Cross-post: A simple proposal for a new anticapitalist left

14 Apr

This important item, cross-posted from Louis Project’s blog, is by Simon Hardy, acting as spokesperson for a group of comrades who have resigned from Workers Power and are seeking to play a role in creating a new, broad organisation of the left. While I would have some reservations about the blanket use of the term ‘anti-capitalist’ – not all forms of opposition to capitalism are necessarily on the right track – nevertheless there is much in this item that is positive and certainly could be a basis for debate and hopefully much more.


I along with a number of other members of Workers Power in Britain, Austria and the Czech Republic have resigned from the organisation. The global capitalist crisis has posed tremendous questions for the radical left about how to go forward. We have increasingly drawn the conclusion that the historical legacy of the post-war left, in particular the Leninist-Trotskyist left, needs to be subjected to far-reaching critique and re-evaluation in light of the contemporary challenges.

The organised left is dogged by sectarianism and opportunism. There are quite literally hundreds of competing orthodoxies, with each sect promoting and defending its own, typically very narrow, conception of revolutionary theory and practice without subjecting their ideas to the critical re-evaluation which we believe is necessary if Marxism is to reach out to far wider layers.

We came to the conclusion that a method of organising exclusively focused on building specifically Leninist-Trotskyist groups prevents the socialist left from creating the kind of broad anticapitalist organisations, which can present a credible alternative to the mainstream parties.

The post 1991 world presents new challenges to the left and the workers’ movement. Marxism is no longer the natural ‘go-to politics’ of radical activists coming into the movement today. The dramatic shift to the right by social democracy and the business unionism of the trade union movement all took their toll on the capacity of the workers to fight. Now the task of regenerating a movement that can overthrow capitalism is serious one, but in a sense the left has barely begun this task.

As a step forward, in recent months we launched a call for a new anticapitalist initiative in Britain as a way of uniting sections of the left around a strategic perspective whilst emphasising the creation of a democratic space that is so urgently needed to debate and test out our slogans and tactics. We did not want to simply declare a new organisation, but to carry out patient and serious discussions with broader forces about what such an organisation should look like.

We launched this initiative whilst we were in Workers Power, and although there was agreement that such an organisation was needed, there was growing disagreement on the role of groups like Workers Power within it. This boiled down to whether we saw it as a tactic to achieve a larger Workers Power, or whether the anticapitalist organisation that came out of it would look very different; more plural, more open, much looser, but still clear on the strategic questions.

As part of this perspective we drew the conclusion that there needed to be an open, ‘blue skies’ discussion on the radical left, involving matters of theory and history, drawing on the new as well as the old, but trying to come to practical conclusions on how we might go forward today. So, we increasingly rejected the model of democratic centralism that states revolutionary organisations should conduct their debates in private and only present their conclusions to the class. While, we don’t reject democratic centralism, our conception of it is unity in action around democratically determined goals, and free and open discussion. We showed in the course of the debate that this was the norm in the revolutionary movement in the decades prior to 1917.

Another problem we encountered was the attitude – far from a problem of Workers Power alone on the post-war left – to how Marxist ideas came to be engaged with. It is to Workers Power’s credit that from its foundation it has sought to address the problems of the post-war Trotskyist left in political and ‘programmatic’ terms; the critique had power in identifying a loss of revolutionary continuity in the pre and post war years. But the way that Marxism came to be conceived as a result led to a narrowness; thinkers outside of the Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky (and partially Luxemburg) axis tended to be subjected to a form of black and white critique that undermined the kind of engagement necessary for a living and evolving body of thought to develop. This naturally places constraints on critical thinking as the concern to “get it right” tends to undermine the development of an attitude that recognises that a degree of plurality in the evolution of ideas is necessary to try and uncover objective truth, something which is needed for Marxism to develop. (Paul LeBlanc makes similar points in relation to the American SWP

Ultimately, we felt there was a conservative intransigence on a part of the majority leadership to alter course on fundamentals, so a parting of the ways became necessary.

We are committed to taking steps towards an anticapitalist organisation that is opposed to austerity, privatisation, racism, sexism, imperialist war and supports the Palestinians. We believe that mass strikes and demonstrations are needed to bring down the government. We support the building of a rank and file movement across the unions, an essential goal in the context of the pensions sell out by sections of the union movement. We are committed to working towards unity in the anticuts movement and overcoming unnecessary divisions which hinder our movement. We still believe that the working class is a crucial agent of revolutionary change, though we want to explore new and more creative ways of fusing socialist ideas with the kind of struggles that are going on today.

We have no illusions that unity can be created by simple decree, and we are aware that divisions built up over decades can be hard to break down. But we think it is necessary to build a new kind of left, one that overcomes our fragmentation, that unites the best of the (though we seek to critique these labels) new left with the old left.

As part of our commitment to the founding of a new plural and broader anticapitalist organisation we are not establishing yet another group on the left or establish a new orthodoxy in the sense of a new narrowly conceived appraisal of ‘what went wrong’ in the 20th century. While we need to think about historical questions, discuss and debate where we think the mistakes were made, this needs to inform the strategy we choose today, rather than imagining we can simply repeat the past.

Ultimately, the whole left needs to look forwards, not back. To the organisations still around today that were created in the 1950s, 1970s and more recently, all the many splits and splinters, we ask a simple question. Do you think your organisation is up to the challenges and tasks posed by the current crisis of capitalism? We do not think that any left group can honestly answer that in the affirmative which is why we all need a radical rethink.

Although we know we need mass forces to launch a new party, we are not content to merely wait for a new party to be formed by the trade unions – there is a pressing need for the radical left to take steps towards unity in the hear and now. We need an energetic and active campaign to build the kind of organisation that can bring the left into the mainstream. This anticapitalist initiative we see as being a stepping stone for something greater and not an end in itself. Galloway’s success shows what is possible, as does the support for Melenchon in France. Will the Marxists and radical left seize the initiative and prove itself capable of a radical rethink, or will we get more of the same?

We have no bad feelings towards the comrades in Workers Power. We want to work with them and other groups and individuals to build a united, plural organisation in which splits can be avoided and the inevitable differences are factored into the day to day practice of the organisation; we recognise there will be debate, see this as a good thing, and have a practical unity where we agree.

The experiences that we have from our time in Workers Power are invaluable. We were in the antiwar movement, in solidarity visits to Palestine, active in the student movement and reported from Tahrir Square during the early days of the Egyptian revolution. We have taken strike action in defence of pensions and campaigned in defence of the NHS. We learnt the foundation of our Marxist ideas. In particular, the group has played an important role in recent years in emphasising the need for a rank and file movement in the unions, when few socialist organisations took seriously the need for one, nor took practical steps in that direction.

All these experiences help to inform our current views. We believe that there is common ground for large parts of our movement, and that there is tremendous potential in the fightback against austerity to go beyond resistance to discuss new strategies. Any socialists, anticapitalists, radical trade unionists or social movement activists who are interested in discussing these ideas should get in touch and begin a dialogue with us at We hope these discussions can inform the building of a healthier radical left.

There is a meeting at University London Union at 1pm on 28 April for anyone who is interested in a new anticapitalist project. We will not be establishing a new group overnight, we know it will take time and a long process of building up trust. But we need to start that process sooner rather than later. If you want to contact the new initiative then email


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

12 responses to “Cross-post: A simple proposal for a new anticapitalist left

  1. David Ellis

    April 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Oddly enough or not as the possiblities for revolutionary marxism are opening out once again more and more of these liquidationists splits from the sects are taking place.

  2. redscribe

    April 20, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    So where is the organised expression of this revolutionary Marxism? Particularly if all the groupings that claim to be that are dismissed as ‘sects’. Which they generally are. But if they are all sects, then you have to have some alternative to them in the concrete. You have to seek some other way to solve the problem of the lack of a coherent Marxist project. As far as I can see it the creation of broad and inclusive organsations of independent socialists is the only way to allow the kind of sustained collaboration and debate necessary to solve this problem.#

    In that sense the liquidation of the ‘sects’, in particular the liquidation of their sect conception of ‘discpline’ which acts to prevent socialists honestly debating their views with others in a other ‘sects’ (or none) on a similar political level, into such a formation, would be a good thing.

  3. David Ellis

    April 21, 2012 at 11:45 am

    I envisage a Committee for a Unified British Section of the Fourth International as a good kicking off point around which Marxists could gather. Broad and inclusive and as democratic as you like as long as you are a Marxist and can prove it. A good forum in which to duke that question out.

  4. redscribe

    April 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Well, that sounds ok to me in the abstract, and to be honest I’m not that bothered about the name of an organisation as long as it does what is necessary.

    “as you like as long as you are a Marxist and can prove it”

    But that is problematic, for in the end, how can you ‘prove it’? Or equally importanly, given that there are numerous people who claim to be Marxists but have views that really are incompatible with each other and would be unlikely to coexist for more than a split second in one organisation, who gets to decide what ‘proves’ someone is a Marxist?

    These are actually quite tricky questions, I tried to address some of them in a two part article here and here on the ‘party’ question a while ago, but there is always room for improvement.

  5. David Ellis

    April 22, 2012 at 11:05 am

    I think we can show how none of the sects are remotely interested in developing a programme that addresses the immediate and transitional demands of the class. If they have a programme it zig zags between reformism and ultra leftism often in the same paragraph and it is not a programme around which they hope to win the vanguard but to use to negotiate stich ups with left reformists and bureaucrats. That they are incapable of exemplary work, that they have interests separate and opposed to those of the labour movement as a whole, that they have comprehensively broken from Marxism, all these things are quite easily demonstrable. That this initiative (above) is a sectarian attempt at opportunism the simple proposal being to abandon Marxism (or at least the actions that marxism demands) for the sake of `unity’.

  6. Simon Hardy

    April 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Hi David,

    I think you have read this all wrong, or at least you are letting some ingrained prejudices colour what we are trying to say. Workers Power actually has quite a good programme (in my opinion) for the resistance movement in Britain against the coalition government’s austerity, the problem that all groups like WP, all the “sects” come across is that they are isolated and lack credibility. We need to forge something that actually tries to break out of left ghetto isolation into a wider audience of people who do no define themselves as Leninist-Trotskyists but are capable class fighters and activists. Otherwise what is the point? Do you think any of the far left groups are really going to grow qualitatively in the coming years? Labour is clearly moving right with no sign of a split, so what do you suggest that socialists do if not struggle for unity along strategic lines but allow for a more flexible approach on tactical questions?



  7. David Ellis

    April 28, 2012 at 11:49 am

    `We need to forge something that actually tries to break out of left ghetto isolation’

    Simon: It’s called, marxism, internal democracy, a popular revolutionary programme and exemplary work in every forum of the labour movement. Without that brief popular programme that addresses the most immediate and transitional needs of the class to the fore then there is very little point intervening or being anyware unless of course you are a self-serving sect with other fish to fry. The left ghetto isolation is purely self-imposed and deliberately so. These are like little businesses. When the revolution ebbed Marx and Engels usually eschewed the tedium of organisational politics for study and theoretical clarification. When their studies indicated stormy times ahead they went out and built armed with a popular revolutionary programme and let’s face it revolutions are nothing if they are not popular. You say WP have a good programme. What is it? I’ll bet a pound to a pinch of shit it’s about three hundred pages of thoroughly prescriptive minutiae mixed with half-arsed bits of reformism and a whole load of abstract propaganda for the revolution and it is unknown to all but the inner circle.

    Here is a popular class struggle revolutionary programme:

    For a workers’ government that will end the bail out of the bankrupt banks and their super rich creditors. For a state monopoly of credit so that we can lend to small business at base rate and to facilitate social investment. People’s banks in every town and city before the nation is bankrupted and hundreds of years of accumulated wealth and infrastructure are liquidated to this lost cause. End the Bankers’ Versailles.

    Full Employment Now! Share the available productive work. Make part-time the new full time and pay all a living wage before an entire generation is lost and with them any hope of a future. Those who cannot find their own jobs must be placed in local employment by local employment comittees under the control of local trade unions and community organisations.

    Socialise and democratise the asset-stripping, cash-hoarding, profiteering, anti-social, anti-democratic, world-dominating private monopolies. Take the giant retail, service, manufacturing and industrial monopolies into public ownership and put them under workers’ control. Committees of workers of all grades must be set up in every type of workplace from schools to hospitals to offices and factories that can challenge the shareholder and old school tie network for leadership and management of their business.

    Defend all desirable and necessary public spending whilst balancing the budget by collecting sufficient tax to pay for it. Emergency seizures of the hoards of the super wealthy to pay the pressing debts that must be paid and to tide over the funding of the things that must be paid for until a more sustainable situation is arrived at.

    For a federation of sovereign British nations and the North of Ireland and the renegotiation of the founding treaties of the European Union in accordance with socialist principles.

    This is the kind of short sharp programme that Marxists should be going into battle behind and urging the vanguard of the working class and indeed the class itself to go into battle behind. Why don’t we debate that. All you seem to be debating is the End of Marxism and some kind of watered down broad programmless approach that can satisfy everybody. You’ll just end up satisfying nobody. Why don’t we discuss, not the internal regime of this that or the other sect but what would constitute a revolutionary programme today right now. Let’s talk about the programme I’ve just outlined to kick things off. It avoids the filthy cynicism of the Keynesian scum and seeks to mobilise the class for battle around desirable and necessary socialist measures that can guid the class and the whole of society out of its impasse. Discuss. What do you think is wrong with it for instance? Saying `we need to forge something that actually tries to break out of left ghetto isolation’ is usually a precursor to either not trying to break out or breaking out so far that in a couple of years you’ll be running the IMF.

  8. David Ellis

    November 30, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Outrageous Fortune: Marxism and Revolutionary Justice

    Liberal notions of justice take private property for granted, treat ownership as a natural right and more fundamentally as a natural condition. Any effort to undermine this institution is characterised as unjust. For the liberal the status quo is obviously just saving for the want of a few minor tweaks. But of course there is nothing just about a tiny coterie of monopoly proprietors lording it over the masses, disposing of the fruits of their labour and privately appropriating the profits.

    How can there be anything just about a society in which the pure chance of birth, to whom and where, decides your life chances and indeed the very conditions of your existence? Alas, the rich like to think that they are rich not because of mere chance but as the result of merit. They are rich either because of the things they are doing in this life or as a reward for the virtues they displayed in a previous one.

    However, whilst the 1% clearly believes that it is the deserving rich, and the rest of us by extension the deserving poor, they utilise every form of bribery, corruption, coercion and violence to maintain their position. Nothing after outrageous fortune has had its initial say is then left to it.

    But the ruling class, capitalists, and their ruling ideology, liberalism, soon came to be challenged by socialists representing a new class becoming politically conscious of the injustices all around them which they quickly came to understand were not about good and evil, the virtuous and the sinful, the deserving and the undeserving but systemic in nature. The man who did most to prove that we live in an unjust society was Karl Marx the founder of scientific socialism. His notion of a just society was as revolutionary as it gets. From each, he said, according to their ability and to each, he concluded, according to their needs. A society based on this conception of justice would indeed represent the complete over-turning of the capitalist status quo which, for good measure, Marx also proved was not natural at all but historically contingent.

    Fear of this new class has driven the bourgeoisie first to violence then bribery and then attempts at co-option. From ruthless laws and methods of imposing them to buying off sections and layers of the emerging opposition class to trying to make them partners in the imperialist imprisoning of less fortunate peoples.

    In fact, the cost of trying to make capitalism appear just through sometimes enormous efforts to mitigate the injustice of chance through remedial action such as welfare, education, social workers, and a myriad other measures that create the illusion of some kind of social mobility or American Dream are one of the biggest overheads threatening to overwhelm economy and society nowadays.

    The last and final effort to breathe new life into the deluded ideology of social mobility and a sclerotic, monopolised and dying capitalist system was the 30-year Thatcher/Reagan credit bubble turned Ponzi Scheme that exploded in 2008 leaving the global capitalist system sclerotic, monopolised, bankrupt and dead. This is a system no longer capable of reproducing itself. Austerity and stimulus, the capitalist class’s two ideological responses, ideological in that what is dead can no longer be saved, to the crash represent only the bleeding of a corpse or the attempted resuscitation of a headless cadaver. Behind these two ideologies is the reality of a Dash for Cash heading inevitably towards global depression as the global super rich and national elites frenziedly try to turn their counterfeit assets into real money which increasingly means gold.

    What was left of liberal notions of justice lies in tatters on the trading floors of Europe, Asia and the USA and humanity is left asking `what next?’. The answer again comes from Marx who correctly predicted that in the end it would come down to a choice between socialism or barbarism.

    Denuded of its ability to buy social peace the lucky few can only reverse its policy of bribery and convert to the kind of sustained and ruthless violence that even the medieval Dark Ages would hesitate before. That is what it will take to maintain a tiny economic and social elite in a sea of undifferentiated global poverty encompassing billions. But it is unlikely that with its new and revolutionary understanding of justice that this backlash will, ultimately, succeed.

    It is far more likely that the today’s lottery so laughingly called society, will be replaced by the mutli-billioned masses with a society where each individual is born into equality. A society where every man and woman is expected to put in a shift at work and at home, a society where there is full-employment through the sharing of the available productive work, a society were part-time is the new full-time and each gets a living wage. A society in short where each gives according to their abilities and each receives according to their needs.

  9. Simon Hardy

    December 10, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Only just came across this thread. The problem is Dave you might say that Marxism will get us out of a left ghetto but there are plenty of Marxist groups out there and none of them are making much progress are they?

    Your “short sharp programme” that you propose is precisely the kind of thing that Workers Power produced year in and year out but sadly it did not amount to much in terms of impact, consolidating new forces, changing the direction of debate or generating new momentum around those demands.

    I think a lot of your proposals will be included in any future revolutionary party, but simply presenting them as you do and castigating “liquidationist splits from sects” is precisely the kind of language and attitude that is getting us nowhere fast.

  10. David Ellis

    December 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    If there was a prize for mis-understanding a letter or indeed a quote from Marx I think it would have gone to Ben Lewis for his reply in your 13 December edition to my offering of 06 December.

    In my letter I outlined a revolutionary Marxist notion of a just society as being one into which every individual is born not in accordance with the bourgeois lottery they so laughingly call society but into equality. Born not into poverty or enormous wealth as a result of the pure chance of where and to whom you were born so that your life chances and conditions of existence are pre-determined in advance but immediately into a society based on full-employment, a living wage and the social appropriation of the fruits of human labour. I used Marx’s famous critique of the Gotha programme `from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’ to back up my argument. The thrust of the piece was a criticism of the bourgeois and reformist notion of `social mobility’ whereby vast amounts of social and natural treasure is expended on trying to mitigate the effects of the social lottery through remedial action in order to prevent revolution and save injustice i.e. the private appropriation of the social product by the very fortunately born 1%.

    Somehow though Ben seemed to think that my use of that quote meant I was for the wretched Gotha programme and against the revolutionary thinking of Marx. He then rounds on me for suggesting that all people are born equal both in their abilities and their needs which at no point did I do. Indeed, if I believed that all people were born not into equality but equal in their abilities and their needs then there would be no point saying `from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’. It would be mere tautology. The whole point of Marx’s summation of what constitutes a just society is that needs and abilities vary from individual to individual. The needs of a person trapped in an iron lung will differ from everybody else’s but so will their abilities. Marx caters for both. Full employment for a man in an iron lung might simply be doing nothing all day as per his abilities but his needs will still be met. One man’s living wage will differ from the next as will his abilities.

    Marx’s critique of the Gotha programme was not that it advocated socialism in the sense that the social product is dished out fairly but that it didn’t. It advocated not a `living wage’ but that every work keep and dispose of the entirety of the surplus value he/she created ignoring the unemployed and the need for redistribution to the sick, the disabled, the young and the old.

    No, there was nothing Lassallean in my letter, nothing of the Gotha programme, it was Marxism pure and simple. Of course, terms like full-employment and living wages are transitional demands designed to put us on the road to the just society into which every individual is born into equality. In full blown communism wages and employment will be a thing of the past along no doubt with the slogan `from each according to their ability …’, the so-called Iron Law of Wages and the ridiculous notion of a Free State.

    I think the rejection of my letter by Ben indicates either a Sunday speechifier not interested in the transition from capitalism to socialism or a touch of sectarianism by which the demand for full-employment by sharing the available productive work is seen as not radical enough for the purist.

  11. David Ellis

    December 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    David Ellis is doubtless sincere in his outrage at the crass and inhuman inequalities born of the system’s relentless drive to capital accumulation for its own sake (Letters, December 6).
    That said, I do fear that his proposals for a viable, post-capitalist society are rather flawed. His thought still bears the fingerprints of bourgeois ideology and logic. His anti-capitalism consists of a society “where each individual is born into equality”, where the fruits of the “full employment” of each “part-time” labourer earning a “living wage” are dished out equally amongst the mass of the population.
    Oddly enough, to point out the trap that I believe comrade Ellis has fallen into here, I would turn the comrade’s attention to the very text from which he draws the famous Marx quote on the guiding principle of communist society – “From each according to their ability; to each according to their needs” – namely the latter’s 1875 Critique of the Gotha programme. This text was based on Marx’s “notes in the margin” to the programme agreed by the newly unified German Social Democratic Party, which consisted of the (pro-Marxist) ‘Eisenachers’ and the ‘Lassalleans’, supporters of the deceased Ferdinand Lassalle.
    Marx is particularly scathing in his response to the Gotha programme’s ahistorical and therefore ultimately meaningless platitudes, such as the concept of “the free state” and the Lassallean “iron law of wages”.
    Yet Marx also turns on the programme’s self-contradictory commitment to making “the proceeds of labour” belong “undiminished with equal right to all members of society”. In an eminently readable passage, Marx could hardly be more clear: we human beings are extremely unequal. Some of us are ‘naturally’ good at particular activities, some work more quickly and effectively than others, some are able to pick up particular skills or talents more effectively than others. Each of us has our own particular strengths, weaknesses and quirks marking us out as human individuals. As Marx puts it, humans “would not be different individuals if they were not unequal”. This is the “from each according to their ability” half of the society for which we should be striving.
    As the other half of the quote implies, we human beings also have diverse and wide-ranging needs. Some of us live on our own. Some might have one or two children to support. Others are not able to work or are partially or wholly dependent on the help of others merely to carry out the most basic of tasks. Given the above, a society based on part-time wage-work and “equality” would actually lead to some getting more than others. What about those who cannot work?
    Positively overcoming capitalism does not involve a combination of equality, a living wage and full employment. Were it only that simple. Rather, it involves the creation of a society where we can fully develop and express our unequal individuality, and where wages and the concept of employment – full or otherwise – are consigned to the dustbin of history. This presupposes the supersession of what Marx deems “bourgeois right”: ie, the replacement of value production, based on the equal standard of labour-time and wage labour, with conscious social control and planning, so that work “has become not only a means of life, but life’s prime want”.
    Ben Lewis

  12. Rudi

    January 21, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    /Arthur Bough seems to think that Marx’s criticisms of the Gotha Programme were in fact a ringing endorsement. I called for full employment by sharing the productive work with everybody receiving at least a living wage however short their hours as a result of this sharing. He says this is a capitulation to `bourgeois right’ but one can only assume that by opposing this demand it is precisely on the basis of `bourgeois right’ that he envisages the social surplus being distributed and he says as much in his various responses. He is especially anxious to tell us that the workers’ state will not be able to pay a living wage or distribute the social surplus according to need because we are too economically backward and the only basis for distribution of the social surplus will in fact be `bourgeois right’ i.e. a wage based on the efforts of the individual. I’ve seen people twist the writings of Marx to make him say the opposite of what he was actually saying before but this was a particularly fine example from Bough.

    In any case, I’m more interested in when the CPGB are going to produce the `min max’ programme around which Marxists are supposed to organise and behind which they hope to win the working classes and its allies. Is there any sign of this forthcoming? I’m not talking about your draught programme of broad principles and strategy but your programme for intervening in the day to day lives of the class which addresses their immediate concerns and which points the way to the transition to socialism and working class power.

    I think Marxists everywhere are anxious for the appearance of something of that nature which has been promised for some time and which since the epoch changing events of 2008 has become an urgent, urgent necessity. I have my own ideas on the subject as witnessed by this recent exchange of letters whereby yourselves and Bough have opposed the demand for full employment by sharing the productive work but it is time you came up with some proposals.


Comment on this article

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.