Academic literature on the topic 'Sede Antia (Organization)'

Chapter one begins with a critical juncture in African history—the expulsion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in July 1998. Building on this vignette, it motivates the book with a puzzle: fifteen months after overthrowing one of Africa’s longest serving dictators, Mobutu Sese Seko, why did the revolutionaries and their regional allies turn on each other, ushering in the deadliest conflict since World War II? It then lays out the book’s central argument: that the seeds of Africa’s Great War were sown in the struggle against Mobutu—the way the revolution came together, the way it was organized and, paradoxically, the very way it succeeded. While the collapse of the Zairian state and the Rwandan genocide were important antecedents to the Great War, Why Comrades Go to War argues these factors mattered primarily in the way they shaped the organization and structure of the anti-Mobutu revolution. The penultimate sections of the chapter summarize the book's approach and contributions.

This chapter elaborates on the concept of kleptocracy by providing a portrait of one of the most publicized and influential early examples of grand corruption: that of Mobutu Sese Seko in the Congo. Sketching out the corruption of Mobutu and his clique shows how the global anti-kleptocracy norm and the resulting regime came into being. For different reasons, a wide variety of intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, and governments from Africa, Asia, and Latin America argue that corruption implicates rich countries as well as poor, because funds looted from poor countries tended to end up in rich ones. The story of intertwined normative and policy change at the global level in this chapter provides context for the following analysis of how well these rules work at a national level.

On 10 May, 2004 Monsanto conceded to a coalition of organizations opposing the introduction of genetically modified Roundup Ready wheat in Canada and abandoned its application to introduce the crop in North America. This chapter examines how this producer-led coalition defeated RR wheat by challenging the prevailing neoliberal logic that the fate of RR wheat should be decided in the marketplace according to individual choice. Instead, the farmers at the center of the anti-RR wheat coalition insisted that their distinct and collective interests as producers of food should be reflected in Canadian biotech policy and argued that wheat should remain a crop that farmers could reproduce outside of markets through the practice of seed saving.

This final chapter uncovers a little known aspect of antiwar activism in the late 1960s and early 1970s: the GI movement in Asia and the Pacific. President Richard Nixon’s call to “Vietnamize” the war in 1969 had the unintended consequence of deepening antiwar activism on and around U.S. bases in Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines, where the U.S. air war was being conducted. The Pacific Counseling Service, a New Left organization founded in the Bay Area in 1968, played a critical role. At these locales, GIs and their organizers came to see the Vietnam War as a phase of a larger problem rooted in the overlapping histories of empire; they forged fragile political alliances with local baseworkers and anti-imperialist activists that deepened their antiwar politics and steered them toward the work of achieving an unfinished decolonization.

This chapter studies the role of the young anti-Fascists in the construction of the parallel world. The young anarchists and the young W La Rivoluzione members play different roles. The W La Rivoluzione militants avoid any type of behavior that could create problems with the police. They want everyone to see that they oppose Sacrifice in the hope of attracting political support. In addition, the young people of W La Rivoluzione have a strong sense of hierarchies within the party. Everything they do has to be approved first by the older people who are their leaders. The young anarchists are in a different position. They do not belong to any organization and have to finance themselves, but they reject any type of hierarchy and do whatever they want. Moreover, the communist anarchists have a political culture based on common ownership, free trade, and propaganda that requires them to be willing to speak to others.