Skip to content

The Double Consciousness of the US Revolutionary

August 15, 2012

Raised fist via Colorlines

“Maquila: Sweatshop” by Favianna Rodriguez

Janie found out very soon that her widowhood and property was a great challenge in South Florida. Before Jody had been dead a month, she noticed how often men who had never been intimates of Joe, drove considerable distances to ask after her welfare and offer their services as advisor.

“Uh woman by herself is uh pitiful thing,” she was told over and again. “Dey needs aid and assistance. God never meant ’em tuh try tuh stand by theirselves. You ain’t been used tuh knockin’ round and doin’ fuh yo’self, Mis’ Starks. You been well taken keer of, you needs uh man.”

Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God

The representation of her sources of language seems to be her principal concern, as she consciously shifts back and forth between her “literate” narrator’s voice and a highly idiomatic black [sic] voice found in wonderful passages of free indirect discourse. Hurston moves in and out of these distinct voices effortlessly, seamlessly … It is this usage of a divided voice, a double voice unreconciled, that strikes me as her great achievement, a verbal analogue of her double experiences as a woman in a male-dominated world and as a black person in a nonblack world, a woman writer’s revision of W.E.B. DuBois’s metaphor of “double-consciousness” for the hyphenated African-American.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in the Afterword

Binaries are false, and suck in many ways. Categories, even when there are more than two (black white yellow red brown; astrological signs) still inherently oversimplify. And yet, in the midst of an embattled year of trying to figure out where I belong within radical traditions, what a great relief it is to me to create two nice neat columns and try to map out some ideas. (Non-column schemas in the works.)

“Malcolm X” by Favianna Rodriguez

“Everything Counts” by Favianna Rodriguez

These categories came as blessings from this weekend’s Everything For Everyone conference, a festival for radical anti-capitalists that was hosted in Seattle and attracted militants from across the country. In their closing plenary speeches, Mike Ely of the Kasama blog and Kali Akuno of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement each raised the importance of “building alliances” between the oppressed and the employed working class.

But before I can think about building alliances, I want to try to understand the two groups. Who are they, exactly? How are they delineated — different from one another? As a first step I want to deeply and compassionately ‘interview’ these groups. Ask, in my mind, what they want. And to be clear, these groups and their characteristics Do Not Exist In The Real World in any sort of neat and tidy way. It’s just that the categories represent patterns I’ve witnessed in the Left/radical movements I’ve been around, and witnessed within myself, too.

*MOP = Means Of Production, the land, water, machines, and other material resources human beings use to keep ourselves alive, to reproduce our society.

These categories are not necessarily or always in opposition to one another! Which is what makes them tricky to puzzle out. I’ve seen revolutionaries try to reconcile them by pointing to certain common examples of overlap.

1. Indigenous/Latin@ Immigrants & Economically Displaced People
In the US, economically displaced workers from central and south america who toil at miserable jobs play a key role in the national economy. They are both “most affected” by and “vulnerable” to certain strands of racist, gender-oppressive, and economic persecution, and strategically positioned within the economy to fuck shit up for capitalism for real, as we’ve seen in beautiful explosions like the enormous immigrant strike on May Day 2006.

2. Queers
Queer Liberation Is Class Struggle, a piece put out a minute ago by members of Unity and Struggle, lays out this argument super thoroughly, and in many dimensions: critique of the heteropatriarchal family, re-visibilizing the queer working class, exposing the ways labor disciplines our gender expressions, etc. One part I’ll come back to in a second:

I’ve heard vague calls for queers to [ally] with labor.

An “alliance” or “intersection” should not even be necessary, it is only made necessary by the fact that the union bureaucracy dominates “labor” and the gay elites dominate “queerness.” If we can break down these twin dominations then it will be much easier to build an “alliance” because most queers already are labor and many laborers are queer. This involves struggle and organizing.

3. Women
Women make up the majority of the world proletariat, comrades remind us. Furthermore, capitalism deploys patriarchy as a kind of leverage or bonus round for surplus labor, systematically labeling women’s work as “unskilled” and “domestic,” which conveniently justifies paying little or no wages for it. To organize for the liberation of women as a group, or even just “Black and Brown” women, the argument goes, is to make tremendous headway in organizing the working class as a whole.

But the working class is not a monolith. Over the weekend, for the first time in my memory, I heard revolutionary comrades start to use the term “employed working class” as a way of being more specific about which part of the working class they’re talking about. Before, I’d usually hear a broad-sweeping definition of the working class as “Those of us who have nothing to sell but our ability to work.” This broader definition, while sometimes helpful in pointing out what we share in common, and who our opposition is, frequently glosses over important strategic differences within the working class.

Some of us, whether because of racist systems of criminalization (got a felony? much harder finding a job), heteropatriarchal gender coercion (want to present transgressive gender or dramatically transition your gender at work? again, not easy in most cases), disabilities, or other reasons, cannot sell our ability to work. When the U&S piece says that “most queers already are labor and many laborers are queer,” this may be true, and yet transgender folks face double the average rate of unemployment in the US. Folks with non-normative gender or sexuality presentations are often only precariously employed.

Industrial Workers of the World

It is this harsh material reality that helps maintain informal economies (selling sex, drugs, under-the-table labor) and is also prompting large-scale experimentation in solidarity economies: ways of taking care of one another when the labor market rejects us. Networks of survival have always existed for those on the margins, but as Kali from MXGM pointed out, at this moment even more Black and Brown people are transitioning out of “surplus labor” populations (think: bringing in scabs of color to break up white strikes) into “disposable” populations, more like First Nations people and other resisters of genocide. No longer are Black folks needed in the US as a labor-substitute threat which helps maintain downward pressure on working conditions. Increasingly, this is a role brown migrant and undocumented workers play, terrorized under the threat of ICE. (again, i’m oversimplifying since black and brown aren’t always separate. Also, it’s possible that if and when the migrant surplus population organizes to strike as well, capital will call in a second reserve army: people in cages / prisons.)

The scale and speed of this process, marginalizing the criminalized and oppressed poor to the point of barring access to basics like food and shelter, is serious enough that oppressed groups are innovating systemic new ways of coping, or new versions of old forms. These innovations fit the logic of survival and sometimes even self-determination (Maker movement, urban farming), but rarely do they seem to translate into revolutionary threats to the capitalist system as a whole.

And this is where I often feel stuck, or torn. As a person of African descent in the US, should I set aside my people’s struggles simply because large numbers of us no longer occupy a central or strategic place as the employed working class, like we did in auto plants of Detroit in the 60s? Should revolutionary queers de-emphasize queer liberation just because anti-assimilationist queers are excluded from the formal labor market? Should people with disabilities that make wage labor impossible sit on the sidelines of revolutionary transformation?  How will the dispossessed fight both to stay alive and to help make communist revolution in the US?

Arundhati Roy interviews guerilla fighters of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), 2010

I feel this double-consciousness within myself. I don’t know how to choose between, nor how to reconcile the two.

I read and read, but nothing seems to quite capture it. Blogs like Mia McKenzie’s Black Girl Dangerous exemplify the Self-Determination-Of-The-Oppressed logic, quite beautifully and sharply at times, as in her Open Letter to Folks of Color.

Despite your children being gunned down by cops like every single day, despite your mothers being sent to prison for “stealing” public education, despite your sisters dying in the heat of the desert while “sneaking” into a land that belongs to your own ancestors, not to mention being deported from that same land in record numbers, despite the CONSTANT beatings inflicted on your souls, you somehow still have souls. That’s fucking amazing. I mean, I’m not surprised. Your ancestors couldn’t have survived slavery and genocide without some damn serious sturdy genes. But still. It’s impressive.

I love you for all of these things.

From cultural workers and artists to Non-Profit-Industrial-Complex warriors, I see oppressed people and allies pouring heart and soul into defending and uplifting one another: trying to fight off reactionary laws, plant community gardens, bash back, feed bellies that need filling, pull teeth that need pulling. Not always doing it wisely, but coming on some level from different types of love.

Other pieces of McKenzie’s take a flip side of the POC-love coin, throwing a sharp tongue at ignorant white people and white queers. Today on a Facebook thread, two talented Bay Area queer revolutionaries called on McKenzie for “a bigger analysis” of white supremacy that “strives to look at the totality of the system, the capitalist patriarchal system, and the ways it has created and oppressed queers through placing us outside of the system.” Defying my categorized columns above, one of them argues, “Writing and writing our truths in particular is healing and important work. But I am also needing some strategy for liberation.”

But despite the brilliance that comes from so many writers, cultural workers, and organizers resisting oppression and developing new ways of being together, I have yet to see anywhere a strategy of communist revolution, even from revolutionaries in a Marxist tradition, that stems from an anti-oppression analysis, framework, and spirit more deeply rooted than the happenstance overlap of the oppressed and the employed working class. Folks in the anti-oppression liberation tradition tend to be amazing at critiquing the system, often with highly sophisticated analysis. Oppressed people articulate the cruel ironies of capitalism, a system that supposedly generates innovation and abundance but in practice murders, exploits, degrades and immiserates the majority of beings and the earth, reserving special forms of torture for different groups. This is true and important. But I don’t know how we propose to move from critique to strategy, without switching modes and focusing by default on the employed working class. I haven’t seen this done in the US. Have you?

I can’t reconcile the contradiction here. My impression is that many communist revolutionaries believe that the employed working class is in the best strategic position to overtake the means of production, a key step in making a worldwide revolution to overthrow capitalism and usher in a better system of social relations. This, then, becomes the focus of their strategy.  Although many groups aim to “race, gender, and sexuality seriously,” this cannot ever equal the commitment of a Black person to the Black Liberation Movement, or a queer mujerista to the abolition of gender oppression.

“Distribution of the Arms” by Diego Rivera

Meanwhile, I am not sure what the focus of revolutionary strategy is for oppressed people seeking to overthrow oppression. A lot of the work seems to be in building faith in the worthiness of the oppressed (so systemically denied and crushed, ideologically and in the stupidity of everyday work — that’s real), building their/our autonomy, resisting attacks from capitalists and fellow working-class people, and having faith that they/we will discover for ourselves how to build new systems of social relations autonomously, even under capitalism. Eventually, we will transform society for the better. At the very least, we want to survive with dignity and exuberance.

I do not take this goal lightly. And yet, and still, I feel stuck.

When Skip Gates lauds Hurston for achieving unity of two unreconciled voices in her writing, he fails to mention that even within this double-ness, hierarchy persists. There is a reason that the white voice is the narrator (third person, omniscient) and the Black voice is the dialogue. Can you imagine reversing them? Can you imagine that a book with a Black-idiom omniscient narrator and white dialogue would make it in a white-controlled publishing market? Can you imagine it would sell in a white-dominated literary industry, as anything other than a curiosity (probably with porn themes)?

Similarly with revolutionary double-consciousness, I sense an implicit hierarchy. When people call for building alliances between the oppressed and the employed working class, I think oftentimes they really mean, organize the oppressed to support the employed working class so it can make the biggest moves to abolish class altogether.

I can empathize with this reasoning.

At this moment, I believe that the Employed Working Class perspective has a more plausible strategy for putting an end to the exploitative social relations of capitalism.

But this perspective seems extremely weak in its methods and strategy for sustaining healing and liberation from social oppressions that won’t automatically disappear even if we someday kick out capitalism. And it is therefore fundamentally limited in its ability to transform the world for the better. Not only limited, but self-undermining in its own quest for freedom, and tending to subordinate the struggles of the oppressed. They matter strategically only insofar as they link up to the employed working class.

This is not only a problem for the future, but a conflict right now.

Am I alone in thinking and feeling this? Do you agree? Disagree? Have you felt this revolutionary double-consciousness? Is Maoism an attempt to reconcile these two logics?  What the fuck is even going on?  Please help — I am rambling on too long. :)

love,

katie

9 Comments leave one →
  1. August 15, 2012 6:56 pm

    Of course, wrestle with an idea, force it out onto the page, and immediately find someone who wrote about it better than you! lol

    The Dialectic of Exploitation and Repression, Forms of Self-Organization, and the Avoidance of Vulgar Workerism.

  2. August 15, 2012 7:16 pm

    Also, I don’t talk a lot in this post about the work I’ve been trying to do, but here’s a snippet from a comment I left on the above Glittertariat piece:

    Lately I’ve been wondering about the possibility of starting a solnet that takes on both economic (boss/landlord) and political/cultural/anti-oppression work. Especially as a training ground for a holistic political education and recomposition of the class, paying special attention to youth of color and queer youth in the Bay. I feel like this could help knit together some of the best impulses of different strands of organizing: the cultural work that is important to our healing, sense of power, and transformation of social relations amongst ourselves; the direct action that can be a wonderful basis for relationship building; theory that is grounded in actual fights and creative projects; and the fast-growing potential to link up solnets from different towns to create trans-regional fights. I wonder what you think about an idea like that? seems like it might be the kind of vector which, as you say, could move beyond economism and simultaneously deploy “a common strategy of targeting patriarchy and white supremacy as key components of class composition.”

  3. August 16, 2012 11:07 am

    I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationships between these strategies……..and I often come back to Selma James’ Sex, Race and Class, the short piece that provides the fundamental interrelationship that I know. IMO James’ logic underlies Jomo’s piece. Here’s the intro quote:

    “There has been enough confusion generated when sex, race and class have confronted each other as separate and even conflicting entities. That they are separate entities is self-evident. That they have proven themselves to be not separate, inseparable, is harder to discern. Yet if sex and race are pulled away from class, virtually all that remains is the truncated, provincial, sectarian politics of the white male metropolitan Left. I hope to show in barest outline, first, that the working class movement is something other than that Left have ever envisioned it to be. Second, locked within the contradiction between the discrete entity of sex or race and the totality of class is the greatest deterrent to working class power and at the same time the creative energy to achieve that power.”

    I guess I fundamentally think that the history of anti-oppression and class struggle politics being separate is a sad testament to the degeneration of the parts of the US New Left that weren’t assassinated or exiled into two poles of dogmatic colorblind workerism and class-blind anti-struggle cultural politics…..so it’s like more of a question of unearthing/developing a healthy integrated politics that heals while fighting strategically, than one of how to relate these separate imperatives. Interested in engaging more later but I’ll stop for now, thanks for starting this conversation!

  4. August 16, 2012 12:56 pm

    Thanks for your thoughts, TF. I agree that James really made some major headway in revealing the interconnection among sex race and class (not so much ‘ability,’ as i think the disabled in her scheme are basically dependents and extra work for reproductive labor, would you say so?).

    At the same time, I think it’s interesting that her Wages for Housework campaigns and focus on reproductive labor doesn’t seem to have attained the same purchase, among Marxist revolutionaries, as the focus on key sectors of the employed/paid working class. Does that seem accurate to you? So the theory may be sound, but in practice it’s hard to reconcile. I’m interested in reading Silvia Federici’s new book Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle. I think part of the reason the title is arresting or noteworthy is because even though Marxist feminists have articulated (1) the ways that reproductive labor underlies and makes possible paid productive labor, and (2) the relationships between them (win a raise in wages? those buying groceries will give it back at the store), still it seems unclear what a key revolutionary strategic move from the reproductive realm would look like. (I feel like I’ve learned a lot about this from our comrade Katy: how the logic of striking or taking over the means of production doesn’t map neatly onto housework or domestic caring labor.) And that still seems to be the logic underlying Selma James’ argument, which I tried to get at above: You (women, Blacks) didn’t think you were essential to the economy, and therefore to class struggle, but in fact you are highly essential to it.

    Except what if you’re not? Do you still matter?

    I agree that an integrated politics of healing while fighting would be wonderful, but I have yet to see it myself, and I’m trying to figure out why. I hear folks calling for it beautifully and eloquently, but in practice… so I’d love to understand more deeply why the US New Left degenerated into poles, and especially the good reasons for this. Like, not just that feminism got trapped in white academic postmodernism (that’s too easy). But why cultural and basic-needs work, like spoken word poetry, urban farming/gardening, restorative justice and prison abolition might be speaking to important, felt truths about sex and race in ways that class struggle groups just aren’t right now. Maybe that’s what the panel speakers were talking about: needing to build alliances between the two poles. I really wish they had given examples of what they meant, because we asked them twice in Q&A to elaborate! I feel like their answer boiled down to: struggle is at a low level in the US right now. But what does that have to do with how we are going to bridge or integrate these important tendencies???? :)

    Anyway, thanks for talking through this stuff!

  5. sisonalidio permalink
    August 16, 2012 10:13 pm

    Hi there!

    I can’t at all speak from the particular revolutionary or movement place that your post addresses, so I hope that’s ok. I’m actually responding to this post and your post on Turning Wheel (http://www.turningwheelmedia.org/offering-ourselves-to-ourselves/) at the same time because I feel both posts stem from the same question.

    What if one of the issues is time and space? Or the here-and-now as opposed to either a romanticized past or an unknowable but possibly better future? Or does liberation necessitate a certain action and end, perhaps taking place in a linear developmental line, a temporal teleology?

    The “cultural” piece, or the “integrated politics of healing” piece, makes sense to me because it can be really practical. As can an elegant critique that’s not directly actionable or “political” in this sense of bringing down capitalism, or ending neo/colonialism or neoliberalism. First of all, structural dismantling hasn’t brought liberation in its fullest sense, for all peoples, in all moments. Secondly, sovereignty and self-determination require a re-orientation and re-thinking, within the time and space that is capitalist, colonial, heteropatriarchal & neoliberal. Within the here-and-now. No waiting for the all clear. Embodying and enacting sovereignty and corroding the power structures without the delusion that we are not made of the power structures (geek footnote to tumblr and Filipina theorist Neferti Tadiar: http://negationparty.tumblr.com/post/8573636829/o-o-o-low-end-theory-curate-replied-to-your-post-not). This is also practical because it is practice — and it is a practice that constantly refuses the logic that our sovereignty and self-determination is impossible, or must be on other people’s terms, or that we are suspect because of our complicity with and dependency on global capitalism & neo/colonialism. In direct contrast to these arguments, sovereignty is inherent.

    It is also inherently diverse, according to different people’s particular relations and claims to land, resources and location in time & space and to things like the (settler) state.

    For me, inherent sovereignty is a truth that exists outside of whether it will function to end the existing power structure (and power structures are as rhizomatic as resistance to them). I also think the two broad things you name *should* coexist without having to be reconciled. But something else occurs in sovereign space: the moment-by-moment, often fleeting, ending of delusion. And possibly of greed and hatred, too.

    In reference to your TWM post, Hozen Alan Senaulke quotes the same Dogen teachings on “offering ourselves to ourselves and others to others” in a piece on the Thanksgiving holiday and and another post on photography. Both of those posts identify dana as the first perfection of the bodhisattva. Generosity and the end of delusion! “When we suffer gratitude there is no room for domination.” (http://jizochronicles.com/category/guest-post/)

    Do you see the US revolutionary as a bodhisatvva?

    xo K

  6. sisonalidio permalink
    August 16, 2012 10:16 pm

    sorry, (geek) correction of misspelling: “bodhisattva.” an important word to spell correctly, it seems :)

  7. sisonalidio permalink
    August 16, 2012 10:17 pm

    Hi there!

    I can’t at all speak from the particular revolutionary or movement place that your post addresses, so I hope that’s ok. I’m actually responding to this post and your post on Turning Wheel (http://www.turningwheelmedia.org/offering-ourselves-to-ourselves/) at the same time because I feel both posts stem from the same question.

    What if one of the issues is time and space? Or the here-and-now as opposed to either a romanticized past or an unknowable but possibly better future? Or does liberation necessitate a certain action and end, perhaps taking place in a linear developmental line, a temporal teleology?

    The “cultural” piece, or the “integrated politics of healing” piece, makes sense to me because it can be really practical. As can an elegant critique that’s not directly actionable or “political” in this sense of bringing down capitalism, or ending neo/colonialism or neoliberalism. First of all, structural dismantling hasn’t brought liberation in its fullest sense, for all peoples, in all moments. Secondly, sovereignty and self-determination require a re-orientation and re-thinking, within the time and space that is capitalist, colonial, heteropatriarchal & neoliberal. Within the here-and-now. No waiting for the all clear. Embodying and enacting sovereignty and corroding the power structures without the delusion that we are not made of the power structures (geek footnote to tumblr and Filipina theorist Neferti Tadiar: http://negationparty.tumblr.com/post/8573636829/o-o-o-low-end-theory-curate-replied-to-your-post-not). This is also practical because it is practice — and it is a practice that constantly refuses the logic that our sovereignty and self-determination is impossible, or must be on other people’s terms, or that we are suspect because of our complicity with and dependency on global capitalism & neo/colonialism. In direct contrast to these arguments, sovereignty is inherent.

    It is also inherently diverse, according to different people’s particular relations and claims to land, resources and location in time & space and to things like the (settler) state.

    For me, inherent sovereignty is a truth that exists outside of whether it will function to end the existing power structure (and power structures are as rhizomatic as resistance to them). I also think the two broad things you name *should* coexist without having to be reconciled. But something else occurs in sovereign space: the moment-by-moment, often fleeting, ending of delusion. And possibly of greed and hatred, too.

    In reference to your TWM post, Hozen Alan Senaulke quotes the same Dogen teachings on “offering ourselves to ourselves and others to others” in a piece on the Thanksgiving holiday and and another post on photography. Both of those posts identify dana as the first perfection of the bodhisattva. Generosity and the end of delusion! “When we suffer gratitude there is no room for domination.” (http://jizochronicles.com/category/guest-post/)

    Do you see the US revolutionary as a bodhisatvva?

  8. August 18, 2012 2:13 am

    ah ah ah ah ahhhhhhhhhhh.

    :)

    i suffer gratitude.

    it seems like an inescapable paradox, the linear versus/and the field-of-everything, or sovereignty. a BPF co-worker was just putting it to me this way this afternoon: in one sense, everything is as it should be. and yet, dictators massacre entire villages.

    do you think — and this is an honest, open-hearted question — that sovereignty protects, has protected us from massacre?

    maybe that is not its purpose. which is okay. what confuses me is when i see folks doing things i see as sovereign, as amazing, as part of that temporal twist away from linearity and into nowness/allness, and yet the claim is that this sovereignty will lead to the telos, to the revolution. seems like the methods and the aim don’t exactly harmonize.

    relatedly: is enlightenment a telos? didn’t the buddha struggle hard to find a true path, determined and persistent, surpassing even the greatest spiritual teachers of his time? seems like the paradox, again, finds us in our practice: we really are working toward something, and yet there is nothing to work toward, since it is all here, now.

    sometimes this makes me feel glad and hydrated; sometimes it makes me feel discouraged and frustrated.

    it’s like, if a splinter enters my finger, i would like to take it out. this will not solve all my problems, but still, i would like to take it out. i would like to take out capitalism, please. i would like to give communism a real, healthy try, instead.

    maybe that’s not for me to decide?

    i want to read that linked piece; thank you for sharing. thank you for bringing this way of life back into me, even briefly. :)

    is the US revolutionary a bodhisattva? i think we are not advanced enough to choose to defer our own enlightenment for the sake of others, haha. but there i go with the “advanced” framework. this is probably why i gravitate toward these strains of theravada: they are fairly linear. it fits the way i see things. maybe i need to hang out with more zen and vajrayana folks!

    do u believe in progress? more to the point, do you think it’s ever a good idea to sacrifice a focus on sovereignty (and i say focus on because i hear you saying it’s inherent, so impossible to sacrifice sovereignty itself) for the sake of progress?

    big hugs and thanks as always,

    katie

  9. sisonalidio permalink
    August 20, 2012 7:51 am

    Hi dear Katie,

    I’ve been thinking all weekend about your question about if sovereignty can or ever has protected us from massacre.

    Your question invites listening to stories of structural violence and genocide. The patterns of depopulation and dispossession spur me, personally, to analyze how power works through direct violence to suppress, but also through violence to appropriate & condition life.

    The fact that I can only answer “no” to your question fills me with sadness. Maybe because I never thought of asking such a question and I’ve become accustomed to all the massacres that shape the histories I feel connected to.

    I’m not sure myself that sovereign space (what Kevin Bruyneel calls the “third space”) and practice are direct routes to a specific kind of revolution, but they do seem to accompany any kind of collective large-scale change. How to keep such a space and practice non-dictatorial, repressive, biopolitical etc is a critical concern.

    The ways of thinking and communicating & the praxis methods of people who inspire me are not reductively political. Relating and connecting to people forging their own sovereign path, space & practice is important so we can all strive to redefine all the analytical categories and methods in appropriate and skillful ways. The capacity to use & repurpose what we have and work with who is in the room is key to shaping a solution — ie, to take out the splinter.

    As for the linear telos of enlightenment, there’s also the circular path of the bodhisattva vowing to return again and again.

    much love & gratitude to you! ~ k

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: