: "Nós encontramo-nos uns aos outros". Esse sentimento captura a beleza do que está a ser criado aqui. Um espaço aberto (e uma ideia tão grande que não pode ser contida por espaço nenhum) para que todas as pessoas que querem um mundo melhor se encontrem umas às outras. Sentimos muita gratidão. Se há uma coisa que sei, é que o 1% adora uma crise. Quando as pessoas estão desesperadas e em pânico, e ninguém parece saber o que fazer: eis aí o momento ideal para nos empurrar goela abaixo a lista de políticas pró-corporações: privatizar a educação e a segurança social, cortar os serviços públicos, livrar-se dos últimos controles sobre o poder corporativo. Com a crise económica, isso está a acontecer em todo o mundo. Só existe uma coisa que pode bloquea

Ocupar Wall Street: o que todos querem saber sobre o movimento DOSSIER | 16 OUTUBRO, 2011 - 01:55 É um colectivo de activistas, sindicalistas, artistas, estudantes. Para muitos norte-americanos, essa acção directa e não violenta é a única oportunidade que resta para terem alguma voz política. Por Nathan Schneider, The Nation. Ouvi dizer que o grupo Adbusters organizou o movimento Occupy Wall Street? Ou os Anonymous? Ou US Day of Rage? Afinal, quem os juntou todos? Todos esses grupos participaram. Adbusters fez a convocação inicial em meados de Julho, e produziu um cartaz muito sexy, com uma bailarina fazendo uma pirueta no lombo da estátua do Grande Touro, com a polícia anti-tumultos no fundo. O grupo US Day of Rage, criação da estrategista de Tecnologias da Informação Alexa O'Brien, que existe quase exclusivamente na Internet, também se envolveu e fez quase todo o trabalho inicial de encontros e pelo Tweeter. O grupo Anonymous - com as suas múltiplas, incontáveis e multiformes máscaras - agregou-se no final de Agosto. Mas em campo, em Nova York, quase todo o planeamento foi feito pelo pessoal envolvido na Assembleia Geral de NYC. É um colectivo de activistas, artistas, estudantes, que se reunira antes na campanha "New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts" [Novaiorquinos contra os cortes no orçamento]. Essa coligação de estudantes e sindicalistas acabou de levantar a ocupação de três semanas perto do City Hall, que recebeu o nome de Bloombergville, na qual protestaram contra os planos do presidente da câmara, de demissões e cortes no orçamento da cidade. Aprenderam muito naquela experiência e estavam ansiosos para repetir a dose, desta vez em movimento mais ambicioso, aspirando a ter mais impacto. Mas, de fato, não há ninguém, nem grupo nem pessoa, a comandar toda a ocupação de Wall Street. Ninguém manda? Ninguém é responsável? Como se tomam as decisões? A própria Assembleia Geral tomou as decisões para a ocupação na

POST A COM­MENT RE­SIZE TEXT + | - | R PLAIN TEXT PRINT SHARE EMAIL It all started with an e-mail. On July 13 Ad­busters mag­a­zine sent out a call to its 90,000-strong list pro­claim­ing a Twit­ter hash­tag (#Oc­cu­py­Wall­Street) and a date, Sep­tem­ber 17. It quickly spread among the mostly young, tech-savvy rad­i­cal set, along with an es­pe­cially al­lur­ing poster the mag­a­zine put to­gether of a bal­le­rina atop the Charg­ing Bull statue, the fi­nan­cial dis­trict's totem to testos­terone. The idea be­came a meme, and the angel of his­tory (or at least of the In­ter­net) was some­how ready. Halfway into a rev­o­lu­tion­ary year-after the Arab Spring and Eu­rope's tu­mul­tuous sum­mer-cy­ber­ac­tivists in the United States were primed for a piece of the ac­tion. The Ad­busters ed­i­tors weren't the only ones or­ga­niz­ing; sim­i­lar oc­cu­pa­tions were al­ready in the works, in­clud­ing a very well-laid plan to oc­cupy Free­dom Plaza in Wash­ing­ton, start­ing Oc­to­ber 6. Web­sites cropped up to gather news and an­nounce­ments. U.S. Day of Rage, the Twit­ter- and web-dri­ven pro­ject of a de­ter­mined IT strate­gist, en­dorsed the ac­tion, pro­moted it and started prepar­ing with on­line non­vi­o­lence train­ings and tac­ti­cal plans. Then, in late Au­gust, the hack­tivists of Anony­mous signed on, post­ing men­ac­ing videos and flood­ing so­cial media net­works. But a meme alone does not an oc­cu­pa­tion make. An oc­cu­pa­tion needs peo­ple on the ground. By early Au­gust, a band of ac­tivists in New York began meet­ing in pub­lic parks to plan. Many were fresh off the streets of Bloombergville, a three-week en­camp­ment near City Hall in protest of lay­offs and cuts to so­cial ser­vices. Oth­ers joined them, es­pe­cially artists, stu­dents and an­ar­chists-aca­d­e­mic and oth­er­wise. (US Day of Rage's founder wa