�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

The Role of Work in Anarchist Utopias

Peter Seyferth

Dear comrades: work is shit. Please excuse

the scatological terminology, it is not

mine, at least not this time. The sentence

“work is shit” is a fifteen year-old slogan of

an anarchist political party� in Germany,

rooted in punk rock, that wanted to free at

least their members and the idlers and the lumpenproletariat from being forced to toil just to survive.

At the same time, the sentence “work is shit” is a considerate distortion of the Anarresti’s usage of the

swearword “excrement” that is used by these citizens of an anarchist planet to devalue anything that is

not necessary and thus should be excreted from society. On Anarres, work is one of the highest values.

At the same time, the regimentation of work threatens individual freedom and therefore is a danger for

the planet-wide anarchism. This is the problem: On the one hand, one of the main pillars of anarchism

is the anti-authoritarian branch of the international worker’s movement that aims at worker’s self-

control. On the other hand, being a worker might imply being someone who follows orders, creates

profit for exploiters, and stifles imagination and playfulness who are necessary for anarchy. Should

anarchists struggle to free labour—or should they struggle to be free from labour?

Historically, anarchists have argued in both directions. Anarchism is concerned with everyday

politics, of which the necessity to sell one’s labour just to survive is a central aspect. This is one of

the defining features of capitalism. But although the socialists of the �9th century wanted to abolish

capitalism, they tended to praise the virtue of industriousness that they attributed to the workers

while calling the bourgeoisie out on laziness. This was not alone the habit of Marx and his followers,

who installed the Stakhanovite movement. In fact, Marx not only dreamt of non-alienated labour, but

confirmed, hidden in the last chapters of the third volume of Das Kapital, that “the realm of freedom

actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases;

thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.” (MEW 25:

828) I should hasten to add that for Marx, the realm of necessity, and by association labour, will never

perish. His son-in-law Paul Lafargue, while infamously defending the Right to be Lazy, thought at least

� Anarchistische Pogo-Partei Deutschlands (APPD)

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

some work was necessary (3 hours a day)

and attacked the zero-work attitude of the

bourgeoisie. The assertion that work has at

least some inherent value can also be found

in �9th century anarchist writings. Michael

Bakunin, for example, deemed manual

labour a source of morality that should

be customarily enforced on those “social

thieves” who are lazy. Not too far from

Marx, Peter Kropotkin also thought of some work as necessary, so it should at least be distributed justly

and organized humanly. In the 20th century, some anarchists like Paul Goodman still were ambivalent

towards forced labour, but work was attacked much more fiercely than ever before. While the official

slogans and politics of the CNT during the Spanish Civil War were promoting an ethos of hard work,

sobriety, and industriousness, the actual workers (including the CNT’s card holders) fought against

increased productivity by loitering, absenteeism, and threats against overfulfillers, as Michael Seidman

has shown. Later, Murray Bookchin hoped for a liberatory technology to free the humans from toil.

Bob Black, on the other hand, did not bank on machines but advised to transform work into play so it

is fun to do. And in their early writings at the beginning of the 2�st century, the CrimethInc. collective

seemed to prefer to just drop out and walk away from the workplaces.

What can I add to these positions?

Firstly, I will recall some of the reasons to

reject work, placing myself on the anti-

productivist end of the anarchist spectrum.

And secondly, I will show you an incomplete

table of anarchist utopias and their depiction

of labour in a really free world. I will discuss

Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, her

Always Coming Home, Starhawk’s Fifth Sacred

Thing, and Chris Carlsson’s After the Deluge,

which, thirdly, amount to mixed findings.

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

I.

Work destroys our bodies. This is obvious for miners and assembly-line workers, but white-collar jobs

can cause carpal tunnel syndromes and back trouble, too. Each year two million people die at work, says

the United Nations; Tom Hodgkinson says that this equals a daily 9/�� tragedy, but no government

declares a war on work. Bob Black additionally points to all the deaths and injuries caused in car

accidents on the way to and fro the workplace, or while looking for work, or while trying to forget work.

Many drug and alcohol related deaths as well as heart attacks fall into this category, too.

Work destroys our minds. Already Paul Lafargue lamented about the stupidity at the

workplaces. Today we have immaterial work that requires social, emotional, and technical intelligence,

but our minds are still under attack by burnout, depression, and drug abuse.

Work destroys our wealth. Have you ever heard of someone becoming rich by just working hard

enough? No, you have heard about the working poor. This is not new; Lafargue has observed it and put

it in eloquent words: “Work, work, proletarians, to increase social wealth and your individual poverty;

work, work, in order that becoming poorer, you may have more reason to work and become miserable.

Such is the inexorable law of capitalist production.” (20�2 (The Anarchist Library), p. ��) Work is

not the natural way to get the goods you need. In fact, it was implemented by force, by enclosing and

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

destroying the commons, which have been the natural way to get goods. To make you a worker, we have

to make you poor in the first place; and we must not let you get rich and independent or else we loose

your servitude. Of course, labour does make some people rich—those people who manage to grab the

surplus value of other people’s labour. This is an especially despicable kind of work, but it is questionable

if it suffices to abolish only the profitable jobs and to slog on with the impoverishing toil.

Work destroys our morality. A work ethics is self-contradictory, since there is nothing ethical

in work itself. Here I can quote Bertrand Russell, who asserts “that there is far too much work done in

the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous, and that what needs to be

preached in modern industrial countries is quite different from what always has been preached.” But

why is work immoral? Because it degrades the human by turning them into a means to an end, and,

worse, by turning them into a commodity. Work is a doing that is enforced by external pressures. Since

Aristotle we know that doing something can be virtuous if this conduct has intrinsic value, which

work, per definition as wage-labour, has not. But we have to be careful with Aristotle and other ancient

authors like Cicero or the antique-like Nietzsche. They all despised work because it should be done by

slaves, not by the aristocracy. This is immoral, too, as long as morality has anything to do with fairness

and equality. This leads over to political reasons for abolishing work.

Work destroys our freedom. It is one of the most efficient instruments of power because it does

not look like violence but seems to feed the people. While work produces products we might need

or want, it also produces subjects; I mean subjectivities of being one who follows the orders of boss

or punter. Yes I dear to say it: All workers are whores, they sell their bodies and time and skills and do

what pleases the payer. Getting used to work means getting used to subservience, to surveillance, and to

being part of a hierarchical pyramid. The refusal of work, on the other hand, damages the state, reduces

profits, threatens the whole economic order and might even end the energy crisis and the destruction of

the environment; this is at least what Bob Black hopes.

Work is already dying. Work is shit, but even if we suddenly realized that work was beautiful

and emancipatory, we would have to start thinking about a post-work society. Just look at the

unemployment rates. Of course there could emerge a post-capitalist society where we all have to toil

again, e.g. when new aristocrats succeed in establishing a “New Feudalism”, as Jello Biafra and other

cool people have warned for some years. But let’s now look at anarchist societies that somehow have to

handle the problem of work.

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

II.

Here is a table of four noteworthy anarchist utopias of the last four decades. They are all so-called open-

ended or critical utopias, i.e. they do not try to provide a flawless blueprint but just to illustrate a society

that, while being considerably better than ours, still has faults, is questioned by their inhabitants, and

thus is quite realistic while at the same time initiating creative utopian thinking in the reader. We start

with Ursula K. Le Guin’s classic The Dispossessed, published in �974. In this book we find an anarchist

planet, Anarres, inhabited for more than �00 years by the descendants of failed anarchist revolutionaries

who were driven to exile from their home planet Urras. Already before the revolution, the anarchists

were of the syndicalist flavour. On top of this, Le Guin was inspired by the writings of Peter Kropotkin

and Paul Goodman, who both are proponents of work, if not of too much of it. Not surprisingly, the

whole social structure on Anarres is grounded on labour. Everything from mining via arts to marital

activities is organized in syndicates. This transforms almost all activities into some kind of work that one

should light-heartedly relinquish when a more useful work has to be done. The Anarresti have a strict,

almost Protestant, work ethic, and they are ready to leave partners and children behind to enforest the

desert and what not. Everybody has to work hard for a living, because the planet is so dry and barren.

Not surprisingly, efficiency is valued high. The Anarresti society is an industrial society that overexploits

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

their natural resources. Surprisingly, the

population grows exponentially, faster than

in India in our times. This puts all living

things on this planet under stress, especially

the humans. As anarcho-syndicalists, the

Anarresti have no problem in trying to

achieve solutions by organizations. So they

found the “Production and Distribution

Coordination”, the PDC, an institution made not to govern people but to manage everything

connected with products and so to ensure efficiency. Since workers are connected with products, too,

and since institutions tend to become bureaucratic, the PDC becomes a hidden government that

rules through work assignments and social control. Sure, there are also the Nuchnibi, as they call the

idlers. But often they are not welcome. All in all, for a lazy anti-productivist like me, Anarres is not a

fun place to stay. Not surprisingly, SF author Ken MacLeod has called The Dispossessed “a book which

has probably put more people off Anarchism than any other. It presents a dour vision of Anarchist

Communism: something like a particularly fanatical kibbutz or Spanish Civil War collective.”

Le Guin herself was not content with

her first utopia, so she wrote a second one,

Always Coming Home, which was published

in �985. The book is set in a future northern

California, probably several thousand years

from now. There live the Kesh people in the

Na Valley. Critics do tend to not like this

utopia and to dismiss it as “a naively regressive

picture of a sort of Happy Hunting Ground

for fake Indians”, but this is undue. Sure, the society is structured in a traditional manner, inspired by

culture anthropology. They have complicated degrees of family-relationships, exogamous totem-clans,

rituals, festivals, myths. But Le Guin was also inspired by Murray Bookchin’s Ecology of Freedom, which

advises to abolish toil and to favour very high-tech machinery. The Kesh do seldom work hard, and

they seldom use high technology, they can afford to play stone age. This is partly explained by their

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

culture, which is non-competitive most of the time (with the exception of insult contests at one of their

festivals). The culture also devalues having many things or being nuts about personal achievements.

The Kesh think they have much time, they like long names and slow traffic, and they are so lazy that

they eat without knifes or forks just to reduce washing up. This would not be possible if they lived in a

desert like the Anarresti. The Kesh live in a rich natural environment and are part-time gardeners and

part-time gatherers (they also sometimes hunt, yet find this kind of childish). Because they live in an

“original affluent society”, to borrow the term from Marshall Sahlins, rejecting a government disguised

as efficiency is easy to them. The Na Valley is no paradise, though. The Kesh have to struggle with

the poison and industrial waste we left for them, they are threatened by war-mongering neighbours,

and they have to very strictly control their population size to maintain the lazy lifestyle. As an anti-

productivist and idler, I would like to take a vacation in this bucolic society; but I am not enough a

primitivist to want to permanently live there.

Wait! “There” are the next two utopias,

too. We will not leave future Northern

California, we will just change the fantasies

about how this part of the world might one

day look like. Let us turn to Starhawk’s

The Fifth Sacred Thing, published in �993.

This is certainly an esoteric book, and it is

certainly an ecotopian book, but I am not so

sure if it is actually an anarchist book. In it, a

possible San Francisco of the year 2048 is portrayed. This city chose it’s own way when some women

started to rip open the streets and plant gardens instead, as a resistance action against ecologically and

spiritually destructive fascists. Since then countless councils, committees, and collectives have sprung

up, now substituting more hierarchical legislative, executive and juridical bodies. Decisions are made by

facilitated consensus, taking into account the needs of the holy elements fire, earth, air, and water, who

are represented by individuals in trance. The politics are mainly nonviolent and aimed at healing the

environment. There are persistent quarrels about violence, about means and ends, about vegetarianism,

and about equal pay for everyone. This all sounds quite anarchistic. But the economy uses money

to allocate goods; workgroups act as firms and have to sell their products at a market; there is some

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

redistribution, but accumulation of wealth is possible and accepted, too. Most professions are organized

in guilds who form a second decision making structure beside the neighbourhood councils and the city

council. In this hodgepodge system, spirituality and labour seem to be the frame for orientation. All

work, including housework and child-rearing, is paid equal per hour, with the exception of musicians

and healers, who receive payment without counting their work hours. Some work assignments are

indentured, e.g. some hours of cleaning toxic waste each year. Aside from that, you can choose whatever

profession you like. It is also possible to not work, because an unconditional basic income secures basic

needs. But it is assumed that wanting to work is normal, only ill people do not and thus have to be

healed. If one does not like their job, another job is offered. If one just refuses to work, they are isolated

and shamed and sent to a psychologist. So while on the first look, San Francisco is a hippie commune,

it also has a strict work ethic and uses social pressure to activate the citizens. It has to be added that The

Fifth Sacred Thing is told from three perspectives, of which two are notorious martyrs of toilsomeness.

Especially the healer Madrone works until being completely exhausted and passing out again and again,

and the main motivation of the protagonists seems to be their usefulness to the community. So the

book has clearly an achievement-oriented bias, all spirituality aside.

It does make sense to contrast this

San Francisco with the 2�57 San Francisco

Chris Carlsson described in his After the

Deluge, published in 2004. Here we have,

again, a hodgepodge of councils and

committees, partly with the exact same names

as in Starhawk’s novel. There are eternal

controversies about how to defend the city

against possible military threats, about which

streets should be left open to bicycles and which should be turned into gardens, about how much work

everybody should at least carry out every year: 60 or 30 hours. Not in a week. In a year. In the rest of

the US, it is common to enter these Annuals, as the yearly workload is called, into a workbook, but in

San Francisco there is a very generous feeling of abundance and nobody cares about workbooks. Posters

and friends will eventually ask you to do your Annuals, but you can very easily refuse to do so. You

will nonetheless get all the goods you want at the freestores, borrow bikes at the velomes, eat at public

�NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

kitchens, and smoke the buds you find everywhere. There is no money or credit system. Of course

somehow the goods have to be produced. There is a sophisticated labour system that distinguishes

between those doing their Annuals, mostly stupid dirt work, and the Tryouts, the Apprentices, and

the Lifers. Tryouts try out a job for a few months and so learn basic skills. Many artisans and factories

take pains to appear attractive to get enough Tryouts. After that, an Apprenticeship is a commitment

for several years, and Lifers stick to one job for their entire life. Although equality in decision making

is of high value politically, at the workplace the Lifers and the Tryouts have a fundamental conflict:

The Lifers are experts in their fields and thusly annoyed by the ineptitude of the Tryouts, while the

latter hate the bossiness of the former. But why would anyone want to be a Tryout, an Apprentice, or a

Lifer anyway? The story is told from the perspective of two young men, both discontented with their

daily activities. One of them eventually finds something he really wants to do, which is a good thing

when he needs to be distracted from lovesickness, whereas the other one cannot be satisfied by what

San Francisco has to offer him; in the end he will leave to become a terrorist. Here we have a dystopian

outsider we learn to understand, and to despise.

Now we have created a crammed table. What can we do with it?

�0NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth

III.

This table might help us to get an overview of how anarchist societies could be, how they are in the

fantasies of a few authors. This table is by no means complete. We could add William Morris’s News

from Nowhere, where work is seen as something beautiful as long as it is done together with and for

the community,2 or we could add several of Iain M. Banks’s Culture books where work seems to be

unnecessary because of sophisticated technology. Different anarchist utopias paint wildly different

pictures of how work would be organized or abolished in a non-hierarchical, non-capitalist society.

After the Deluge is a utopia that focuses on work, whereas Starhawk’s The Fifth Sacred Thing focuses on

spirituality, resulting in some inconsistencies in the depicted labour system. Le Guin’s Always Coming

Home focuses on family relationships, but has the themes of spirituality and work in it, too. Her The

Dispossessed discusses a harsh work ethic and displays one anarchist’s discontent with it. Starhawk’s work

ethic seems to be even harsher, since there does not seem to be much unhappiness with it, although

very unhappy things happen in her book. It is not possible to infer from the book to the author. But it

is possible to infer from our reactions to the books to our evaluation of hard work. Utopias can help

us to find out what we are dreaming of, what we really want. If you had to swap places with one of the

utopians: whom would you choose?

But I do not think utopia is just wishful thinking—on the contrary, utopia is a device for

critically evaluating political and social goals, which is why utopias have always to be seen in the utopian

tradition, that means each utopia is one of many, no one is the perfect, ultimate one. Therefore it is a

good thing that the depicted work systems have such a wide variety. Reading one utopia might result

in thinking: aha, so it must be. If it is The Dispossessed we read, we might conclude that anarchism is

tough and destitute, even if it is better than most social positions capitalism has to offer. But if we read

many utopias, we learn something completely different: to open our minds to many options. We learn

to build worlds in our head, which I think is a prerequisite for building a new world in the shell of the

old. Readers of utopias recognize the complexities of the social subsystems. The production of goods

and services is one such subsystem, and it influences both individual happiness and the freedom of

the whole community. You can live through this and experience it yourself. I experienced that a strict

work ethic is inhibiting happiness and freedom. So I dare to say: work is shit. But I kindly ask you to

experience anarchist utopias for yourself and make your own conclusions.

2 After my lecture, Ruth Kinna pointed me to Morris’ three categories: exploited work (which is bad)—art (which is open to self-fashioning, as well as the making of things)—idleness (which is bad). My propositions obviously need refinement!

��NB

: This

text

is no

t an o

fficial

publi

catio

n, it i

s a le

cture

given

at th

e Ana

rchist

Stud

ies N

etwork

Confe

rence

2.0

“Mak

ing Co

nnec

tions

” in S

eptem

ber 2

012.

It is

work

in pr

ogres

s and

does

not r

epres

ent t

he fin

al wo

rds I

have

to sa

y in

this f

ield.

So fe

el fre

e to b

e ins

pired

by it,

also

do no

t hes

itate

to cri

ticize

it (p

eterse

yferth

@gm

x.net)

. But

pleas

e do n

ot cit

e or p

lagiar

ize it—

you c

an do

that

with

the fin

alize

d artic

le or

book

even

tually.

© 2

012

Peter

Sey

ferth