Slashdot Mirror

Well, utopians have been prescribing for the improvement of civilization since Plato, or earlier. The only time we've seen any change in the human condition was 1776 onward, in what became the US. It's debatable how long the change lasted.

Materially, we are incomparably better off than any previous generation. We can subsist with fewer hours of work than any previous generation (though most of us don't choose to live that way).

The only thing which seems to help on any other plane is what we call libertarianism: leave folks alone, prohibit theft and fraud, and they'll do the best they can. In the US, that worked for quite a few years. It produced the period you are idealizing. There was considerable corporate control then, and the corporations were far less restrained by law then than now. Look up the history of the wobblies for some details. They weren't much liked by the decent people of the day, for the same sort of reasons that the anti-globalization freaks who trashed Seattle aren't liked today.

http://www.iww.org/ [YOU WILL LIKE THIS]

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

STRIKE out lameness!

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.
We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.
These conditions can be changed and the interest of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all its members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.

I claim this post for the World Industial Union of Logged-In Trolls

Solidarity Forever!

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong.

CHORUS:
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.

Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.

It is we who plowed the praries; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;
But the union makes us strong.

All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.

In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
For the union makes us strong.

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong.

CHORUS:
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
For the union makes us strong.

Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.

It is we who plowed the praries; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;
But the union makes us strong.

All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.

In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
For the union makes us strong.

goat!

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation!

But it's not too late. In this case, it sounds like management was looking for the easiest way to please the stockholders with the least cost to themselves. If the employees let themselves get screwed, it will only get worse.

Imagine if management saw that the 50% cut would have repurcusions -- when they kick the employees, the employees kick back. Then, when they are doing their cost-benefit analysis, cutting employee pay has extra costs associated with it, forcing them to look elsewhere to please the shareholders. Of course, employees standing up for themselves might push the company under, but with a company like that, who really cares -- sure, you might lose your job, but better to lose it on your terms than to work for another year dreading layoffs, working longer hours for less pay only to show up one day to be greeted by security guards telling you to never come back.

If my company made such an announcement, I'd walk out with my coworkers -- let's see the board of directors keep their servers running and develop software. Fuck 'em.

But if you walk out, don't quit -- if you do it right, you can walk out at 10am and be back to work without a pay cut by 2pm. If you quit you're gone and most likely won't get your job back, but if you go on strike you have a few protections. And you don't need to be represented by a union to go on strike, though you will want advice from an experienced union organizer and/or labor lawyer.

Of course, you might just want to quit -- but rather than using that as a chance to yell at your manager, hit 'em where it counts. Organize with coworkers you trust and all quit at once. Companies can cope with losing employees in a trickle, but you can't replace your whole workforce from scratch.

As for who to talk to, I'd talk to WashTech or the IWW if they aren't in your local area, they can refer you to someone closer or give you some advice.

So if the "anti-globalization" movement isn't really against globalization, then what is it really about? It's against a new form of top-down globalization, where ordinary people are stopped at borders, but corporations are free to move jobs whereever wages are kept artificially low (due to lack of ability of most third world workers to move to democratic countries that respect workers' rights). The movement is against new organizations that can veto national and local laws, yet the people affected by these decisions have no power to elect representatives to these organizations.

In most if not all countries, things are stacked against ordinary people influencing the laws that affect their daily life. But in many semi-democratic countries, it is possible to change the laws if you spend many years building a large movement, forcing politicians to represent us. But imagine our surprise after finally having our voice heard, just the tiniest bit, only to have the WTO decide that our democratic rights are a violation of "free trade".

You don't have to be a much of a cynic to see the folly in saying "if you don't like the laws the current crop of politicians enacted, vote them out", but at least with local and national governments, that is an option. When the WTO creates new rights for corporations and destroys rights for people, there isn't even a pretense of the ability to "vote them out".

So, yes, I'm all about "globalism" or "internationalism" or whatever you want to call it. I'm just for a globalism controlled by the 5 billion or so people it affects. And this is hardly a new idea. Internationalism has been a fundamental aspect of the struggle since the early 1800's. We were fighting for it then, and we're fighting for it now. The Industrial Workers of the World had hundreds of members in Seattle to protest the World Trade Organization's idea of globalization, yet the IWW is as firmly committed to uniting working people across the globe as they were at their founding in 1905.

And, yes, I'm happy that some billionaire likes the idea of a kinder-gentler unelected organization controlling our lives in a way that benefits us. That sure beats the sort of thing billionaires are usually arguing for. But that's hardly a solution. Doesn't anyone remember all that "of the people, by the people, for the people," crap? So this billionaire wants some kind of international body "for the people" but presumably of and by unelected politicians and corporations. That's a third of the way there. Hell, I'd be happy enough if it was at least honest - one vote for every $100,000,000 of wealth.

As for how to get there... Free software is definitely one aspect of it. The general priniciple is people coming together and collectively creating and controlling the things that affect our lives. Free (as in speech) Software gives computer users the chance to opt out of Bill Gates' orwellian wet dreams, and it also demonstrates an alternative method of organization and creation. It even makes ideas of a sane future imaginable -- and, as a programmer, Free Software is the only method of software production and distribution that makes sense in a (hopefully not too distant) future where people are in charge instead of corporations. The general principle applies in all other spheres of life, as well -- joining together with others working at the workplace, in our communities, and so on.

The whole point of business is the bottom line.

Which is why you can't change a business by appealing to the owner/manager's sense of decency and ethics. Ultimately, you have to affect the bottom line. If a company does something illegal or otherwise anti-worker, the only way to get them to stop is to organize and fight back. When workers in an industry are organized, there is a special name for companies that treat their workers unfairly: failed.

That's why we should organize.

If you choose not to take the steps necessary to improve your lot, you have only yourself to blame.

Right on.

If we are organized and see that we are the ones that control how safe or comfortable our working conditions are, then we will see the value in staying vigilant. If the standards are in a law instead of a collective contract, then rather than keeping organized and putting pressure on employers, we will need to work to keep the incumbent politicians in power -- staying organized on the job will be irrelevant. And after a while, the politicians will have little incentive to keep the standards on the law books -- they just need to make sure they are the "lesser evil". Next thing you know, the laws are whittled down, the standards are gone, and we're disorganized and weak.

We don't need the government to do anything for us, and, in fact, they'll never have our best interests at heart. That's why we need to do it ourselves by organizing for our own interests.

Third, the seller sets the price no more or no less than the buyer - for a transaction to take place, there must be mutual agreement.

This is true if both sides have an equal need to reach an agreement and both sides are equally informed about the value of the work. And of course there would need to be equal negotiating skill.

Obviously someone who desparately needs a job is in a worse individual bargaining position than a company that has 500 employees doing the same work and wants to hire 1 more. While negotiating, the individual can walk away if wages or conditions aren't good enough, but the consequences are great -- possible eviction, children without healthcare, etc. But if the company refuses the individual's final offer, then the company is understaffed by less than 1%. That might mildly affect the morale and profitability of the company, but it obviously wouldn't be desparate. And the fact is, the one with the most ability to walk away from a bad offer is in a powerful position.

As for knowledge, it is difficult for an individual to learn the true value of their labor. While it is possible, most people aren't aware of what they are worth. And if you undervalue yourself, you are in a worse bargaining position. Imagine buying a used car, thinking the car is worth $5000 more than the salesman knows it's really worth - you will clearly pay more than you might have with more accurate information, just as if you knew the value and the salesman undervalued it by $1000 you'd end up with a bargain. And if a lot of people looking for a similar position undervalue themselves or are desparate, then suddenly your value goes down, even if you have accurate knowledge and are not desparate.

And, of course, negotiation is a skill -- if you've only negotiated three or four times for a salary, you won't be as skilled as someone that has done it a dozen times, or someone whose job it is to be a good negotiator.

This all adds up to most people being in a situation where it is not an agreement between equals. And this lowers the value of all of our labor, since we are only as valuable as someone that might be used to replace us.

So, that leads to the question -- how can we best increase our value, so that we are on an equal footing when reaching an agreement with an employer, or even tip the scale in our favor? For one, we need to ensure that the employer is more desparate than we are -- if refusing an agreement might put us on the street, then it would be best if the employer would risk going out of business if they refuse. We need to make sure that not only do we as individuals know what we are worth, but we need to make sure that all others that do similar work know their value. And we need to make sure that others have the skills needed to stand up for themselves. And to tip things even more in our favor, we need to lessen the risk of standing up for ourselves -- if one person stands up, the employer risks little by getting rid of them, but if we stand up together for issues we have in common, we have less risk and the employer has more.

Now, when I say we need unions, I mean it is in our best interests to organize together as I described above. We certainly don't need corrupt union officials or unions that spend our money on even more corrupt politicians.

But there are a lot of other options -- you can form an independent union, and make it as democratic and decentralized as you like, or you can find an existing union to your liking (there is a broad range both within and outside the AFL-CIO).

Personally, I recommend the IWW -- a union long known for being the most democratic and least bureaucratic of unions, with a constitution that forbids any entanglement with political parties.

The reason Invader Zim, Spongebob, and 2 other shows are being dropped has everything to do with 16 out of 19 writers signing union cards.

There is no unionization in the animation industry, and Nickelodeon means to keep it that way.

Nick staffers demand union representation

There was a story on yahoo! news last week that made the link clearer, but I can no longer find it.
--
Industrial Workers of the World

Join the Industrial Workers of the World, the Wobblies, and fight wage slavery!

You can't tell me that Nike and Ford created the environment that they are moving into. That's just preposterous, otherwise they would just create the environment within the United States.

The more hours you work, the less money you make, and the less ability you have to do anything about it, the more "competitive" your country is. And the fact is the U.S. is becoming more competitive every day. The average hours worked has been steadily climbing for decades with no sign of slowing, while wages in the U.S. have stagnated. We're working harder for less. Partly it is due to explicit actions of specific corporations, but mostly it is an indirect effect of the U.S. government acting in the interests of corporations in general, to the detriment of the interests of the vast majority of the American people.

But what can be done? Well, if the corporations are uniting globally to pursue their interests, maybe the rest of us should unite globally to pursue our interests? I don't pretend to have all the answers about a solution, but I do know that as isolated individuals we have little power and we'll all lose. One choice for organizing together globally is the IWW.

I got this link from a recent slashdot story. The gist is:

When faced with insane rules at work, follow them. To the letter. Follow the rules so religiously that NOTHING can get done and the powers that made the rules realized they overstepped themselves. They can not chastise you in any way because you are following the rules that they created.

http://www.iww.org/direct_action/s2.html

I am a software developer. I have been in the situation where the IT department did not give us access to do pretty much anything with our desktop machines except use the tools present. When absolutely nothing was getting produced in the department (well, it was, but at a snail's pace) and they realized why, we were once again given command over our desktop machines. Lesson learned.

Actually, this is an example of Work to Rule. It's a tactic often used in the workplace to win against a boss. Unionized workers often use the strategy when laws or contracts forbid strikes and other activities, but even non-unionized workers often use it to effectively protest (and eliminate) ridiculous rules.

While this current example won't take down the DMCA, the idea is that the DMCA will hurt U.S. corporations in the long run. Specifically, it will hurt the vast majority of corporations that don't get any benefits from the DMCA. We can only hope that these corporations give bigger bribes than the record and movie corporations.

In the 19th century, small farmers and landless farmers were forced off their land and into the factories. Now, software patents and other IP nonsense is making it more and more difficult for independent programmers and small businesses. Since we can't afford enough lawyers to own the patents for the software we create, we will be left with less and less choices. And already we're working 10+ hours a day.

It's time we stood up for ourselves and starting looking out for our own interests. It's time we started fighting back where we have the most power -- in our workplaces. As individuals, we can't change much, but at all the Microsofts, Adobes, AOLs, and IBMs, there are thousands of programmers that keep these companies running, that create the "intellectual property" these corporations value so highly. If we join together, we can take back some of our power and turn things around.

That's why we have to organize where we are most powerful. If programmers at Adobe had made it clear to management that they would not tolerate this sort of thing, it would not have happened. As programmers, we create the "intellectual property" these corporations are trying so hard to protect and monopolize. We have the power to create this software, so we have the power to bring it all to a halt.

And power is the only thing they are going to listen to. It's time we stood up for ourselves.

The problem is that while the "industry leaders" are organized to fight for their own interests, those of us that work for these "leaders" are not organized. Rather than spouting off as individuals, if we joined together and used our collective economic power, we can turn the tables. We are the ones that create and run the computers and software that this is all about, and if we join together, we can shut it all down.

Yeah, I know a lot of managers will flame me for talking union, but it is our only hope.

Unions are diverse I don't think that there is anyone on /. who believes that these so-called independent Unions are not all tied together by one common organization, know which one I mean Tony?

Uh, in the U.S., most unions are in the AFL-CIO, but some are not. The IWW for one. There is also the possibility of the workers in one company forming their own independent union with absolutely no outside influence.

Unions can better bad policy Do you like workers who have no motivation to do quality work? Do you like workers who have little or know fear of being fired? Do you like having to kiss the ass of every low-life Union supervisor just to get his people to do their job. Come on. Everyone has had experience with the wonderful work ethics of Union workers.

Without a union, employees in most states are "at will". That means that the boss can fire them for almost any reason or even no reason. With a union, you can have a fair procedure that managers must follow when firing someone. Which do you prefer? A workplace where you can only be fired if you do bad work or if you are causing problems for your coworkers? Or a workplace where everyone is either covering their own ass or kissing ass and you can be fired based on your manager's whims?

Unions give you a voice Yes, let's just remove any reward for being better at your job than the schlub next to you. We're all equal in the IT industry and should all be treated the same. While we're at it lets remove any competition completely and give everyone the same wages irregardless of their abilities.

Yeah, 90% of tech workers think they are in the top 1% and that all their co-workers are stupid. It's really quite embarrassing.

It is very clear that tech workers do not want everyone getting the same wage -- so why do you think that tech workers in a union would vote for such a contract?

If you have a manager that never makes unilateral decisions that you disagree with or are against your interests, then maybe a union isn't for you. It seems to me, though, that such a manager is rare, or you're so used to it and you have such a low feeling of self-worth that you don't ever think about what you would prefer.

Unions start with you Sure, I like your mentioning those "stupid management decisions" because we all know that management are just a bunch of idiots who don't know what their doing. You really need to wake up Tony. Management got to be management because they know how to get things done, something that the Unions seem to be very much against.

Ah. So either:

1. You are a manager.
   or
   
2. You want to be a manager, but aren't good enough.

How are these employers 'organized'?

The various business councils, industry groups, associations, institues, thinktanks, lobby groups, "independant" public policy research bodies. Check with your employer. If your employer isn't a member or funder of at least half a dozen of these kinds of organisations, along with your company's major "competitors", I'd be very surprised.

My impression is that the employers are cutthroat competetive with one another.

That's the fairy story. It's probably true when you get down to the level of two corner shops a block apart from one another, but major corporations are so riddled with "strategic alliances", that the idea of consumer market competition is ridiculous.

Capital market competition is another story. A while ago there was a front page story in the Australian Financial Review screaming that regulators need to allow more of Australia's banks to merge, for the sake of competitiveness. On the face of it, that may seem absurd. Fewer competitors = more competition. However, when you realise that corporations aren't competing for customers, they are competing for owners, it makes perfect sense. (These same banks, by the way, have just been caught colluding on employment contracts.)

When you're top priority is increasing the value of you're company's stock, in order to secure investment capital, it makes perfect sense to screw your customers, your employees, the general community, and collude with your "competitors" as much as possible. In a consumer market your competitors are people in your industry; your customers will dump you and go to them. In capital markets, industries don't matter. Your owners can dump your stock, and buy oil companies, candy manufacturers, tulip growers, it doesn't matter. So you and your "competitors" have a common interest in keeping your industry attractive to investors that, given the balance of power in today's world economy, far outweighs any consumer or labour market pressures most of the time.

You're right about capital mobility. If you go on strike in the US, your employer is quite willing to move overseas. Or beat you up, intimidate your family, kill you, whatever - it's all happened many times before.

Well, okay then. What's the answer? If, for example, the workers involved and the general community recognise that GPLing your code leads to better software and more of it, how do you get companies to agree to this if it erodes their inefficient (from everybody's perspective but the shareholders') monopoly control of "their" code, and they'll move offshore rather than see that happen? Obviously you need a global union.

The Industrial Workers of the World has been around for nearly a century, and despite extraordinary persecution, is getting stronger year by year. Check it out. I don't think anything about this is unrealistic, and what we might expect of democratically-run industry is just mind-boggling. Helping free software, if that's you're thing (It's mine), is just the tip of the iceberg.

Disclaimer: I'm a delegate with the IWW in Australia, so I know what I'm talking about. Some people might consider that bias. (AC wobbly who posted the parent, please email me).

So why is it that employers are able to force most programmers to sign contracts with all sorts of things that are against our own interests? The reason is that employers are organized and they have the power to hire or fire us. They use that power over us to get contracts that they like.

So what we need to do is organize and use our power (we provide the code, of course, and without that, they can do nothing) to get contracts we like. Yes, even with all the dot-coms going down the toilet, the top programmers can pick and choose companies to work for, and make a good contract part of the bargain. But most programmers are not in that position, to individually demand a good contract. On the other hand, together, we can demand a good contract.

And, to answer a question someone had, yes, contracts can be renegotiated at any time -- the trick is how to convince the employer that renegotiating is in there best interests? Well, if you are an individual, you can threaten to quit over it. That works sometimes, but if your company has 500 programmers, they won't miss you much, and don't kid yourself about your importance. Now, if 50 or 100 or 400 of the programmers got together and demanded a good contract covering IP issues, or whatever, then the employer's choices are more limited.

IWW

On the net, everyone has the possibility to have an equal say. But, being used to the traditional system, many people still go get their news from CNN.com and don't comment much. Others are too excited about being heard that they don't stop to think about what they say. It's still too new to everyone. But life has an incredible capacity to adapt itself. Things will change, and are changing. And everyone sharing ideas, debating opinions are reaching compromises is what democracy is all about. This can only be achieved on a local scale through physical meetings. And it can't be achieved through traditional medias. The net can make this possible, but the net is only a tool. Everything will depend on how it is used. Tools to not make revolutions. Humans use tools to make revolutions possible.

To summarise, the net is not a revolution: it is merely an instrument of the revolution.

Will the computer revolution bring about the victory of one class over another?

Right now, the financial elite is winning over the people. Most of you don't want to see it, but your beloved capitalism is leading us to totalitarism and the plain destruction of our Mother Earth. The net is an awesome tool for the people to inform and organize themselves to counter this. Do not expect it to do it by itself. And the technology doesn't discriminate and make itself unavailable to the masses and make them poorer and poorer. The elitism of the distribution system makes it that way. The internet could be available to everyone without any problem. And internet doesn't deceive my expectations at all. It only deceives those who wanted it to make them rich.

A revolution only leads to the same starting point if the people then put someone else in power. A true revolution gives the power to the people. Participative democracy is not only possible: it's the way to go if we want to reclaim our earth, society, freedom and happiness.

Related Links : An Anarchist FAQ - Independent Media Center - Mobilisation for Global Justice - World Social Forum - Industrial Workers of the World

Communications & Computer Workers IU 560, Local #23

Check out the IWW. Unions are social constructs that are beneficial to workers as corporations are social constructs that are beneficial to owner/managers. They can embody the characteristics, goals and values that those who form them have. Unions like all constructs can be useful or detrimental. I happen to believe that the existance of unions has advanced society a great deal. This is evidenced by our acceptance of 2 days off a week, payment for overtime, 40 hour work weeks and the fact that child labor is no longer accepted in developed nations.

It's not dumb unions, it's corrupt unions. I'm not neccessarily talking about Teamsters/mob stuff, either. I mean union bosses acting as another layer between capital and labor.

The AFL-CIO is a labor bureaucracy designed to serve the few, the piecards (paid union officals) by making deals between management and the workers. The structure of the mainstream unions in the US guarantees a structural corruption in unions.

Think about it, what a union is supposed to be: a union should be the workers themselves, united, in solidarity to achieve a common goal.

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. - IWW Constitution

- Paul in Seattle

Now, Kirk, you need to show me how this is possible. If my co-workers and I work together to create a product, and we ask for more than the product generates in income after expenses, then the company will go under.

Fact is, workers always take home only a small portion of the value they create. The capitalist keeps the rest for himself. Why?

Because he owns the company. But where did the get the capital from?

Look at the social nature of capital, that is, that it's a socially (or human-created) structure, and realize that even high-wage workers are being stiffed. Workers can have the whole pie, dammit...

Direct action gets the goods! http://iww.org/

- Paul in Seattle

Thanks to unions like the IWW, (an anarcho syndicalist union that people are free to join and leave at anytime) at the turn of the century we all have 2 days off in a week, have 40 hour work weeks and we are not expected to work before the age of 15. If the "free market" capitalists have their way thes and other labor attrocities will increase. Unions are social constructs which can exprees the desires of their constituents very well.As with all social constructs they have negative and positive attributes. I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives.

You're right. This is about the third article I've read in as many days telling me how lucky I am to work in this industry. Actually I burned out of this industry (not real programming to be honest - web stuff) a couple of years ago and haven't been able to face it since.

It's particularly ironic that this comes from someone who's been put out to pasture at Microsoft, where they specialise in competantly flogging the dead horses of genres developed years ago (probably by the same people they've poached and have set up in front of their production line).

Who's going to pay you? Ninety-nine percent of the time it's someone who's only concern is the bottom line, and who is only willing to place safe bets on adequate reworkings of ideas that have gone before. This applies to any work, not just games, not just IT. So you get your consolation from the technical challenges, which if you're able to ignore the big picture will probably save your sanity whether you're a games programmer, coding financial crap, or a burger flipper.

The only people I've seen who are happy with wage slavery are the ones who approach it like a crossword puzzle, and aren't in the least bit perturbed that what they are doing is at best pointless, if not wasteful and destructive. It pays not to be a big picture person.

If you're concerned about working in freedom, check out these people. I happen to be one of them. Work with others to liberate yourself.

"Unions are too corruptable and do more harm to employers and employees alike, they hamper creativity and initiative, thus they are incomaptible with IT workers."

Depends on your concept of a union. Unions take on as many forms as corporations, guilds or any social construct for that matter. Check out the IWW. Take a look into their history as well. Their concepts are very compatible with Bakunin.

Upon reading this article, my first comment was, "You know, if only there were a little more rotting meat, this would be The Jungle."

It's true that we've come a long way since the bad old days, but stories like this prove that corporations will take as much rope as we'll give them--and they're hanging us with it. We're skilled workers who are proud of our knowledge and abilities, and we can't afford to be treated like this.

The solution: unionization. While it's usually not associated with high-tech employment, it's helped countless workers reclaim their rights and is currently making inroads into the field. In fact, in the Bay Area, one is already set up.

It won't be easy, but that's just more evidence that you're going down the right path. No union is perfect, but they're fatal to labor practices like this. If businesses like this unionized, employment, it would be a great step towards making the industry a better place to work.

"An employer's goal is to get as much work out of the employee for at little pay as possible, and an employee's goal is to do as little work for as much pay as possible."

This isn't anyhting new it's just a paraphrase of the old IWW slogan "the working class and the employing class have nothing in common"; and nothing could be truer.

The reason Dilbert is so funny is because it's true.

Well it is somewhat funny. It is true, but he isn't saying anything new ... Dilbert tends to be a revelation to right wingers who always thought capitalism was just the bee's knees - until they actually started working for a living. Whatever.

--

Who may join the Telecommunication and Computer Workers Union? Any worker in the industry is welcome. Workers engaged in the installation, maintenance and operation of all forms of radio, television, telephone, cable, internet and satellite communications are part of the industry as well as computer programmers and operators. Technologies as recent as wireless data transfer and as old as telegraph communications make up the industry, as well as everyone in between. Together these different types of communication and information transfer form the network of communications that can keep us in contact with each other (if controlled and operated by the workers of the world) or keep us from contacting each other (if controlled by the bosses for profit).

I'm really glad that you pointed out the link to Homepower.com, because one of the things I've been thinking about is how communities can become more self-reliant and how we can eliminate single points of failure.

The power plant, right now, is a single point of failure, which is why it's so detrimental when it fails. Something like electricity has to be distributed.

My vision is a world of self-sustainable, self-governing communities, where worthless buildings such as McDonalds and Starbucks have either been replaced with miniature power plants or torn down to make way for community gardens and agriculture.

But that just might be the anarchist in me talking. ;)

One last thing, have any wobblies noticed that the image they use for Home Power is very *very* similar to the IWW sabotage cat?

Compare here and here.

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software.

This is just plain wrong. RMS supported himself financially by selling tapes of Emacs for a while. The man must know he's confusing (deliberately?) "speech" and "beer" here.

The unquestioned assumption running through this McCarthyite diatribe is that investors of money are entitled to rights that investors of work are not.

At the risk of sounding (gasp! swoon!) socialistic, the authors of commercial software in most cases don't sell their work, they sell their labour. They get paid a wage, and benefit not one whit from the monopolistic control over the use of the product of their labour that is granted to their employer.

Okay, maybe you can formulate an argument to support this. Maybe the work just wouldn't get done if there aren't benevolent capitalists donating money to worthy causes like Windows 2K. I think not. On the most obvious assumptions about how the world really works, commercial software fails any sane test of efficiency you can dream up:

• Decisions on which commercial software projects are to be funded are based on expectations of future return on investment, not on the needs of users.
• The cost of distributing free software is virtually nil (even physical copies can be shared around, reducing the cost of distribution). The cost of distributing shrink-wrapped license agreements, plus CD, plus inadequate "Quick-Start" documentation, plus cataloges of other products you might like to purchase, is high and almost totally waste. Even the administrative costs alone of running a for-profit organisation are huge, and add nothing to the value of the product.
• Commercial software marketing is market-distorting. Decisions on which product to use may ultimately rest on which publishing house has the most money to spend on promotion. An adequate product with a huge marketing budget will outsell a good product with no marketing budget. If you've got deep pockets, you're in a good position to control de-facto standards, and enhance your return on investment still further, to the detriment of the community.
• Commercial software is taxpayer funded. The profit margin on commercial software is a tax. It just goes to Redmond or wherever instead of Capitol Hill. Complaining that RMS used public money to develop Emacs, therefore Emacs is rightfully the property of MIT (although not, interestingly enough, the property of all taxpayers) is a load of piffle. Any software is publicly funded in one way or another.
• And on, and on...

As a system for generating public good, commercial software is hopelessly inefficient. However, as a system designed to increase and concentrate wealth and power into the hands of a few, it works fairly well.

The challenge for software developers with an intrest in seeing that their work is self-directed, in harmony with their talents, their interests, and their concern for the broader community, is to develop and disseminate an alternative view of society which recognises the true costs of totalitarian control of software and the benefits of freedom.

Matthew.

• Free Software: http://www.gnu.org
• Free Work: http://www.iww.org

that is why you need more democracy in the workplace

Alright, this is somewhat off-topic, but I was just wondering why the Mozilla team chose to use a red star (a symbol of state communism) as their logo. Wouldn't an anarchist black and red star be more appropriate? That is, if you're into using political iconoclastic images...

Just a thought...

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

However, politically... those of us who actually work in the industry rather than own it (realizing that some folks do both), have very little influence. Politically, we are all over the map with a general spirit of libertarian ethics with a distrust of the megacorporation ingrained into our psyche by personal expierence and cyberpunk literature we have been gobbling for the last two decades.

And, if we formed our own party in the single member-district system of the U.S (sorry, I know the rest of the world is more democratic with parlimentary systems) such would be a third party which would never gain any influence outside of local elections in California and the Pacific North West. We also, as workers, don't have the money to buy...er...lobby politicans. Easy example... if you and AOL/Time-Warner lobby congress about MP3s, who do you think is going to win?

No, fellow workers... we get paid so much because we have power. Power, untapped and unrealized. Middle-management was gutted through downsizing and our network connections have given rise to more "just-in-time" capitalism. Our skills , if you believe the Software Labor Shortage Myth are in such short supply that we can not train and import workers fast enough. Imagine if we can collectively come to agreements in which we decide what things we will work for and will not. Not only can we have influence over technology, but a host of other things that need geeks to be accomplished.

Our power is in action, not the ballot box. We can vote with our feet. We can strike (here is the source. We can slack and slow down. We can sick-in. We can boycott. We can Direct Action. We can be as Electornically Civilly Disobedient, and we can be... it works like we did with Low Power FM through an organized political campaign of radio piracy, we were able to sieze part of the spectrum from corporate monoplization for community interests. We can break mass media blackouts of information, by making our own media, like we did in Seattle, and like we'll do again in DC.

Are you tired of 60-hour work weeks? Of corporations making deals with politicans to undermine over-time pay and encourage permatemping? We don't have to be slaves.

Are you tired of technology developing that penalizes both the worker and the consumer, to the benfit of a handful of the rich and power... anybody remember the Java Class War? Where was our class in that? Complaining about how the standards needed to be independent of propietary control, and largely doing nothing about it! We need to take control of training and make it clear that it is those of us work in the industry that can figure out who knows what, rather than some profiteering third party or a way for leading software companies to gouge folks for certification!

We need non-profit employment services (or hiring halls) so we can dump our contracting companies (ie. pimps, job sharks, etc... ) once and for all.

We need to organize, and organize in a way that maintains our autonomy and democratic values. We don't need any union bosses, telling us what we can and can't do... but we do need to be in solidarity with our fellow workers so we can support each other in struggle. Who among you wouldn't strike to help the workers in hardware manufacture to get a better shake? Some more pay, a safer environment, etc... Who among you wouldn't refuse to work, if you knew by refusing for a short time you could bring in ecological sound practices. We can bring on the Viridian revolution, but innovation won't be enough... we have to force the issue and force companies to clean up their mess.

We have to become responsible, or we have noone to blame for how bad work is but ourselves.

Solid,

Flint

Baltimore IWW Telecommunications and Computer Workers IU560

(San Francisco, Toronto)

Also check out: Syndicat de l'Industrie Informatique, Washington Technical Workers Alliance, FACE Intel, Alliance@IBM, BITE Division of NWU (Business - Instructional - Techincal - Electronic).

We Can Win! No Nerds, No Birds!

However, politically... those of us who actually work in the industry rather than own it (realizing that some folks do both), have very little influence. Politically, we are all over the map with a general spirit of libertarian ethics with a distrust of the megacorporation ingrained into our psyche by personal expierence and cyberpunk literature we have been gobbling for the last two decades.

And, if we formed our own party in the single member-district system of the U.S (sorry, I know the rest of the world is more democratic with parlimentary systems) such would be a third party which would never gain any influence outside of local elections in California and the Pacific North West. We also, as workers, don't have the money to buy...er...lobby politicans. Easy example... if you and AOL/Time-Warner lobby congress about MP3s, who do you think is going to win?

No, fellow workers... we get paid so much because we have power. Power, untapped and unrealized. Middle-management was gutted through downsizing and our network connections have given rise to more "just-in-time" capitalism. Our skills , if you believe the Software Labor Shortage Myth are in such short supply that we can not train and import workers fast enough. Imagine if we can collectively come to agreements in which we decide what things we will work for and will not. Not only can we have influence over technology, but a host of other things that need geeks to be accomplished.

Our power is in action, not the ballot box. We can vote with our feet. We can strike (here is the source. We can slack and slow down. We can sick-in. We can boycott. We can Direct Action. We can be as Electornically Civilly Disobedient, and we can be... it works like we did with Low Power FM through an organized political campaign of radio piracy, we were able to sieze part of the spectrum from corporate monoplization for community interests. We can break mass media blackouts of information, by making our own media, like we did in Seattle, and like we'll do again in DC.

Are you tired of 60-hour work weeks? Of corporations making deals with politicans to undermine over-time pay and encourage permatemping? We don't have to be slaves.

Are you tired of technology developing that penalizes both the worker and the consumer, to the benfit of a handful of the rich and power... anybody remember the Java Class War? Where was our class in that? Complaining about how the standards needed to be independent of propietary control, and largely doing nothing about it! We need to take control of training and make it clear that it is those of us work in the industry that can figure out who knows what, rather than some profiteering third party or a way for leading software companies to gouge folks for certification!

We need non-profit employment services (or hiring halls) so we can dump our contracting companies (ie. pimps, job sharks, etc... ) once and for all.

We need to organize, and organize in a way that maintains our autonomy and democratic values. We don't need any union bosses, telling us what we can and can't do... but we do need to be in solidarity with our fellow workers so we can support each other in struggle. Who among you wouldn't strike to help the workers in hardware manufacture to get a better shake? Some more pay, a safer environment, etc... Who among you wouldn't refuse to work, if you knew by refusing for a short time you could bring in ecological sound practices. We can bring on the Viridian revolution, but innovation won't be enough... we have to force the issue and force companies to clean up their mess.

We have to become responsible, or we have noone to blame for how bad work is but ourselves.

Solid,

Flint

Baltimore IWW Telecommunications and Computer Workers IU560

(San Francisco, Toronto)

Also check out: Syndicat de l'Industrie Informatique, Washington Technical Workers Alliance, FACE Intel, Alliance@IBM, BITE Division of NWU (Business - Instructional - Techincal - Electronic).

We Can Win! No Nerds, No Birds!

However, politically... those of us who actually work in the industry rather than own it (realizing that some folks do both), have very little influence. Politically, we are all over the map with a general spirit of libertarian ethics with a distrust of the megacorporation ingrained into our psyche by personal expierence and cyberpunk literature we have been gobbling for the last two decades.

And, if we formed our own party in the single member-district system of the U.S (sorry, I know the rest of the world is more democratic with parlimentary systems) such would be a third party which would never gain any influence outside of local elections in California and the Pacific North West. We also, as workers, don't have the money to buy...er...lobby politicans. Easy example... if you and AOL/Time-Warner lobby congress about MP3s, who do you think is going to win?

No, fellow workers... we get paid so much because we have power. Power, untapped and unrealized. Middle-management was gutted through downsizing and our network connections have given rise to more "just-in-time" capitalism. Our skills , if you believe the Software Labor Shortage Myth are in such short supply that we can not train and import workers fast enough. Imagine if we can collectively come to agreements in which we decide what things we will work for and will not. Not only can we have influence over technology, but a host of other things that need geeks to be accomplished.

Our power is in action, not the ballot box. We can vote with our feet. We can strike (here is the source. We can slack and slow down. We can sick-in. We can boycott. We can Direct Action. We can be as Electornically Civilly Disobedient, and we can be... it works like we did with Low Power FM through an organized political campaign of radio piracy, we were able to sieze part of the spectrum from corporate monoplization for community interests. We can break mass media blackouts of information, by making our own media, like we did in Seattle, and like we'll do again in DC.

Are you tired of 60-hour work weeks? Of corporations making deals with politicans to undermine over-time pay and encourage permatemping? We don't have to be slaves.

Are you tired of technology developing that penalizes both the worker and the consumer, to the benfit of a handful of the rich and power... anybody remember the Java Class War? Where was our class in that? Complaining about how the standards needed to be independent of propietary control, and largely doing nothing about it! We need to take control of training and make it clear that it is those of us work in the industry that can figure out who knows what, rather than some profiteering third party or a way for leading software companies to gouge folks for certification!

We need non-profit employment services (or hiring halls) so we can dump our contracting companies (ie. pimps, job sharks, etc... ) once and for all.

We need to organize, and organize in a way that maintains our autonomy and democratic values. We don't need any union bosses, telling us what we can and can't do... but we do need to be in solidarity with our fellow workers so we can support each other in struggle. Who among you wouldn't strike to help the workers in hardware manufacture to get a better shake? Some more pay, a safer environment, etc... Who among you wouldn't refuse to work, if you knew by refusing for a short time you could bring in ecological sound practices. We can bring on the Viridian revolution, but innovation won't be enough... we have to force the issue and force companies to clean up their mess.

We have to become responsible, or we have noone to blame for how bad work is but ourselves.

Solid,

Flint

Baltimore IWW Telecommunications and Computer Workers IU560

(San Francisco, Toronto)

Also check out: Syndicat de l'Industrie Informatique, Washington Technical Workers Alliance, FACE Intel, Alliance@IBM, BITE Division of NWU (Business - Instructional - Techincal - Electronic).

We Can Win! No Nerds, No Birds!

Finally, nerds have realised something. It's something that's not a very easy thing to come to terms with, but it'll change your outlook once you do.

No matter how many zeroes we may have on the end of our paychecks, we are still working class

Not middle class (which doesn't really exist outside of tax forms), not ruling class, not even managerial class, but working class. This is simply because, we actually produce the products, we actually create the wealth. And how does our society (more importantly, the people with the wealth) treat people who create the wealth?

They may wine and dine us if there aren't many of us. But they're always looking for ways to find people who'll work for less, take more shit, and be even more scared of being fired than you are. Whether that means farming out work to India, or hiring students right out of college, or via other means, they're doing it. But in the meantime, we have power, right? Wrong. One thing that people in power have never willingly granted the working class is power. Once we start challenging their power, they'll ask the restaurant bouncer to throw this bum out on the sidewalk, because they're through wining and dining.

So how do we fight these people (the "Ruling Class", if I may use a term popular in anarchist/socialist discussion) and their profit-driven concepts of intellectual "freedom" and "property", which are completely at odds with our definitions? We have money, that's true. But think about the truly idealistic and skillful hackers. The Tim Berners-Lee's, or the Linus's, or the Steve Wozniak's. Some have made a very decent chunk of change, but nothing compared to Jim Clark, Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. And definitely nothing compared to the RIAA, the WTO, or the MPAA.

I don't have a complete solution, but a step in the right direction is greater collaboration with other working class people. Whether it's construction workers (throw out any classist preconceptions you have; which would you rather associate yourself with, a construction worker who's more than willing to get their hands dirty and get some work done, or some manager in an expensive suit that reads email all day and pays for luxury trips on the company credit card?), biotechnologists, telecommunications workers, or anyone else who actually accomplishes something in their nine-to-five. More importantly, anybody who is upset by how the corporation they work for is distorting their work and using it for unethical means (this could be everyone from GM to Amazon.com to Monsanto to Disney).

Think about it. Geeks aren't the only ones pissed off by the actions of the rich and powerful.

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. - Preamble to the IWW constitution.

Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net

...where you can get arrested, get labeled as an anarchist, get an arrest record, pay a whopping fine, give ammunition to those forces calling for a state crackdown, and go home having accomplished nothing but feeling like you've accomplished something.

You're saying that Seattle accomplished nothing? That the university occupations haven't accomplished anything? That the 9-month long UNAM student occupation was worthless? That the Zapatistas should just give up and vote for somebody different in the next Mexican election? Where have you been?

By the way, I am an anarchist, and a wobblie too.

Oh yeah -- before you flame me, let me point out that I've been an activist since the early '80's and have been helping to build the Michigan Green Party for the last 7 years. I know what I'm talking about -- been there, done that. I don't disagree with your ends -- just your means.)

Ah, so you're a Green. Great, why don't you just keep writing your letters and soliciting donations, voting for candidates that have been proven ineffectual, and hoping that you can make capitalism more "environmental" and "caring" any more than you can make the marxist state "egalitarian" and "democratic."

Meanwhile, I'll be focusing on things a little bit more realistic.

Protest is to effective political change as masturbation is to sex -- it feels great, but there's no chance at a long-term effect.

Either you skipped history class completely, or the class you enrolled in was taught using the John D. Rockefeller Approved (tm) Curriculum of the Bosses ©.

Go read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Protest, striking, sabotage, etc., are all very strong parts of our history,and they're the reason you're able to write emails to fellow "Greens" who have faith in the capitalist system that otherwise would have you working in a sweatshop.

You don't get things accomplished by continually demanding and attacking. At some point you have to get off the streeets and take to the ballot box!

Why, so I can choose my temporary dictator? That's not democracy, and it is definitely not freedom.

Be one of *them*, not just some hippydippy-wannabe, who thinks that simply being morally correct is going to change anybody's mind.

If you'd like to be an ineffectual liberal (probably middle-to-upper class, I'm betting, as most Greens are), that's your choice. The fact of the matter is that a couple of days of lockdowns, occupations or strikes would accomplish the kind of awareness that Greens haven't been able to attain with years of working "within the system".

Michael Chisari

I'm talking to actual hard-nosed programmers here when I say that those fancy CEO/CTO/CFO/CBO/CZO/Whatever's don't actually *do* any work. All you Slashdotters know what I'm talking about: They read email, they talk on the phone, and they make 419 times more than you. Open Source/Free Software is a perfect example of how much better things can be when we rid ourselves of these parasites...

"It's the workers who own the means of production" - Anonymous worker ant from 'Antz', although I think somebody else said it before him.

I don't know how many times I have to put forward this idea, but maybe it's time to start thinking about the General Strike.

Maybe we wouldn't be striking for more money. Maybe we'd be striking for more control over our lives. Or maybe we'd be striking for idealogical reasons, like the whole DeCSS fiasco. Or maybe we could do what the students at the UNAM in Mexico did, and demand everything.

I'm not saying we should do this tomorrow, but at some point, our collective wages are going to drop. Maybe companies will start outsourcing to India and Singapore more often, maybe the market will get glutted with programmers (who know what they're doing, as opposed to being glutted with VB programmers), maybe the demand for programming will go down due to a recession.

Industry wide strikes work, they have proven themselves effective in history (learn about Seattle 1919 and the struggle for an eight hour work day that unfortunately has become meaningless in our industry). It's a thought. I have a feeling conditions will have to get worse (worse?!? about all we have going for us now is a decent income, but sometimes that's based on worthless stock options that'll never happen) before people in the tech industry wake up and wrestle the keyboards from their managers and CEO's.

I say, why wait until that happens to start thinking about it? Why not start planning now?


Michael Chisari

A simple search on Google reveals that there are some engineering unions in the world, and following a link shows that they even do things.

reveals that there are some engineering unions in the world, and following a link shows that they even do things. If you're interested in unionizing, don't go for those beauracratic, "we don't want to strike because then us union leaders can't take bribes" unions. I say, become a wobblie, one of the few unions out there that won't comprimise until the whole system is in the hands of the workers...

That's http://www.iww.org again, if you missed it.

Michael Chisari

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

So what do you do when all mediums are controlled by large corporations?

You see, people always think that government is the sole threat to free speech on the Internet, and it is a threat, but it's not the only one. Industry could, conceivably and very possibly, create a barrier-to-entry so high (the reason the internet is so free and inspiring is that the barrier to entry is so low) that the few who can afford to run a website are the ones who control the majority opinion.

You've already seen that happen with television, radio, and newspapers. They're all controlled by conglomerates who create economic barriers to competition. And since it's usually an oligopoly, and not a monopoly, and since it's not technically holding people back (by force of law) from free press, people claim that this is still a free country.

I say, stop bothering to get up and arms when the government claims it can censor or control the internet. They can't, they don't know how. But industry does, because they've been censoring and controlling mediums for years. It's nothing new to them. It's not oppression, they say, it's economics. But whatever they call it, the end result is the same.

So how do we combat this? We need to do all we can to keep the cost of the Internet down. At times like this, Free Beer can equal Free Speech. Linux, and the cooperative in San Francisco which sells T1 lines at cost is a fantastic example, and I wish I could see more situations like this crop up. It would also be nice to see the computer industry unionise but that's a whole different post.

In the end, if you don't want to see the Internet get gobbled up into the stomachs of the bloated plutocrats, it is up to you to make sure it doesn't happen. Keep the internet cheap and open to anybody, and you'll insure that the internet will be cheap and open for your own needs.

Michael Chisari

From the article, you'd think that the only people who care about politics are "Tech Bosses" who have enough money to lobby politicians with. Perhaps its just that The Economist think its perfectly acceptable that politics is only who can buy which politicians and why... thats not democracy, its an indictment against the corruption in our political system.

The competing interests they talk about are the competing interests of corporations. How it could ever seriously talk about small nimble companies and the death of big business has got to be some kind of joke. Faster than the Federal government (with continually increasing powers and budget) can bust trusts and monopolies, are they not combining into larger and larger corporations.

About the only thing Big that they were right about getting small is Big Unions. This is largely their own damn fault, becaused they stopped being unions that fought on the job and became political machines, lobbying groups and pension/insurance plans. And, suprise, they never have the money to buy politicians like corporations can. Which is ultimately why efforts like Washtech are doomed as long as they try and compete with corporate money in electoral politics. Ofcourse, anti-democratic practices, corruption, organized crime, capital flight to the third world (GATT, NAFTA and the WTO), and being outmoded by new technology have heart Big Labor alot.

If unions are to ever work for geeks, they've got to be portable, decentralized, democratic, focus on direct action (instead of electoral lobbying), free (like in speech, not beer) and of a generally anti-authoritarian/libertarian culture. They've got to be willing to fight over issues like censorship (remember when the Web turned black against the CDC?), privacy, spam, standards, accessiblity, etc... I only know of couple humble attempts at that.

The complete cyberpunk fake book has a better hold on geek politics than the Economist. Fringe parties... if geeks are in parties are all... are like the Libertarians and the Greens. The number of out right anarchists growing in the industry is pretty astounding.

Most geeks don't identify themselves with any particularly ideology (and certainly not any party). They have a patchwork of issues they care about, if they vote registere independent or which ever party has dominance so they'll have a better choice during primaries. Political geeks would rather take action, or support their local communities, in the streets. If geeks want to get rid of propietary software, they out evolve it, they don't try and lobby it away; Anarchism Triumphant! If they think corporations have bought up to much radio spectrum, they help people take the airwaves back from FCC sellout. Or take out satellites.

But none of these things are politics, as far as The Economist is concerned. But then, civil disobedience is pretty hard to buy off.

When geeks start applying what they are already doing on other issues to work... then you'll really begin to see something. Syndicalism might get a rebirth for the new millenium yet.

Demand the Impossible!

Yeah, and damn Bakunin and Proudhon straight to hell for ever even *considering* writing books about anarchism. I mean, anarchism just happens, right? People aren't supposed to think or plan, they're just supposed to go straight to smashing the state and capitalism without ever understanding the impetus of the situation, or how to help progress and structure society following the revolution, right?

Whatever. You obviously have listened to too much psuedo-anarchist punk music.

Understand the history of free socialism, and call yourself an anarchist if that's what you believe in. How in the world would the anarchist movement progress if no "true anarchist" proclaimed themselves to be one?

Your rhetoric reeks of ignorance. Please help out at a Food Not Bombs or organise your workplace into a radical union. Otherwise, stop wasting your time labelling those of us actually involved in the movement as "posers". Thank you.

Michael Chisari