Whether or not the gig economy is here to stay, the result will be widespread un- or under-employment caused by technological displacement. Whether workers are gathered into a gig economy or are outright unemployed is what remains to be seen.

This is all very "uplifting," but this entire paragraph is devoid of meaning. When is it NOT the time to "champion our own destiny?" What does it even mean to "harness the power of the gig economy to spur lasting social change?" What sort of change? People can't afford to live in Silicon Valley. The ethos of the tech companies show that they don't care about the communities of which they are a part.

This is a flowery puff piece regarding the gig economy. The supposed "progressive attitude" of piecemeal labor hides the grim reality of people working harder and longer for less. Read some counterpoints to this article's perspective here.

We should clarify that the term "social ecology" is not Bookchin's, but, at least according to Janet Biehl's Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin, originated with E.A. Gutkind. In 1953, Gutkind authored Community and Environment: A Discourse on Social Ecology. Use of the term may go back even further.

Posing alternatives to capitalism and the nation-state simultaneously: 1) asserts the inadequacy of those institutions (a "negative" critique), and 2) asserts the superiority of the alternative being posed (a "positive" critique).

From our perspective, we are seeking to develop a social ecological theory within a broader ecosocialist movement in which there is no privileged praxis, but a plurality of mutually reinforcing practical strategies.

Already, we can see that "Libertarian Municipalist," dual power, revolutionary syndicalist, and prefigurative approaches can be taken. Often, the praxes that emerge from the broadly ecosocialist sphere start from a high degree of theoretical agreement, but diverge strategically and not antagonistically.

I've always been interested in Hegel's statement about tarrying with the negative. In my mind, I think of fencing, perhaps because I conflate "tarry" with "parry."

However, I don't think this is necessarily too far off. To tarry can be seen as staying and engaging with the negative. It seems similar to "dilly-dally" or "dawdle." Basically, it seems to me that to "tarry with the negative" is to delay oneself in the presence of the negative in order to engage with it (which I still choose to view as an intricate fencing match).

Greetings! Potemkin here (one of the primary authors), just getting the hang of this annotation system. It's open-source. I like the idea of using annotation to facilitate deeper discussion, and perhaps as a more civilized and precise method of commenting or interacting with a website. I think this can facilitate virtual study groups and other remote collaborations. Exciting stuff!

Please annotate, comment on blog posts that are open for comments, and let's try to build a positive, supportive, open ecosocialist community dedicated to creating Better Worlds and Brighter Futures!

I attempted to keep some of the formatting of the original, but this was not very successful. There are no doubt better overviews of Esperanto out there, but I wanted to highlight the little information I could find at the time on Esperanto's radical history, particularly among anarchists.

I still believe in the potential of Esperanto. It's very simple and accessible for working-class and impoverished people--taking little time and with an abundance of free resources--to learn. After that, a world of potential is opened, being able to speak with any other Esperantist the world over and sharing information in a universal way.

To me, Esperanto has the potential to facilitate a truly international revolutionary movement and its use helps dissolve borders and embodies the humanistic, anarchistic, cosmopolitan idea of "unity-in-diversity."