Everybody Wants A New Old Left
With the election of Obama and a widening economic crisis, it seems immense changes are sweeping national and global politics every week or so. Radicals, along with everybody else, are struggling to comprehend the nature of the changes around us, and the directions we can head in the future. The good news: pretty much everybody thinks the next few years are going to offer the greatest opportunity to remake our world in decades. The bad news: there are as many opinions about how to do it as there are letters in this paragraph.
Amid the flurry of forums, panel discussions, listserv back-and-forths and spirited bar talk animating lefty circles right now, socialist groups are putting forth proposals for new directions in the capital-L Left. Two notable proposals appeared recently in pamphlets distributed online and in bookstores. The first, Which Way Is Left, was produced by the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a nationwide post-Maoist group formed in 1985. The second, Manifesto For A Left Turn, was put together by a collection of professors from the east coast including Stanley Aronowitz and Rick Wolff. Both pamphlets call for cohesion and organization-building in the U.S. left, and both fill me with mixed emotions.
On the one hand, the manner in which these pamphlets talk about the purpose of organizations, and methods of building them, tell me the party-building left is headed in interesting new directions. On the other hand, I’m critical of each pamphlet along pretty predictable lines. Which Way and Manifesto both fall within Marxist traditions that generally aim at taking state power through hierarchical organizations, while I identify with horizontalist, anti-authoritarian or anarchist struggles that have eschewed both. I’m inspired by Zapatista communities, Italian autonomia, and the counter-globalization movements, to name a few.
What Do The Pamphlets Say?
Each proposal claims the main stumbling block for movements here in the settler state is the fractured nature of our resistance, and both provide a laundry list of contemporary problems. For the Which Way authors, there’s a dearth of analyses that provide frameworks for effective action, a lack of trust between radical groups, and a failure to appreciate the immense scale of movement necessary to challenge U.S. power. Manifesto laments how progressives focus myopically on single issues, or limit themselves to acting as reformist hangers-on to the Democratic Party. Both pamphlets claim a national political formation and/or socialist party should be formed to address these problems.
But crucially, neither pamphlet proposes to form a political party right off the bat. Instead they both urge radicals to begin a lengthy process of learning, debate and development in the form of study group networks, publishing projects and public events. The idea is to spur discussion and organization, and ultimately contribute to the creation of a national formation of some kind. The Which Way folks call this process “Left Refoundation,” while the Manifesto authors call it the “Radical Project.”
I don’t think the pamphlets’ reluctance to call immediately for a socialist party is some disingenuous attempt to disguise the authors’ intentions while ensnaring converts. On the contrary, I think the authors of Which Way and Manifesto have a sense of how huge the task of social transformation in the U.S. really is, and at the same time, how premature it would be to call for a national organization based on fixed, predetermined principles. Both pamphlets advocate instead for an open-ended process of exploration and cohesion building. In doing so, they’re helping the party-building tradition respond to many of the criticisms leveled at state socialist projects over the last 3/4 century.
Anyone familiar with radical politics could list the criticisms I’m talking about. From 1917 on, communist parties across the world were regularly accused of authoritarian purges, enforcing rigid dogmas, acting as proxies for capitalist control, and undermining movement outside the tried-and-true industrial working class. Battles along lines of gender or sexuality, in the university, within communities of color, or on the basis of new forms of labor went unappreciated or opposed by most institutionalized socialism in the 20th century. Years of scathing critique (and Cold War defeats) have made the authors of Which Way and Manifesto much more exploratory in their approach.
Taking A Step Back
An example of the authors’ soft touch: the word “party” appears only sparingly in each pamphlet, and with lots of caveats. Which Way cautions “no one organization will simply grow in size and become the party. Building a party will require a conscious coming together of forces on the revolutionary Left.” It insists the development of revolutionary organization could involve multiple party formations or united fronts, and urges people to rethink the relationship between parties and organizations of workers, neighbors, and spontaneous actions.
Manifesto, for its part, starts out calling for a “political formation” and only drops the p-bomb later on. It encourages socialists to investigate links “between the anarchist critique of the state forms that arose in the wake of socialist victories at the turn of the 20th century” and democratic Marxist currents. It also pushes socialists to investigate Marxism’s relevance to new forms of capitalist production and reproduction, and to tangle with “the question of organization: what is a party, what is a federation and other political forms, what is the relation of nation and state” and so on. These questions arise in both documents, in part, because their authors want to use the party differently than it has been in the past.
Earlier generations of socialists considered political parties an instrument to seize state power--whether through elections or warfare--in order to implement a program generated by a few key leaders. Confidence in the objective truth of scientific socialism meant groups didn’t have to ask many questions during their march to the state. In Which Way and Manifesto, the emphasis is different: the party is described first and foremost as a place where many disparate currents engage in debate, programs are developed and strategies tested. The possibility of seizing state power is pushed to the background, as one of many topics for discussion, while party debates broaden to include interrogations of staid Marxist categories.
These are big changes in the world of socialism, and they indicate how much innovative social movement in recent decades has influenced socialist groups. From the Maoist adage to “constantly revolutionize” organizations to a “21st Century Socialism” fueled by grassroots participation, socialist groups are growing more flexible and adaptive. That’s encouraging--but I’ve got big differences with the proposals too.
Some Things Change, Some Things Stay The Same
My main beef is: if you want to build something to develop new ideas and strategies, and the state is of secondary importance to you, that’s great! Why does it have to be a political party? For decades, radical movements have developed modes of organizing outside the party model, and tried to build power without relying on the state. These experiments have affirmed the idea that the forms of organization employed in our struggles are literally vehicles for change. Depending on how groups tend to grow and develop, they can carry us in vastly different directions.
Historically, parties have operated as proto-states. They usually function by building hierarchical power and prefiguring the governing structures they hope one day to manage. Sure, party formations have employed degrees of internal democracy; the German Green Party initially rotated leadership roles and maintained gender-balanced quotas, for instance. But most parties mold themselves to fit the state form, and the basic features of most states--from repressive police to alienating bureaucracy--undermine egalitarian, self-organized social relationships. In trying to become governments, revolutionary parties often remain regulative in scope, and duplicate functions of the state outside the halls of power.
Many contemporary groups steer clear of these models, because they find it hard to build egalitarian, self-determined communities while modeling state structures. Thus most horizontal groups look markedly different than the parties and unions that predominated for much of the 20th century. Proposals and decisions tend to emerge from a broad array of base groups, instead of a central committee of decision-makers. Formations grow by incorporating many tactics and projects appropriate to different contexts, instead of fashioning a homogenous organization with a uniform political line. The Poor People’s Alliance in South Africa; the Other Campaign in Mexico; the movements of ’77 in Italy; the World Social Forum gatherings; all these point to a world of organizational possibilities beyond the state and hierarchy.
Why do the authors of Which Way and Manifesto insist on building a “party,” if they want to do something largely tangential to its historical purpose? I think it’s because both sets of authors still consider the state an effective tool for liberation. A common refrain among socialist folks in the U.S. is that the nation-state is the only structure capable of implementing changes on a mass scale while combating the influence of class elites, and party organizing is the only way to seize it. The proposals in Which Way and Manifesto are more flexible: they de-emphasize state power in a search for a new kind of party. But they fail to consider how one concept presupposes the other, and recognize struggles that have flourished while questioning both.
Another Politics Has Been Made Possible
Starting in the early 1990s, many counter-globalization groups mobilized outside political parties because they felt the nation-state had lost its influence in the face of multinational corporations, and institutions like the G8, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. Some felt states were merely undemocratic facades, used by global capitalism to manage local conflicts and keep goods and services flowing freely. To challenge global capitalism, these groups believed they would have to organize autonomously and confront new centers of global governance directly in the streets. The massive convergences that followed were surprisingly effective at remaking public opinion and derailing neoliberal agendas across the globe.
None of these victories would’ve been possible without feminist movement, which decades earlier had exploded the very notion of where politics took place. From the late 1960s on, feminist struggles brought domestic life, the treatment of peoples’ bodies, and the written and unwritten laws governing gendered relations into question. These were arenas over which the nation-state had only partial influence and control, but which helped reproduce the oppressive social order on a daily basis. To fight battles that spanned government policies and interpersonal relations, feminists deployed forms of organization that were distinct from parties or unions, and which cast aside the state as a central reference point.
Both movements were hugely important in the late 20th century, yet they appear in the pamphlets only in passing. Which Way pigeonholes globalization as merely U.S. imperialism in disguise, and understates feminism’s contribution as having “challenged the economic determinism of traditional Marxism.” Manifesto makes a nod to counter-globalization theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, and even asks “will nation-states reassert autonomy, or are new political arrangements needed to insure a world of growing equality and democracy?” But neither pamphlet seriously engages with the answers movements have been flinging at these questions for over 30 years.
If We Don’t Do It, It Won’t Get Done
Of course, it’s impossible to critique something without also challenging oneself. While I have major differences with the proposals put forward in Which Way and Manifesto, I know anti-authoritarian movement in the U.S. has a long way to go before it can demonstrate that building struggle from below is more effective than strategies that rely on parties and the state. To critique the latter approach carries with it an implicit challenge: to build new kinds of horizontal power, capable of meeting people’s needs while outmaneuvering or outfighting the state form. We have our work cut out for us.
As we build new organs of struggle and popular power, radicals will need a rich pool of ideas to draw from, and even to contrast themselves against. Dialogue across different political traditions is incredibly useful here, in part because it helps us clarify our own ideas about organizing and strategy. These discussions can generate new anti-authoritarian modes of struggle, even if they don’t smooth over the many differences between groups or result in the creation of a unified organization.
Until socialist groups shift their sense of the aims of social struggle--and the forms of organization appropriate to them--I don’t think there’ll be much opportunity for anti-authoritarian folks to collaborate with them beyond particular issues or coalitions. But I’m still encouraged by the changes displayed in Which Way Is Left and Manifesto For A Left Turn. If socialist groups in the U.S. continue these explorations, they could end up looking like Lotta Continua in 1970s Italy, or MST, the Brazilian landless worker movement. Developments like that would be a good thing, and create opportunities for daring radical collaboration in the years ahead.
Great piece. Would you mind if I copied it over to my blog?
I had been thinking of writing some type of review of 'Which Way is Left?' for some time. I even wrote some thoughts out about what seems to be a minor revival of certain, though somewhat more critical, aspects of the new communist movement/maoist legacy in the revolutionary left. Its buried in the archieves of my blog.
Anyways, how do you think this discussion might lead to socialist groups becoming similar to the MST or Lotta Continua?
And you say that anarchists have to meet the challange of "build[ing] new kinds of horizontal power, capable of meeting people’s needs while outmaneuvering or outfighting the state form." But would you include building effective political organization that would be qualitatively different from the party structure model as part of that challenge? I think you'll probably say 'yes,' just I'm not clear from your piece.
Hey Adam, for sure copy the piece over to your blog--just link it back, too. I've come across Machete 408 before, actually, so it's cool to hear from you.
The last bit about the MST & Lotta Continua is sort of a hopeful note, but I don't think it's too farfetched. The latter considered itself a Marxist party, just one that identified (however imperfectly) with the Italian youth rebellion and feminist movement, and which stood opposed to the institutionalized communist parties of the day. The former comes out of many radical roots, but if I'm not mistaken, Maoism is in there somewhere. Just goes to show how close widely varying ideologies can be to increasingly horizontal practices.
On yr last question: that's a definitive "yes," but with the caveat that "effective political organization" can take many different forms. I think formations with clear structures and really focused praxis have a big role, but so do fluid milieus with lots of cross-pollinating ideas and low barriers to entry. Finding the most strategic mix for a given political moment is the key thing, I think.
As usual, Elliot J Liu is brilliant and on point:) Nailing some key issues with all the critical missings of 'new old leftism':)
And I gotta love that you two are talkin via the web; two of my favorite comrades.
I'm going to copy it over with an intro also if you don't mind E:)
love,
Harjit
Hi Elliott,
Thanks so much for writing this. It's a really useful intervention, I think. Would you mind if I posted it on the Upping the Anti website?
Chris
Hey Chris, please post away! Upping the Anti is one of the movement journals / websites that I most respect, and I'd love to see it online there.
The Left Turn pamphlet calls for printing yet another communist newspaper and starting a publishing company. I guess in the 21st century "change" means doing exactly the same stuff you've been doing for a 100 years...
I don't have any comments on the other one since it's really more like a poorly edited encyclopedia of 20th century left sects than a plan.
As for your commentary, typical authority issues stuff anarchists have. Without a state you cannot maintain national sovereignty or reign in warlords and capitalists. Just suppose the Mexican government disappeared tomorrow...who do you suppose will take over? The Zapatista, the Oaxacan protesters or the drug traffickers? The left aren't the only people organizing outside "the state". Do you like how the Mafia had controlled the New York unions for so long?
Sorry to be negative but this is all just more of the same.
Hm, well I'd take issue with most of the points here.
In the first place, it's true that the proposals put forth in both pamphlets replicate many aspects of traditional socialist strategy. That's my whole point. But there are significant differences too, and they're worth noting. Just because some pieces of a political project are similar to what came before--in this case, aiming to start a publishing project in the form of a newspaper--doesn't mean that the entire project is therefore identical to what preceded it.
But speaking of replicating past arguments, the critique that "without a state you cannot maintain national sovereignty or reign in warlords and capitalists" is precisely the "common refrain" mentioned in my piece. This statement refutes an argument for non-state organizing with an unjustified presupposition--namely, that states are simply the only way anything will work. For this argument to hold any water, one really has to prove *why* this is the case.
Also, one part of this argument seems like a non sequitur: yes, the actions of states help maintain the notion of national sovereignty that was invented in 17th century Europe. Why wouldn't they? That's just a power structure working to maintain the basis of its continued existence, in the same way a corrupt president would work to maintain executive privilege. It doesn't really have anything to do with what is being argued here, since my piece is trying to question both. Claiming that "without a state you cannot maintain national sovereignty" is sort of like saying "without multinational corporations you can't maintain free trade." It completely misses the point that contemporary anti-authoritarians / anti-capitalists are questioning both things.
Lastly, the question of "if the X disappeared tomorrow, what would happen?" is sort of a straw man argument. You could use the same thing against traditional socialist labor organizing (e.g. "if the CEOs of every corporation disappeared tomorrow, how would production work at all? Crazy idealists!") In both cases, one takes what is actually a very concrete discussion about strategy, and elevates it to an abstract, hypothetical (and totally implausible) test case in order to make fun of it.
Generally, when people talk seriously about strategies for revolutionary change, state-based or not, they're trying to envision an actual, real-world process that could get us from point A to point B. My point isn't that things would work perfectly if the state magically disappeared tomorrow, but that we can pursue strategies that build power outside of the state, and that these would get us to more profound revolutionary outcomes that those channeled within the state structure.
I really like this look at some of the problems facing the social movement Left. As someone who is drawn more to the Leninist model of organization, I also see Elliot's observation about the limits of the Leninist state model and the number of problematic assumptions that rest on it, such as that there is necessarily one party for each class, the soviet model as a universal model, etc.
I think one of the most interesting and intelligent criticisms of the Leninist conception has come from the anarchist trends, I'm thinking here of James Scott's "Seeing Like a State" which examines the High Modernism the defined the Bolshevik project which was founded on a kind of Le Corbusierist (as Scott claims) model. The result is the rise of authoritarian states that speak FOR people, and as a friend often reminds me, where it is by proxy, it is NOT.
That said, I think the fundamentals of Leninism remain valid and we must be cautious to not throw the baby out with the bath water in our quest for a model appropriate for our concrete conditions. The Venezuelan experience is undermining more than a few assumptions of official Leninism, and that is something to pay attention to.
In the end, I identify with Which Way is Left because unlike Left Turn document, it isn't in some mythical quest for the magical method that provides a panacea of solutions, but rather, examines concrete conditions and moves from there.
Correcting some of the excesses of Leninism is one thing, and abandoning it on principle is another. That said I don't support misguided attempts at meaningless and ritual expressions of resistance. To dig up a Marx cliche, the point is to change the world.
It was my impression that Manifesto is not an explicit call for the formation of a party. To the extent that the document entertains the idea of a party, the issue is approached with serious caution. The radical project being suggested is one, as I understand it, that would be open and diverse--representative of the present political and social project. Although I found the language of the document stale and pessimistic, the influence of new forms of left organization and struggle was clear. This is not a vanguardist or electoral manifesto.
I agree with you that we (the left) must be cautious about any program that is seeking to seize state power. I would urge that we must be equally suspicious of those poeple and organizations that want to ignore the state. We all want a different world. In the end I think there is more agreement on what that would look like than we often recognize...
I would urge that a political project today must embrace direct action and the formation of organiztional power outside the state aperatus but at the same time we must constantly address the states relationship to the people. The Left must be at the forefront of defending and extending social wellfare (ie fiscal stimulous etc...) if only because we must be able to show potential constituents that the left program is one that aims to better the conditions of the lives of the vast majority of people. (for example when the major banks are nationalized, we fight for social control of them... even if it is not an ideal situation).
I may have written too much. I am not an anarchist. I have always been made to feel uncomfortable by anarchists. I have also learned a lot from some anarchists. I think if the anarchists lost the lifestyle and anti-consumption tendencies I can also imagine "daring radical collaboration in the years ahead."
Elliot, Great counter-point to the above poster and way to break down the non-sequiturs of the classical Leninist arguments. I feel like there's so many of those in need of breaking down... but consider your counter-points officially appropriated.
Venezuela's an interesting case to think about. One could argue that it combines elements of the party model with a grassroots model. Does this point to a model that uses both state and non-state forms of organizing?
What do you think?
I'd been wondering where the anarchist/anti-authoritarian voice in these post-Obama/economic crisis "what is to be done?" debates was, and then I found this piece. Thanks for writing it! Great read!
Good job, keep it up.
Keep it up, your writing is always a joy to read that I even told my friends. Simply loving this!
poker online
Thanks a lot for this useful post, the info is pretty good and is a good idea take hand on this kind of books, but they still get us a greatperpective about the actual world situation seeing the past.
Wow
Its great Post.I really enjoyed it to read.i had been been wondering where the post-Obama/economic crisis "what is to be done?" debt management
was, and then I found this piece. Thanks for writing it! Great read!
I think that the whole crisis thing has been overplayed by the media a bit. Ofcourse there are serious issues associated with our economy but these are just temporary. It is just a matter of time until things correct themselves. I know sometimes it is nice to feel that we are living in an era of change but that is something selfish on our part. Every era has its particularities and so does ours.
Excellently explained. I realised you spent plenty of time to write this master piece.
You have done a great job with your article. You have obviously spent a lot of time on this. I always gravitate to those that have a passion for their beliefs. You can certainly see that here.
Absolutely.. i loved your post... You have mentioned all the real time happenings and you have mentioned the best way to tackle things :) I loved the quote "If We Don’t Do It, It Won’t Get Done" and "Some Things Change, Some Things Stay The Same". Angeline @ unlock iphone
Pretty good information thanks for share the two ways availables of PDF files.
sure
i wanna this
Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters (0.59 to 1.9 ft) in 2090-2100 relative to best web hosting 1980-1999 new trade routes resulting from arctic shrinkage possible thermohaline circulation slowing, increasingly intense (but less frequent) hurricanes and extreme weather events reductions in the ozone layer, changes in agriculture yields, changes in the range of climate-dependent disease vectors which has been linked to increases in the prevalence of malaria and dengue fever and ocean oxygen depletion.Increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans.CO2 dissolved in internet marketing the ocean reacts with water to form carbonic acid, resulting in ocean acidification. Ocean surface pH is estimated to have decreased from 8.25 near the beginning of the industrial era to 8.14 by 2004 and is projected to decrease by a further 0.14 to 0.5 units by 2100 as the ocean absorbs more CO2.Heat and carbon dioxide trapped in the oceans may still take hundreds years to be re-emitted, even after greenhouse gas emissions domain registration are eventually reduced.Since organisms and ecosystems are adapted to a narrow range of pH, this raises extinction concerns and disruptions in food webs.One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections.However, few mechanistic studies have documented dedicated server extinctions due to recent climate change and one study suggests that projected rates of extinction are uncertain.
i want this
Computers Logo | Transport Logo | Holiday Logos
You can certainly see that here.
Security Logo | Charity Logo
I have the same questions too
Jordan
`````````
http://www.pokerbot-online.com/ "Online Poker Bots"
http://www.pokerbot-smart.com/ "The smartpoker pro for online poker"
http://www.poker-bots.com/ "The artificial intelligence poker bot in action"
http://www.pokerbot-software.com/ "The addon for poker calculator pro"
http://www.advanced-bot.com/ "The most advanced poker bot"
http://www.emailextractor14.com/ "Extracting e-mail addresses made easy"
I can't believe they actually passed out pamplets promoting the communist party. But really what else could it do.
The post you have here is really amazing. You have a great writing style.
legitimate work at home jobs opportunity blog
romantic love poems & quotes
“Product placements show up everywhere, and children aren't exempt. Far from it. The animated film, Foodfight, had ‘thousands of products and character icons from the familiar (items) in a grocery store.’ Children's books also feature branded items and characters, and millions of them have snack foods as lead characters.Business is interested in children and adolescents because of their buying power and because of their influence on the shopping habits of their parents. As they are easier to influence they are especially targeted by the advertising business. “The marketing industry is facing increased pressure over claimed links between exposure to food advertising and a range of social problems, especially growing obesity levels hookah.In 2001, children’s programming accounted for over 20% of all U.S. television watching. The global market for children’s licensed products was some 132 billion U.S. dollars in 2002.Advertisers target children because, e. g. in Canada, they “represent three distinct markets:
Such a long blog post? How can a person read so much in one go?
great article. Ive the books that you actually put on this website. keepem comin.
This is a very insightful piece of writing.
used electric wheelchairs
This article got me thinking about politics and life all over again.
handicap stair lift
used stair lifts
I like your article. Strong and full of sense. Thanks.
Its getting near to Halloween only two weeks to go so you need to get your kids Halloween costumes and your kids power rangers Halloween costumes and also your mens gothic vampire Halloween costumes with your teens horror Halloween costumes for your teenagers. Then you should look at some cool mens horror Halloween costumes to scare old ladies with, and tween Halloween costumes for the nearly teen, womens pirate Halloween costumes for those come on costumes that drive men wild and womens superhero Halloween costumes and not to forget these great witches Halloween costumes that will make your fancy dress party go with a bang!
As for accessibility, handicap ramps make getting around in your handicap scooters far easier than without, while in the home, its important to ensure sturdy handicap shower seats are installed in the bathroom shower.
Its important to ensure that all handicap showers and handicap shower accessories are kept free of debris and obstacles. The use of handicap ramps makes getting around much easier, while in the home getting up and down stairs is simplified with the stair chair lift and for wheelchair users, the ever versatile wheelchair stair lift comes to the rescue.
Transportation is so important these days that when you need to track a package, there is freight forwarding software to do that.If your load is large and unwieldy, then
flatbed freight is your answer, where the many respectable freight forwarding companies can advise you on such issues as LTL freight and if you are considering international shipping, then the
bill of lading must be completed.
Governments will always do whatever they want to do regardless of what you think they should do. When it comes to learning how to earn cash online, its important to remember that in order to make money, you need to learn a lot of stuff first, then put it into practice. You'll never make money online if you don't work for it, so next time you see someone claiming to make money with no work, beware they may not be telling the whole truth!
This is an amazing piece of analysis. I agreed that without proper thinking though, the kind of change that social agents demand can never be realised.
bamboo knitting needles | bamboo walking canes | bamboo outdoor shades | bamboo roman shades | bamboo patio blinds
i love the look into the past
Hypnosis Mp3 Downloads
Hypnotherapy Melbourne
Hypnosis Melbourne
Weight Loss Melbourne
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the Nutrisystem cost is worth it for the end result, which any good Nutrisystem reviews will show to be true.
Ok, its not pretty and its probably not fair either,but there is so much information on Nutrisystem reviews out there that you need 100 weight loss tips just to get through it all. After all, if you are thinking about weight loss camps or weight loss spas to do your dirty work for you, then maybe green tea and weight loss is the answer. Of course, diet food delivery is better than a raw food diet plan but useful for those in need of some diabetic diet plans. If you want to get technical, there is always the glycemic index diet plan or the gluten free diet plan to get you on your way. A truly vegetarian diet plan is perfect when combined with a Mediterranean diet plan for a full detox diet plan and a cabbage soup diet plan to really shed those excess pounds! For those with a sweet tooth, try the sugar busters diet plan maybe combine it with a high protein diet plan but the bottom line is that you have to curb calorie intake to lose weight.Now if you want to know how to lose weight running or how to lose water weight, then you could always get domestic and lose weight doing housework! If none of those options appeals to you, then just stop eating!
Do you need some weight loss tips? Then I highly suggest quick weight loss and weight loss help if you want to know how to be slimmer!
Well, I guess its another one of these comments about weight loss, or how you can lose weight by following some cool weight loss tips, or that fails, then you could always get into some fitness exercise equipment and burn those calories off with some hard work!
Thanks for taking the time to post a great article, I really enjoyed reading it.
Wow... lot of great info about politic and economy in this long post.
Really, short links are the ultimate in ugly URLs. Longer, more descriptive URLs are appreciated by both the 24 humans that pay attention to the location bar as well as to search engines 220-601 exam. Just for the record, and before we go any further, let me just say that short links make my skin crawl. They’re icky 70-290 exam. Gross. Blech. But, short links seem to have a purpose, and Twitter has really driven them into the limelight. So, it seems that we’re stuck with them.
Very insightful article. Thanks!
Post new comment