> Global questions and definitions to be established: Some answers based on a workshop in Amsterdam during the CASA meeting, and through the exchanges in the elist chronos@euromovements.info

> What is a social and political mobilization ? (Or what is not a social and political mobilization?)

A collective action motivated by aims of social transformation oriented to this means: acting against injustice basing this on a capacity to feel empathy for other persons or groups even if not knew in a individual way,
and/or collective action for the right to experiment and increase the autonomy of the people involved in this action, a collective action doesn't need to be developed in a public space (streets, squares) to be a social and political mobilization, it can also be developed inside TAZ, squatted places, official meeting places, etc.

In our point of view, we perceive a huge difference between social and political mobilization driven as a single “autonomous” event pushed forward by an actor, a group or a social movement that develop this event for a sum of reasons that are mostly orientated to their performative action logic;
and the events that are developed by several actors, groups or social movements that wants to develop a transversal collective action, deciding together a set of common stimulating reasons, collectives actions to work on this initial motivation, and a place and a moment to meet and develop those collective actions orientated to specific common protests: that would correspond to a social and political mobilization planned as a process of confluence of the social movements.

We could also base ourselves in the definition that gives the AGP network to determine what is a social and political mobilization:

"A collective action think for social transformation is defined as based on this criterias:

1. A very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation.

2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds.
We embrace the full dignity of all human beings.

3. A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;
4. A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism.
5. An organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy." [source]

> What is collective memory from social movements’ perspective? (Or what is not collective memory?)

Collective memory is a process that does involved several actors, groups and social movements that aim to inform and communicate to other actors (from or outside the social movements and social transformation sfera in general) the contents, reasons and objectives of the social and political mobilizations they are developing. In this sense the collective memory is the process of producing, systematizing and spreading informations before, during and after the social and political mobilization. Always in that sense the collective memory corresponds to the desire of drawing together the living memory and/or the historical memory of the social movements using mostly alternative and counter cultural medias and mediums. The collective memory can also be defined as the results of those processes of production and circulation of social transformation, focusing in the tangibles results that are constituted by the contents, the formats and the media supports that do archive and keep them available. In our specific case the tangibles results taken in account will only be digital information available on the Internet structure.

> Chronos: is it “collective memory" from or for social movements?

"Mayo email , saturday 17 september:

[...] The title: “Collective memory for the social movements”. I would rather say,
“Social movements collective memory(s)”, perhaps even I would say “Social
movements trajectories collective memory(s)”.
- I think it is important to remark that this tool it is not an outsider of
the social movements, but rise from them (I can argument more this question
if necessary because I think this). So I would avoid to say “for” the social
movements.
- And I would stress at the title the multiplicity of the memories at the
social movements. So I would include the symbolic “S”. The proposal of
incorporate trajectory also is in this sense of stressing that there is not
an only one “memory” but many “trajectories” that came and build this
process.
Do you agree with these two reflections? Any other solution to incorporate
them into the title? [...]"

" Alex and Jul answer: saturday 22 september:

[..] We do agree about changing for to from : collective memory from the social movements, what do think people??
as i told the other day, i wouldn't change collective memory and put it in plural because it is a concept that already signifies multiplicity and swarm of personal inputs, representations and desires. In that sense, it is like the concept of « Multitude » that even in singular means basically a complexity of creative subjectivities [...] "

" Alex email: monday 26 september:

[...] i would like to higlight and interresting issue related with the name of the project. Actually it is called "Chronos:Collective memory for the social movements", mayo suggested it should be "Collective memory from the social movements", idea that i personally fully agree.
Afterwards, we did have a meeting with a friend of us, victor, the person mayo was telling it would be interesting to interview because he is an exemple of a person full of memory related to social movements. We were talking about the name of the project and victor told us something really interesting. In his opinion, the chronos project is right now a project driven by searchers (even if we are activist searchers), and it is not yet a project or tool that is appropiate by social movements. I agree with that of course.. always in his point of vieuw he thinks that we can't right now call it "collective memory from social movements" because, even if that is our wish, develop a tool that would be useful for collective action and social movements, it isn't like that now, so we would be half-lying, half practising the typical academic searcher appropiation of social dynamics for our own finalities... For those reasons, the actual title "collective memory for the social movements" looks more honest with what is now the project: an open activist research that aims to develop an olnine tool for the social movements, but that is still yet not used and appropiate by them, needing some time and dynamics to activate those appropiation.
All that conversation made me think a lot, so i would personnaly propose to keep "collective emory for the social movements" and to change it to "collective memory from the social movements" when the project would be living by its own because a lot of individuals or organisations would be using it, entering data inside... So i don't know what you think about that? I hope to get your opinions, meanwhile take a lot of care"

"Mayo email: mnday 26 september:

Hello:

How are you? I hope fine. I think it is very stimulating discussion related
to “for”, “From”, “by”, .
I recycled some notes I had as a contribution to it, because I think are also applicable to the Chronos Tool. Hope it helps of growing the debate.
Kisses, Mayo

"I don't think we are going to find the right solutions, the different options (for, from, by, about...) has its positives and its negatives senses. And for me the more opportune is “from”. Why?

I think there are different meanings when saying "for" social movements.
- One meaning referee to a tool that is done thinking to be used by groups and people inserts at the social movement’s way of doing. There is any problem with that, but for me is not enough to say for whom we do something.
I think it would be better to use “from” because for me is more important to referee to “how” something is being done in a whole than to referee just to for whom is being done.

- Coming back to the different meaning of for. There is an meaning that refers to the academic approach to the social movements (That is in simple terms: the movements are objects and not subjects of the research (can not participate on it), the research is directed to the academic community and not to the social movements....) I think it is out of sense to think that there are just two possibilities in reality (one to be academic, two to be activist/social movements) and to situate our self on the side of the academy. Is there something who thinks we are developing tools from an "academic framework"? I guess no, so I would not enter on this field. If I'm wrong and there is someone who thinks on these parameters please I would be interested to read your arguments. Although for me is clear we are not in academic approach, I think it would be good to make it clear at the name (because we don’t have an academic approach and because we critic the
academic approach) and if we use “for” it is not clear enough in this sense, and it is more clear if we use “from”.

There are different meanings also with “from”. I would like to make a clarification on what I’m referring with from.

- From doesn’t referee to talk representing to the social movements, we are not saying we talk as if we would be the subject social movements. The social movements are "movements", it is not possible to catch it and make to it an interview. There is not a representative opinion from the social movements, and there is not an intention from this tool to represent them, or act as the subject “social movements”.

- But there is a “way of doing” of the social movements. The way/principles this tools are organised is the same logic as a campaign/forum/indymedia is organised. It is open to participate, language is accessible, we take decisions by consensus,

So in conclusions I like “from”, because it referee to the way this tools are developed, to the method. A method that follow the same principles as other social movements activities, like the alternative media with media etc.

Of course the name is not the important question (in the bottom of this discussion about our slogan is the discussion related to our and the tools identity). If there is any other solution different to “from”, that expresses these ideas, I would be happy with it. In synthetic the ideas are:
- The tool is developed with the principals/way that characterise the social movements
- It doesn’t say that the tool is situated representing the social movements or that the tool is the “subject” social movements
- It is not developed from an academic approach and criticise it"