I see your point, and I don't think I made myself clear enough in regards to the fact that destroying oppressive data is really only a single tactic amongst many to move towards an anarchist society.
Destroying data alone will only cause some major headaches for the system, but it won't really change anything. However, destroying data at the same time that general strikes are occurring, political prisoners are being liberated, workers are taking over factories, farmers are redistributing land, mass protests are occurring, creating mutual aid organizations (like creating free software) and workers cooperatives, etc., would do a *lot* to aid revolution.
Done within this context, targetted data destruction can be a nuclear weapon. Done outside of this context, it's more like a good strong louisville slugger.
"The urge to destroy is a creative urge." - Mikhail Bakunin. Yet, I'm not a nihilist, so I don't think destruction is the only part of revolution.
The point of doing so would be to do so in a revolutionary sense, not so much to make the current social system a little better, but to open up the possibility of completely changing to a new social system (specifically, anarchism).
During the Paris Commune of 1868, when the people of Paris declared independance from France, and created a city based (loosely) on anarchist-communist principles, one thing that people did was to break into government buildings and destroy public records.
This is how they got the support of the middle class (petit bourgois, or small business owners). Most small business owners are heavily in debt to the banks and landlords. By destroying that debt, they were given control over their business. Because this was anarchist-communism, the only stipulation was that they shared control with their workers.
That's basically my "inspiration" for putting forth this viewpoint.
Mao was a dictator, Kaczynski a murderer and a coward.
I'm not talking about destroying people, I'm talking about destroying power and the information used to maintain that power. I don't want to lead any revolution, because any sincere revolution has no leaders (thus, anarchism).
If you'd like to discuss those viewpoints, I suggest you bring up valid arguments, as opposed to making uninformed assumptions.
I urge everybody out there (especially those of you who are transhumanists) to read the criticisms of technology and society put forth by John Zerzan, especially "Future Primitive and Other Essays".
His books will definitely make you think (sometimes at a price, a good chunk of his work has a tendency to really piss me off), and make you question the role of technology in current society.
I began reading his work because I am writing a series of essays on technology and it's role in revolutionary movements, specificially left anarchist and anti-authoritarian ones. I felt that if I were to understand my own position, I should understand the other side of the coin (kind of like reading Marx and Rand when you consider yourself an Anarchist, or the Bible when you consider yourself to be an atheist).
I can't say he made a convert of me (at least not yet), but I can say that he's brought up some very interesting points about technology and how it is used to control society. It's because of these viewpoints that my own viewpoints have been further radicalized. While I support technology, I have come to the conclusion that oppressive technology and information (credit card debt, tracking information, prison histories, etc) must be destroyed, blocked, or circumvented in order for any real social progress to occur.
I'll elaborate more in the next few months, but I have to reiterate that Zerzan's writings, while sometimes infuriating, and not always perfectly coherent, are definitely worth reading.
Yes, you can get them at Amazon.com, but I would recommend that you, instead, support your local bookstore or anarchist infoshop.
we don't need a huge centralized government that can kill hundreds of thousands without thinking twice in order to save us from being killed by a gangbanger next door.
the state is the real terrorist. Michael Chisari mchisari@usa.net
There are those of us who apologize for neither state communism or capitalism. We think that, in the end, they are basically the same thing: People attempting to take control through power structures like government.
I say, abolish all government, eliminate authority, and move towards local autonomy and direct democracy. Nobody can represent the needs of you and your community better than you and your community, respectively.
If it suppresses too much it will eventually face a revolution. If it has too much freedom of expression it will (it believes) disintegrate into anarchy
You can't have any sort of "governing body" regardless of size, and anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of any sort of government, large or small, no leadership, no order. It's pure chaos. There's no way you can really be an anarchist and want "small self-governing communities". It should be "Every man for himself" in your eyes, if you really are an anarchist.
If you had taken the time to read the FAQ that I had linked, you would realize that you are completely incorrect. You are confusing anarchism with nihilism. A community which is directly-democratic, egaliatarian, and non-coercive, is self-governing and yet still anarchistic (ie, "No Rulers").
Honestly, don't make a statement like the above until you've actually educated yourself. Anarchism is a very substantial political belief that has a long and diverse history.
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?
When I was in Washington D.C. for the A16 actions against the IMF/World Bank, some activists from England and I had a conversation with a journalist from some corporate newspaper (I forget which). The argument was over self-censorship, the fact that most journalists know where their bread is buttered and are never censored because they know to never write an article which merits censorship.
Now, the journalist insisted that he had full freedom of the press, and could write an article on anything he wanted without getting fired (He did admit that it's very possible that the editors wouldn't print it).
I told him to challenge the assumption that he had complete freedom under the totalitarian structure of his workplace. I asked him to dig up a story on the parent company or a majority stockholder of his newspaper. Something really incriminating, which is easy since so many large corporations are involved in criminal activity.
If he got the article printed, then I would concede the argument to him, but if it got censored, or if he felt repurcussions for challenging the authority of his workplace, then I win.
His response? Something to the effect of "Well, I don't need to test my boundaries, because I already know that I have no boundaries."
Sure... it's hard to avoid doing that, tho, as I'm not well versed enough in anarchist thought to have an image of an anarchist society to apply them to.:)
Understandable. I'd say the best example of anarchist communities within our society are a) anarchist squats, b) camping trips, or c) open source software. Now, the problem is that all of these and more may capture the basic essence of anarchism, but they still keep with them the baggage of our society (drug use, anti-social behaviour, etc). But they come a lot closer than, say, the military.:)
(1) this assumes that I know enough of the people around me that this social understanding would actually have force. In *contemporary* society, that often isn't true --- I don't, for example, know my neighbors, nor have particular interest in knowing them; I don't see that changing in the near future.
A *huge* problem with society as it is: People just don't care about their neighbors. Honestly, I don't blame them. I'm currently living in a bourgois suburb of Chicago that I absolutely loathe. I have no reason to talk to my neighbors, nor would I want to.
A big part of anarchist organizing nowadays is not attempting to forcibly smash the state, but instead creating social groups (such as Anarchist Soccer with the hopes of getting people the hell out of their houses and into groups where people can talk.
Chumbawumba (yeah, their music sucks, but they're pretty cool anarchists, and they write well) wrote a great essay about how, the more society becomes privatized, and the more people are separated from eachother, the easier it is to control people. That's why churches are outlawed in a lot of South American dictatorships, not because of a hatred of religion, but because when people gather together, they start spreading ideas. Which is why the Internet is so damn dangerous.
(2) how does anarcho-socialism deal with the 'free rider' problem? (Boiled down to the essence, this is asking how you get your lazy/cheap housemate to buy toilet paper; more generally, it's a question about how you prevent people from profiting off of the efforts of others. Socialism doesn't have a good answer to this, and neither does capitalism [although it's more masked in capitalism, as the free riders *appear* to be productive]; does anarcho-socialism?)
If people, very simply, do not want to work *at all* (remember, work under anarchism is a very social affair, and definitely not the ridiculous grudgery that it is under capitalism and socialism), then the community at large is under no obligation to provide for him/her anything. Chances are, most communities would provide basic needs (clothing, food, housing), but you want Internet access? Electricity? Access to any other resource that the community helps provide? Well, then you might want to volunteer at the Internet Service Collective, or the Electricity Co-op, so that people don't have such a crappy impression of your work ethic.
Honestly, I doubt that very many people would go *their whole lives* without working. People get bored pretty quick with doing nothing. The idea of "freeloaders" is usually a scapegoat for people who's skills aren't "economically viable" or who are old or sick or disabled, or live in a place with high unemployment and very few jobs. Everybody can provide *something* to society.
Presumably I could use force to eject the person not paying rent, right? Unless they could use force to prevent me from doing so, or there were some *effective social sanction* against my doing so...
A community would have to make a commitment to non-violence. If anybody breaks that commitment, then the community has a right to defend the victim. Self-defense would be the only kind of "violence" that would be tolerated.
This is why anarchists are so often viewed as being violent. Many of the stereotypical anarchists-of-yore were part of a small movement called "propaganda-by-the-deed" that sought to use assassinations and bombings to extract revenge on people in power who had committed heinous acts of violence against the working class. The idea was to use these actions to spark revolution.
Most anarchists today see "propaganda by the deed" as a dismal failure, and definitely don't seek to resurrect the movement. Although nobody really feels particularly *sorry* for the industrialists who had hundreds of workers attacked and killed, and because of this were targetted by anarchists.
This is the center of the problem I have believing in anarchism -- I don't understand what, in the absence of a government monopoly on force, would prevent individuals from using force. I suppose you could depend on everyone agreeing not to use force --- but then the entire community is vulnerable to anyone who violates that agreement, and the incentive for individuals to violate it is going to be fairly high...
If a community of 5000 people agree to not use force, and 10 of those people break the agreement, would it be hard for the remaining 4990 people to step in? Remember, the majority of people do *not* like violence, and usually are never involved with anything more than a fistfight or two.
I'm no study of political theory, but this is certainly not what anarchy means to me! Does not anarchy support the idea of no government?
Right, governments are replaced with directly democratic, egalitarian communities. Laws are replaced with social understandings. Police and military are abolished.
So anarchists have faith in human nature, eh?
Not necessarily. Check out this quote:
It is the belief that power corrupts, and that people become irresponsible in their exercise of it, that forms the basis for much of their [anarchists] criticism of political authority and centralised power. Power must be dispersed they say, not so much because everyone is always good, but because when power is concentrated some people tend to become extremely evil.
John Clark, The Anarchist Moment
You believe that if there is no government, and no governing law, that the farmer is going to keep his tractor? What if the farmer down the road owns a bunch more land and has a gun? Can't he just take the first farmer's tractor? Heck, can't he enslave that farmer- and his family?
Violence == Force; Force == Coercion; Coercion.new->heiriarchy; Heirarchy != Anarchy.
When people use violence in order to increase their wealth, why that's called Capitalism, my friend.
Sorry I don't have time to go through you FAQ's, I really am interested to know if my take on anarchy is incorrect.
Definitely incorrect. Remember that anarchist thought goes back to the 1700's, and in many cases the Greek and Roman times (although I forget the name of the philosopher from that era). A lot of people have recommended anarchism for a long time.
I would highly recommend going through the FAQ. It's really a fantastic resource.
Somebody who wants to destroy government and replace it with a society based on equality and freedom is an anarchist. Somebody who just wants to destroy government, with no idea what to do afterwards is just a nut.
But the Anarchists I knew in College...boy...talk about trouble-makers. These cats not only disrespected authority (perhaps rightfully), but pretty much disrespected humanity in general.
A person can call themselves a "Christian", and yet be completely ignorant of what being a Christian means, no? Same with being an anarchist, anybody can call themselves an anarchist, and a lot of people do, but there is a minority who has no clue what it means. Usually, they're the drunk punk-rocker fashion anarchists who have never heard of Kropotkin.
Wow, cool: an interesting political debate on slashdot!:) [Feel free to take offline, if it's easier]
Nah, some of these slashdotters need to think outside the box once in a while.:)
Isn't that to a certain extent an artificial distinction? Example: assume I am single and live in a house which, under the current legal system, I own. I'm seriously injured in a car crash and hospitalized for two months; do I lose the ownership of my house while i'm in the hospital, because i'm not using it? Or (perhaps more realistic) what if i'm in a work situation that requires me to split my time 50/50 between two cities on the opposite side of the country, and I have a house in both cities?
Well, one thing that you're inadvertently doing is applying anarchist principles to a non-anarchist society. The whole idea of "work" is radically different under anarchism, but that's a whole other debate.:)
Whenever you try and apply anarchist principles to a decidedly unanarchist society, you get some really strange contradictions. This is why free software sparks so many debates, since it is based on anarcho-communist principles (communal ownership of production, rulerless organization, etc.), yet it exists within a capitalist society.
I'll try to address the question as best I can. If you're not going to be occupying the house for a long period of time, there is nothing stopping people from just moving in (especially if there is a severe housing shortage). The difference is that there probably will be a social understanding (under anarchism, violence enforced laws are replaced by social understandings about acceptable behaviour) that you shouldn't just move into somebody's house if circumstances have forced them out, but they will be moving back in.
In an anarchist system, who enforces the distinction between personal and private? If i'm buying a house from you, because you're moving to another city, how do you know if i'm going to use it (in which case it's personal) and not rent it out?
In an anarchist system, who enforces your ability to charge rent? Remember, the idea of anarchism isn't based on "who enforces what", but "what would happen if nothing was enforced?" The distinction between private property and personal property only exist because government helps make that distinction (which is why state socialism is such a dismal failure, because it doesn't fully understand the relationship between the state and capitalism).
I suppose that's one way to view it. On the other hand, usually they "own" the property because they made an agreement with someone else who owned it (say the first person was using it, to simplify) to exchange [x] for the ownership of the property; to invalidate that agreement would require violence of another sort, wouldn't it?
If there are four empty farmhouses, I can "buy" them from somebody who "owns" them, and that's fine, I can brag all I want about how I own four farmhouses. I can even rent them out, but what happens when the people who live in them refuse to pay rent? Who backs up the contract? What if somebody who needs a place to stay moves into the empty farmhouse? Who forces them out? Without violence, and by extension, without government, there is no such distinction. The only property that can exist is personal property. Michael Chisari mchisari@usa.net
I'm a bit unclear about the distinciton you're making here between private property and personal possessions --- clearly a toothbrush is a personal possession, and a house is private property; but what about a computer?
Both a house and a computer are personal possessions. The difference between personal and private is this:
Personal is based on using what you own. You use the house you live in, you use your computer, etc.
Private is based on *not* using what you own. When people "own" ten houses, do they use them? No, you can't possibly use more than one house at a time, so those other nine houses become "private" property. A person "owns" them only because a peice of paper backed up by the violence of the government says that they own them.
Most people even in the US don't have much property that is they either leave to rot, or pay people to use. That class of people is very small.
The idea of Capitalism is: Tool to the capitalist, computer to the capitalist, tractor to the capitalist, etc.
Communism is: Tool to the state, computer to the state, tractor to the state, etc.
Anarchism is: Tool to the worker, computer to the hacker, tractor to the farmer, etc.
That's how anarchists view the difference between private and personal property.
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
It doesn't matter to us, but of course it matters to the people who want to get elected!
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
If we were in the middle of a revolution, I would *very* strongly suggest that people not vote.
We hear constantly that the USA is a "democracy", as though everything that occurs in this society is due to the will of the people. This is completely false, and any basic knowledge of history and political science will prove this point.
Our state is an Electoral Republic. We choose, every so many years who will rule for the next term. In the case of the president, our vote can be completely overwritten by the Electoral College. Therefore, a Green Party candidate has no opportunity to win the presidency unless the Electoral College has a large contingency of Green Party members.
Average citizens have almost never had the opportunity to perform the actions necessary for a true democracy. Actions such as proposing legislation and voting directly on issues are left up to those who are elected, in the hopes that they will represent those who elected them. Unfortunately, as anybody who has studied centralized political systems will readily admit, they are very easily corrupted by wealth and power.
My contention is that this is how the "founding fathers" intended the process. We cannot forget that those who signed the Declaration of Independance and crafted the Constitution were not landless farmers, or slaves, or even independant merchants. They were wealthy aristocrats who came from well-endowed families. Thus, it was in their best interest to craft a political process that would serve the needs of themselves and those like them. Their goal was a "plutocracy" and they have certainly achieved one of the greatest plutocracies in history.
But intentions aside, there are many flaws with calling the U.S. a "democracy," since it ignores the fact that even the false electoral democracy exists only on the governmental level. The vote, whether in the false electoral sense, or the true and direct sense, does not exist when a citizen enters institutions such as their place of employment, or even public institutions such as public schools. "Democracy" is something that is distant, unattached, and meaningless, and yet it is immortalized in the rhetoric of the political parties.
True democracy cannot exist unless it is a) localized, with each community receiving the autonomy to make the decisions that affect their livelihood, b) pervasive, so that the vote is carried into every part of society, whether organization, production, education, etc., c) participatory, such that nobody is excluded from proposing ideas, modifications, or a repeal of what already exists, d) egalitarian, where no person is given greater weight over anothers, e) tolerant of dissent and disagreement, both of which are necessary for a healthy society, and f) when representatives are necessary, those representatives can be immediately recalled and replaced if they do not represent the will of those they represent.
The internet will not further the "democracy" that we currently have. It may open great possibilities for true democracy, but the electoral sham that we have to deal with cannot be reformed. It can only be destroyed and replaced.
I will not be voting in the next election, nor in any election after that. I refuse to give my name to a system which can so easily be diverted and corrupted. Does this imply that I am apolitical? Far from it. But in a system which insists that individuals cannot make a difference, I will use everything in my power to do so. If this means breaking their laws, so be it. There are ills that need to be cured, and apathy is the only criminal element in dealing with those ills.
The only way to achieve Universal Access.
on
Universal Access
·
· Score: 2
Ford may be giving it's employees computers, but what about the rest of America?
Those of us who make minimum wage in a dead-end job. Is Starbucks (the poster job of the "new economy") going to give computers to it's employees?
Are day-laborers and migrant workers going to get a free computer along with the $3 a day that they make?
What about the 40 million americans who live in poverty? Do you honestly think that the workplace (and most of america's poor are working poor, thank you Ronald Reagan) that refuses to give them a living wage will fork over a pentium II?
This is ridiculous. The idea of relying on corporations to "provide" such basic things as communication is very dangerous. Once they give you your computer, they have so many more avenues of exploitation, and even then, those on the very bottom (the people who could really use a computer in order to better organize themselves politically) never receive these supposed "benefits".
We are only people who can provide universal access with no strings attached. We're the ones who know which technologies can be implemented cheaply, we're the ones who have a commitment to both freedom of speech and freedom of information. We're the ones willing to open these things to *everyone*, regardless of race, class, gender or location. We're the ones with a little bit of disposable income.:)
The idea is to set up computer access cooperatives/collectives. Community owned, non-profit and collectively (read: directly democratic) run "libraries" where people can get full internet access, as well as access to different pc architectures to learn on, without fear of being censored or "watched" (remember how horrible a feeling it was to get in trouble in high school for being at a DOS prompt?).
Some people think that the only way things can get done are via a corporation or the State. I beg to differ. Voluntary groupings of individuals are the only way that projects are born and completed without the authoritarian baggage that the former two institutions insist on.
Somebody tell me, whatever happened to people's inherent need to question authority? Has social engineering become so powerful that we all feel that sitting back and accepting the actions of those in power, no matter how ridiculous, destructive or violent, is all we can do?
Somehow I hope that there is more to life than passivity and apathy.
No matter what justifications you or the government can pull out, the fact of the matter is that the people deserve better than having their "leaders" plotting on how to control them in case of some ridiculous possibility.
Remember, the same martial law that is supposedly meant to be used in case of a flood or y2k, can be used when people start to wake up to all the crap that our government is doing for the sake of corporate powers.
Ever question why small towns across america are getting military-grade vehicles and equipment? Does the government have the right to use our money to devise stronger and stronger ways to control us?
It would be funny if that mentality ended up killing Slashdot financially at the same time.
Ridiculously inflammatory rhetoric aside (opposing censorware does not imply that I wish to view pornography in libraries, it simply means that I oppose censorship), I think you're not looking at the big picture.
The financial existance of Slashdot, and even Andover.Net, is not nearly as important as preserving and extending the freedom that we, as individuals, deserve.
If Slashdot goes out of business fighting for what it believes in, I will forever admire their commitment to liberty. If they compromise in order to extend their corporate life, I don't think I (and many people) will ever be able to forgive them.
Michael Chisari mchisari@usa.net
Re:The irrationality of "the next big crash" omens
on
Irrational Exuberance
·
· Score: 3
There is little cause to worry.
"ATTENTION, AMERICA! EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE! PLEASE STOP CARING AND START WATCHING HOURS UPON HOURS OF WWF WRESTLING! YOUR LEADERS WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU!"
There *is* cause to worry, in fact there's a lot of them. We'll start with the easiest, which is the fact that the majority of the "safeguards", that you're referencing such as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 that made sure that banks and insurance companies stayed out of other markets, are being repealed left and right.
I'm telling you, the people in power are going absolutely apeshit this time around, and if there is a crash, this time it's going to be *big*. And it's not going to have anything to do with economics, I would guess, since the ruling economic institutions have found themselves to be able to keep things seemingly good no matter what happens...
No, if there's a crash, it will most likely be environmentally based. Think about the fact that we can eat over 30,000 different types of fruits and vegetables, but yet we focus on 30 specific types/strains? What about the fact that this group that we do rely on is becoming increasingly genetically modified, pesticide-ridden, irradiated, etc?
What about the fact that the World Water Forum has concluded that the next World War will probably be fought over access to clean water? What about the fact that, despite this, they're looking to privatize water supplies (rivers, lakes, oceans, etc) anyways?
The truth is that people and the environment are not governed by the rules of "the market", and either we can help destroy this economy of ours, or some horrid environmental issue will do it for us.
Also, look here for a perspective on the corporate state.
For how long are we going to watch people like Donald Fischer (The Gap CEO) exploit sweatshop labor and destroy old growth forests? How long can we let Monsanto have it's way with nature? How long will we allow the corporate press to wax ecstatic about an economy that's completely fake?
How long will we buy their bullshit before we turn around, find ourselves a big stick, and clock these bastards upside the head?
As for me? I hope for the land of do-as-you-please.
Michael Chisari mchisari@usa.net
Re:And where do all those dissenting voices come f
on
The Corporate Republic
·
· Score: 3
Interesting that all those left wingers are all from America. Perhaps it is only "evil America" that gives them the right to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they are.
Pardon my blunt response, but you're a fucking idiot.
For starters, there's groups like the CNT and FAI, which are anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist-communist trade unions, respectively. They are both based in France and Spain. And what about the Zapatista National Liberation Army, a (to some degree) collectivist anarchist federation fighting for freedom in Mexico?
I could go on, but the truth is that bottom-up politics will exist for as long as top-down structures exist.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, stop being one of the mindless masses.
Because it is human nature to have a pecking order.
What proof do you have of this? Because, according to just about the last 20 years of anthropology, humanity existed for the majority of time without "leaders" in the coercive sense, within egalitarian communities. Read some of the anthropologically-based essays of John Zerzan for some more information re: Human Nature.
Some people are good managers, others are good programmers. It's your job to find out what you are good at and like to do.
A good programmer is infinitely more important than a good manager. End of story. The only reason management even exists is because workers are deprived of their ability to work as individuals. By forcing people to work in order to survive, you then need to make sure that people are around to make them do exactly what you want them to. There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned, worker-run cooperatives in america that do just fine without managers or owners, and instead make decision via consensus or democratic vote (democracy, remember that?)
I would say that those who take the most risks earn the most money. They _SHOULD_ make most of the money.
What if it's not their money to begin with? What if they inhereted it? Furthermore, if you have $1,000,000 to your name, what's the big deal of having to put up $500,000? That's not a sacrifice. When you have nothing to eat, and you have to give up your freedom to work for another person's profit just to survive, *that* is sacrifice.
Do you realize that the CEO payscale to worker payscale ratio in the US is 419:1? Do you honestly think that CEO's are 419 times more important than the people who actually create products?
CEO's and stockholders offset your risk and liability of working for your self.
Liability? Haven't you learned anything from open source software? We don't even have to deal with issues of liability, because we write good software! Why? Because we're not motivated by profit, we're motivated by doing things right. Liability wouldn't even be an issue if people who are motivated by profit weren't cutting corners and lowering wages (thus, encouraging the production of crappier products) in order to make even more profit.
Please don't act as if these people don't work. You know better.
I can spend 16 hours a day writing random numbers on a peice of paper. Yes, it is tiring, and in a way, it is work. But is it productive? No.
Show me one product that a CEO has ever designed or produced in his time as a CEO. Production is the only force that is necessary in an economy. Everything else is administrative bullshit, and all that beauracracy only exists in order to justify the existance of administration itself.
Why do you think Dilbert is so popular?
They _MUST_ do it as a corporation, otherwise everyone that works for the "collective" is liable if they get sued.
It seems to work just fine for REI, Land o' Lakes, Ocean Spray, as well as numerous local cooperatives across America.
Hell, I would quit! Im mean money is money, but I would never allow someone to place my health at risk. They need to organize a union or gather up their things and move to where the jobs are.
What if you're an illegal immigrant after NAFTA screwed your home town over by pushing people off their land, and there were no jobs left, so you came to America. What if speaking out about sexual abuse, low wages, dangerous conditions, etc., will get you shipped back to your home country, where you will probably starve?
I would suggest that the bean pickers, soccer ball makers and sweatshop workers create a union.
Indonesia, Guatamala, Haiti. Mention the word "union" in these countries, and you will probably get tortured, disappeared, or killed. How? Why, by soldiers who were trained on american soil! Gotta love the capitalist state, no?
McDonalds pays $10/hr here in Nashville, its FAR above minimum wage.
You failed to notice that I didn't mention the payscale of McDonalds (which isn't $10 everywhere, and even if it is, is still far below a living wage of $16/hr), but the availability of jobs. In inner cities, there are no jobs! Which means that people who do have jobs will put up with basically any shit they have to in order to keep the job, because if they speak out, they get fired, and somebody else takes their job, and they're now unemployed.
Criminal negligence for not going to a silly protest that no one will remeber?
Criminal negligence for taking a bullshit, Rush Limbaugh, "blame-the-victim" attitude.
You should be locked up, because you have real convictions about these issues and yet I don't see you going to the inner city to teach these people how to manage their money, or going to these 3rd world contries and show them how to make themseleves economicly viable.
I'm working on an initiative in my community for taking kids out of the drug-filled violence-ridden high school, and starting a system of collective community homeschooling based on the teachings of A.S. Neill and Francisco Ferrer.
I am very soon going to be starting a low income student housing cooperative for the community college students in the area who can't afford the gentrified areas outside of the city.
We are also looking at starting a food cooperative as well
I am also talking with people about setting up a low power radio station in order to broadcast community debates, reports of police brutality, local music, and other local information.
But the main thing is that this paragraph above that you've written has revealed your true position. You feel that somehow these people need to be "made" economically viable. I wonder, have you ever read anything about institutionalized classism and racism in our society? Do you know about people like Amadou Diallo and Brian Deneke? Do you realize how hard it has become for *anybody* to move from one position in the social caste system to another, especially if you're a minority?
Do you realize that the greatest majority of shoplifters are the elderly?
You simply want to get attention for yourself and get on the font page of USA today.
Why, then, do anarchists wear masks at protests, and get very upset if people take our pictures without asking?
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, and I don't think I made myself clear enough in regards to the fact that destroying oppressive data is really only a single tactic amongst many to move towards an anarchist society.
Destroying data alone will only cause some major headaches for the system, but it won't really change anything. However, destroying data at the same time that general strikes are occurring, political prisoners are being liberated, workers are taking over factories, farmers are redistributing land, mass protests are occurring, creating mutual aid organizations (like creating free software) and workers cooperatives, etc., would do a *lot* to aid revolution.
Done within this context, targetted data destruction can be a nuclear weapon. Done outside of this context, it's more like a good strong louisville slugger.
"The urge to destroy is a creative urge." - Mikhail Bakunin. Yet, I'm not a nihilist, so I don't think destruction is the only part of revolution.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
The point of doing so would be to do so in a revolutionary sense, not so much to make the current social system a little better, but to open up the possibility of completely changing to a new social system (specifically, anarchism).
During the Paris Commune of 1868, when the people of Paris declared independance from France, and created a city based (loosely) on anarchist-communist principles, one thing that people did was to break into government buildings and destroy public records.
This is how they got the support of the middle class (petit bourgois, or small business owners). Most small business owners are heavily in debt to the banks and landlords. By destroying that debt, they were given control over their business. Because this was anarchist-communism, the only stipulation was that they shared control with their workers.
That's basically my "inspiration" for putting forth this viewpoint.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Mao was a dictator, Kaczynski a murderer and a coward.
I'm not talking about destroying people, I'm talking about destroying power and the information used to maintain that power. I don't want to lead any revolution, because any sincere revolution has no leaders (thus, anarchism).
If you'd like to discuss those viewpoints, I suggest you bring up valid arguments, as opposed to making uninformed assumptions.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I urge everybody out there (especially those of you who are transhumanists) to read the criticisms of technology and society put forth by John Zerzan, especially "Future Primitive and Other Essays".
His books will definitely make you think (sometimes at a price, a good chunk of his work has a tendency to really piss me off), and make you question the role of technology in current society.
I began reading his work because I am writing a series of essays on technology and it's role in revolutionary movements, specificially left anarchist and anti-authoritarian ones. I felt that if I were to understand my own position, I should understand the other side of the coin (kind of like reading Marx and Rand when you consider yourself an Anarchist, or the Bible when you consider yourself to be an atheist).
I can't say he made a convert of me (at least not yet), but I can say that he's brought up some very interesting points about technology and how it is used to control society. It's because of these viewpoints that my own viewpoints have been further radicalized. While I support technology, I have come to the conclusion that oppressive technology and information (credit card debt, tracking information, prison histories, etc) must be destroyed, blocked, or circumvented in order for any real social progress to occur.
I'll elaborate more in the next few months, but I have to reiterate that Zerzan's writings, while sometimes infuriating, and not always perfectly coherent, are definitely worth reading.
Yes, you can get them at Amazon.com, but I would recommend that you, instead, support your local bookstore or anarchist infoshop.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
we don't need a huge centralized government that can kill hundreds of thousands without thinking twice in order to save us from being killed by a gangbanger next door.
the state is the real terrorist.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
There are those of us who apologize for neither state communism or capitalism. We think that, in the end, they are basically the same thing: People attempting to take control through power structures like government.
I say, abolish all government, eliminate authority, and move towards local autonomy and direct democracy. Nobody can represent the needs of you and your community better than you and your community, respectively.
Anarchism FAQ
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
If it suppresses too much it will eventually face a revolution. If it has too much freedom of expression it will (it believes) disintegrate into anarchy
Would that be such a bad thing?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
You can't have any sort of "governing body" regardless of size, and anarchy. Anarchy is the lack of any sort of government, large or small, no leadership, no order. It's pure chaos. There's no way you can really be an anarchist and want "small self-governing communities". It should be "Every man for himself" in your eyes, if you really are an anarchist.
If you had taken the time to read the FAQ that I had linked, you would realize that you are completely incorrect. You are confusing anarchism with nihilism. A community which is directly-democratic, egaliatarian, and non-coercive, is self-governing and yet still anarchistic (ie, "No Rulers").
Honestly, don't make a statement like the above until you've actually educated yourself. Anarchism is a very substantial political belief that has a long and diverse history.
Damn idiots.
My sentiments exactly. Now go read the FAQ.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Not all libertarians are anarchists.
Okay, not to nit-pick, but actually, *no* libertarians are anarchists.
Anarchist = An Archos, or "No Rulers", which means that if you support capitalism (and the heirarchy that results from it), you can't support anarchy.
For more information, check out the Anarchism FAQ.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
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
FSF and GPL are squarely anti-business.
Is that such a bad thing, considering the fact that most (if not all) businesses are squarely anti-people?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
When I was in Washington D.C. for the A16 actions against the IMF/World Bank, some activists from England and I had a conversation with a journalist from some corporate newspaper (I forget which). The argument was over self-censorship, the fact that most journalists know where their bread is buttered and are never censored because they know to never write an article which merits censorship.
Now, the journalist insisted that he had full freedom of the press, and could write an article on anything he wanted without getting fired (He did admit that it's very possible that the editors wouldn't print it).
I told him to challenge the assumption that he had complete freedom under the totalitarian structure of his workplace. I asked him to dig up a story on the parent company or a majority stockholder of his newspaper. Something really incriminating, which is easy since so many large corporations are involved in criminal activity.
If he got the article printed, then I would concede the argument to him, but if it got censored, or if he felt repurcussions for challenging the authority of his workplace, then I win.
His response? Something to the effect of "Well, I don't need to test my boundaries, because I already know that I have no boundaries."
Thus, we have self-censorship.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Sure
Understandable. I'd say the best example of anarchist communities within our society are a) anarchist squats, b) camping trips, or c) open source software. Now, the problem is that all of these and more may capture the basic essence of anarchism, but they still keep with them the baggage of our society (drug use, anti-social behaviour, etc). But they come a lot closer than, say, the military.
(1) this assumes that I know enough of the people around me that this social understanding would actually have force. In *contemporary* society, that often isn't true --- I don't, for example, know my neighbors, nor have particular interest in knowing them; I don't see that changing in the near future.
A *huge* problem with society as it is: People just don't care about their neighbors. Honestly, I don't blame them. I'm currently living in a bourgois suburb of Chicago that I absolutely loathe. I have no reason to talk to my neighbors, nor would I want to.
A big part of anarchist organizing nowadays is not attempting to forcibly smash the state, but instead creating social groups (such as Anarchist Soccer with the hopes of getting people the hell out of their houses and into groups where people can talk.
Chumbawumba (yeah, their music sucks, but they're pretty cool anarchists, and they write well) wrote a great essay about how, the more society becomes privatized, and the more people are separated from eachother, the easier it is to control people. That's why churches are outlawed in a lot of South American dictatorships, not because of a hatred of religion, but because when people gather together, they start spreading ideas. Which is why the Internet is so damn dangerous.
(2) how does anarcho-socialism deal with the 'free rider' problem? (Boiled down to the essence, this is asking how you get your lazy/cheap housemate to buy toilet paper; more generally, it's a question about how you prevent people from profiting off of the efforts of others. Socialism doesn't have a good answer to this, and neither does capitalism [although it's more masked in capitalism, as the free riders *appear* to be productive]; does anarcho-socialism?)
If people, very simply, do not want to work *at all* (remember, work under anarchism is a very social affair, and definitely not the ridiculous grudgery that it is under capitalism and socialism), then the community at large is under no obligation to provide for him/her anything. Chances are, most communities would provide basic needs (clothing, food, housing), but you want Internet access? Electricity? Access to any other resource that the community helps provide? Well, then you might want to volunteer at the Internet Service Collective, or the Electricity Co-op, so that people don't have such a crappy impression of your work ethic.
Honestly, I doubt that very many people would go *their whole lives* without working. People get bored pretty quick with doing nothing. The idea of "freeloaders" is usually a scapegoat for people who's skills aren't "economically viable" or who are old or sick or disabled, or live in a place with high unemployment and very few jobs. Everybody can provide *something* to society.
Presumably I could use force to eject the person not paying rent, right? Unless they could use force to prevent me from doing so, or there were some *effective social sanction* against my doing so
A community would have to make a commitment to non-violence. If anybody breaks that commitment, then the community has a right to defend the victim. Self-defense would be the only kind of "violence" that would be tolerated.
This is why anarchists are so often viewed as being violent. Many of the stereotypical anarchists-of-yore were part of a small movement called "propaganda-by-the-deed" that sought to use assassinations and bombings to extract revenge on people in power who had committed heinous acts of violence against the working class. The idea was to use these actions to spark revolution.
Most anarchists today see "propaganda by the deed" as a dismal failure, and definitely don't seek to resurrect the movement. Although nobody really feels particularly *sorry* for the industrialists who had hundreds of workers attacked and killed, and because of this were targetted by anarchists.
This is the center of the problem I have believing in anarchism -- I don't understand what, in the absence of a government monopoly on force, would prevent individuals from using force. I suppose you could depend on everyone agreeing not to use force --- but then the entire community is vulnerable to anyone who violates that agreement, and the incentive for individuals to violate it is going to be fairly high
If a community of 5000 people agree to not use force, and 10 of those people break the agreement, would it be hard for the remaining 4990 people to step in? Remember, the majority of people do *not* like violence, and usually are never involved with anything more than a fistfight or two.
Food for thought, anyways.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I'm no study of political theory, but this is certainly not what anarchy means to me! Does not anarchy support the idea of no government?
Right, governments are replaced with directly democratic, egalitarian communities. Laws are replaced with social understandings. Police and military are abolished.
So anarchists have faith in human nature, eh?
Not necessarily. Check out this quote:
It is the belief that power corrupts, and that people become irresponsible in their exercise of it, that forms the basis for much of their [anarchists] criticism of political authority and centralised power. Power must be dispersed they say, not so much because everyone is always good, but because when power is concentrated some people tend to become extremely evil.
John Clark, The Anarchist Moment
You believe that if there is no government, and no governing law, that the farmer is going to keep his tractor? What if the farmer down the road owns a bunch more land and has a gun? Can't he just take the first farmer's tractor? Heck, can't he enslave that farmer- and his family?
Violence == Force;
Force == Coercion;
Coercion.new->heiriarchy;
Heirarchy != Anarchy.
When people use violence in order to increase their wealth, why that's called Capitalism, my friend.
Sorry I don't have time to go through you FAQ's, I really am interested to know if my take on anarchy is incorrect.
Definitely incorrect. Remember that anarchist thought goes back to the 1700's, and in many cases the Greek and Roman times (although I forget the name of the philosopher from that era). A lot of people have recommended anarchism for a long time.
I would highly recommend going through the FAQ. It's really a fantastic resource.
Somebody who wants to destroy government and replace it with a society based on equality and freedom is an anarchist. Somebody who just wants to destroy government, with no idea what to do afterwards is just a nut.
But the Anarchists I knew in College...boy...talk about trouble-makers. These cats not only disrespected authority (perhaps rightfully), but pretty much disrespected humanity in general.
A person can call themselves a "Christian", and yet be completely ignorant of what being a Christian means, no? Same with being an anarchist, anybody can call themselves an anarchist, and a lot of people do, but there is a minority who has no clue what it means. Usually, they're the drunk punk-rocker fashion anarchists who have never heard of Kropotkin.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Wow, cool: an interesting political debate on slashdot!
Nah, some of these slashdotters need to think outside the box once in a while.
Isn't that to a certain extent an artificial distinction? Example: assume I am single and live in a house which, under the current legal system, I own. I'm seriously injured in a car crash and hospitalized for two months; do I lose the ownership of my house while i'm in the hospital, because i'm not using it? Or (perhaps more realistic) what if i'm in a work situation that requires me to split my time 50/50 between two cities on the opposite side of the country, and I have a house in both cities?
Well, one thing that you're inadvertently doing is applying anarchist principles to a non-anarchist society. The whole idea of "work" is radically different under anarchism, but that's a whole other debate.
Whenever you try and apply anarchist principles to a decidedly unanarchist society, you get some really strange contradictions. This is why free software sparks so many debates, since it is based on anarcho-communist principles (communal ownership of production, rulerless organization, etc.), yet it exists within a capitalist society.
I'll try to address the question as best I can. If you're not going to be occupying the house for a long period of time, there is nothing stopping people from just moving in (especially if there is a severe housing shortage). The difference is that there probably will be a social understanding (under anarchism, violence enforced laws are replaced by social understandings about acceptable behaviour) that you shouldn't just move into somebody's house if circumstances have forced them out, but they will be moving back in.
In an anarchist system, who enforces the distinction between personal and private? If i'm buying a house from you, because you're moving to another city, how do you know if i'm going to use it (in which case it's personal) and not rent it out?
In an anarchist system, who enforces your ability to charge rent? Remember, the idea of anarchism isn't based on "who enforces what", but "what would happen if nothing was enforced?" The distinction between private property and personal property only exist because government helps make that distinction (which is why state socialism is such a dismal failure, because it doesn't fully understand the relationship between the state and capitalism).
I suppose that's one way to view it. On the other hand, usually they "own" the property because they made an agreement with someone else who owned it (say the first person was using it, to simplify) to exchange [x] for the ownership of the property; to invalidate that agreement would require violence of another sort, wouldn't it?
If there are four empty farmhouses, I can "buy" them from somebody who "owns" them, and that's fine, I can brag all I want about how I own four farmhouses. I can even rent them out, but what happens when the people who live in them refuse to pay rent? Who backs up the contract? What if somebody who needs a place to stay moves into the empty farmhouse? Who forces them out? Without violence, and by extension, without government, there is no such distinction. The only property that can exist is personal property.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
I'm a bit unclear about the distinciton you're making here between private property and personal possessions --- clearly a toothbrush is a personal possession, and a house is private property; but what about a computer?
Both a house and a computer are personal possessions. The difference between personal and private is this:
Personal is based on using what you own. You use the house you live in, you use your computer, etc.
Private is based on *not* using what you own. When people "own" ten houses, do they use them? No, you can't possibly use more than one house at a time, so those other nine houses become "private" property. A person "owns" them only because a peice of paper backed up by the violence of the government says that they own them.
Most people even in the US don't have much property that is they either leave to rot, or
pay people to use. That class of people is very small.
The idea of Capitalism is: Tool to the capitalist, computer to the capitalist, tractor to the capitalist, etc.
Communism is: Tool to the state, computer to the state, tractor to the state, etc.
Anarchism is: Tool to the worker, computer to the hacker, tractor to the farmer, etc.
That's how anarchists view the difference between private and personal property.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Then why do politicians spend so many millions of dollars and so much personal energy trying to get your vote? If your vote didn't matter, they wouldn't bother campaigning.
It doesn't matter to us, but of course it matters to the people who want to get elected!
Voting isn't all you can do, and it shouldn't be. But it's one thing, and it can be an important tool when combined with other methods.
As long as people don't just vote, sit back, and think they've changed the world, voting is fine. But for the most part, voting for leaders, especially since all the crap that has come out of it, usually sucks. For instance, what about Hitler, or the Bolsheviks being voted into power? How many dictators have been voted into power in South America because of deceptive campaigns?
If we were in the middle of a revolution, I would *very* strongly suggest that people not vote.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
We hear constantly that the USA is a "democracy", as though everything that occurs in this society is due to the will of the people. This is completely false, and any basic knowledge of history and political science will prove this point.
Our state is an Electoral Republic. We choose, every so many years who will rule for the next term. In the case of the president, our vote can be completely overwritten by the Electoral College. Therefore, a Green Party candidate has no opportunity to win the presidency unless the Electoral College has a large contingency of Green Party members.
Average citizens have almost never had the opportunity to perform the actions necessary for a true democracy. Actions such as proposing legislation and voting directly on issues are left up to those who are elected, in the hopes that they will represent those who elected them. Unfortunately, as anybody who has studied centralized political systems will readily admit, they are very easily corrupted by wealth and power.
My contention is that this is how the "founding fathers" intended the process. We cannot forget that those who signed the Declaration of Independance and crafted the Constitution were not landless farmers, or slaves, or even independant merchants. They were wealthy aristocrats who came from well-endowed families. Thus, it was in their best interest to craft a political process that would serve the needs of themselves and those like them. Their goal was a "plutocracy" and they have certainly achieved one of the greatest plutocracies in history.
But intentions aside, there are many flaws with calling the U.S. a "democracy," since it ignores the fact that even the false electoral democracy exists only on the governmental level. The vote, whether in the false electoral sense, or the true and direct sense, does not exist when a citizen enters institutions such as their place of employment, or even public institutions such as public schools. "Democracy" is something that is distant, unattached, and meaningless, and yet it is immortalized in the rhetoric of the political parties.
True democracy cannot exist unless it is a) localized, with each community receiving the autonomy to make the decisions that affect their livelihood, b) pervasive, so that the vote is carried into every part of society, whether organization, production, education, etc., c) participatory, such that nobody is excluded from proposing ideas, modifications, or a repeal of what already exists, d) egalitarian, where no person is given greater weight over anothers, e) tolerant of dissent and disagreement, both of which are necessary for a healthy society, and f) when representatives are necessary, those representatives can be immediately recalled and replaced if they do not represent the will of those they represent.
The internet will not further the "democracy" that we currently have. It may open great possibilities for true democracy, but the electoral sham that we have to deal with cannot be reformed. It can only be destroyed and replaced.
I will not be voting in the next election, nor in any election after that. I refuse to give my name to a system which can so easily be diverted and corrupted. Does this imply that I am apolitical? Far from it. But in a system which insists that individuals cannot make a difference, I will use everything in my power to do so. If this means breaking their laws, so be it. There are ills that need to be cured, and apathy is the only criminal element in dealing with those ills.
Frequently Asked Questions
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Ford may be giving it's employees computers, but what about the rest of America?
Those of us who make minimum wage in a dead-end job. Is Starbucks (the poster job of the "new economy") going to give computers to it's employees?
Are day-laborers and migrant workers going to get a free computer along with the $3 a day that they make?
What about the 40 million americans who live in poverty? Do you honestly think that the workplace (and most of america's poor are working poor, thank you Ronald Reagan) that refuses to give them a living wage will fork over a pentium II?
This is ridiculous. The idea of relying on corporations to "provide" such basic things as communication is very dangerous. Once they give you your computer, they have so many more avenues of exploitation, and even then, those on the very bottom (the people who could really use a computer in order to better organize themselves politically) never receive these supposed "benefits".
We are only people who can provide universal access with no strings attached. We're the ones who know which technologies can be implemented cheaply, we're the ones who have a commitment to both freedom of speech and freedom of information. We're the ones willing to open these things to *everyone*, regardless of race, class, gender or location. We're the ones with a little bit of disposable income.
The idea is to set up computer access cooperatives/collectives. Community owned, non-profit and collectively (read: directly democratic) run "libraries" where people can get full internet access, as well as access to different pc architectures to learn on, without fear of being censored or "watched" (remember how horrible a feeling it was to get in trouble in high school for being at a DOS prompt?).
Some people think that the only way things can get done are via a corporation or the State. I beg to differ. Voluntary groupings of individuals are the only way that projects are born and completed without the authoritarian baggage that the former two institutions insist on.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Somebody tell me, whatever happened to people's inherent need to question authority? Has social engineering become so powerful that we all feel that sitting back and accepting the actions of those in power, no matter how ridiculous, destructive or violent, is all we can do?
Somehow I hope that there is more to life than passivity and apathy.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
No matter what justifications you or the government can pull out, the fact of the matter is that the people deserve better than having their "leaders" plotting on how to control them in case of some ridiculous possibility.
Remember, the same martial law that is supposedly meant to be used in case of a flood or y2k, can be used when people start to wake up to all the crap that our government is doing for the sake of corporate powers.
Ever question why small towns across america are getting military-grade vehicles and equipment? Does the government have the right to use our money to devise stronger and stronger ways to control us?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
It would be funny if that mentality ended up killing Slashdot financially at the same time.
Ridiculously inflammatory rhetoric aside (opposing censorware does not imply that I wish to view pornography in libraries, it simply means that I oppose censorship), I think you're not looking at the big picture.
The financial existance of Slashdot, and even Andover.Net, is not nearly as important as preserving and extending the freedom that we, as individuals, deserve.
If Slashdot goes out of business fighting for what it believes in, I will forever admire their commitment to liberty. If they compromise in order to extend their corporate life, I don't think I (and many people) will ever be able to forgive them.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
There is little cause to worry.
"ATTENTION, AMERICA! EVERYTHING IS JUST FINE! PLEASE STOP CARING AND START WATCHING HOURS UPON HOURS OF WWF WRESTLING! YOUR LEADERS WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU!"
There *is* cause to worry, in fact there's a lot of them. We'll start with the easiest, which is the fact that the majority of the "safeguards", that you're referencing such as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934 that made sure that banks and insurance companies stayed out of other markets, are being repealed left and right.
I'm telling you, the people in power are going absolutely apeshit this time around, and if there is a crash, this time it's going to be *big*. And it's not going to have anything to do with economics, I would guess, since the ruling economic institutions have found themselves to be able to keep things seemingly good no matter what happens...
No, if there's a crash, it will most likely be environmentally based. Think about the fact that we can eat over 30,000 different types of fruits and vegetables, but yet we focus on 30 specific types/strains? What about the fact that this group that we do rely on is becoming increasingly genetically modified, pesticide-ridden, irradiated, etc?
What about the fact that the World Water Forum has concluded that the next World War will probably be fought over access to clean water? What about the fact that, despite this, they're looking to privatize water supplies (rivers, lakes, oceans, etc) anyways?
The truth is that people and the environment are not governed by the rules of "the market", and either we can help destroy this economy of ours, or some horrid environmental issue will do it for us.
Also, look here for a perspective on the corporate state.
For how long are we going to watch people like Donald Fischer (The Gap CEO) exploit sweatshop labor and destroy old growth forests? How long can we let Monsanto have it's way with nature? How long will we allow the corporate press to wax ecstatic about an economy that's completely fake?
How long will we buy their bullshit before we turn around, find ourselves a big stick, and clock these bastards upside the head?
As for me? I hope for the land of do-as-you-please.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Interesting that all those left wingers are all from America. Perhaps it is only "evil America" that gives them the right to voice their opinions, no matter how misguided they are.
Pardon my blunt response, but you're a fucking idiot.
For starters, there's groups like the CNT and FAI, which are anarcho-syndicalist and anarchist-communist trade unions, respectively. They are both based in France and Spain. And what about the Zapatista National Liberation Army, a (to some degree) collectivist anarchist federation fighting for freedom in Mexico?
I could go on, but the truth is that bottom-up politics will exist for as long as top-down structures exist.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, stop being one of the mindless masses.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Because it is human nature to have a pecking order.
What proof do you have of this? Because, according to just about the last 20 years of anthropology, humanity existed for the majority of time without "leaders" in the coercive sense, within egalitarian communities. Read some of the anthropologically-based essays of John Zerzan for some more information re: Human Nature.
Some people are good managers, others are good programmers. It's your job to find out what you are good at and like to do.
A good programmer is infinitely more important than a good manager. End of story. The only reason management even exists is because workers are deprived of their ability to work as individuals. By forcing people to work in order to survive, you then need to make sure that people are around to make them do exactly what you want them to. There are hundreds of thousands of worker-owned, worker-run cooperatives in america that do just fine without managers or owners, and instead make decision via consensus or democratic vote (democracy, remember that?)
I would say that those who take the most risks earn the most money. They _SHOULD_ make most of the money.
What if it's not their money to begin with? What if they inhereted it? Furthermore, if you have $1,000,000 to your name, what's the big deal of having to put up $500,000? That's not a sacrifice. When you have nothing to eat, and you have to give up your freedom to work for another person's profit just to survive, *that* is sacrifice.
Do you realize that the CEO payscale to worker payscale ratio in the US is 419:1? Do you honestly think that CEO's are 419 times more important than the people who actually create products?
CEO's and stockholders offset your risk and liability of working for your self.
Liability? Haven't you learned anything from open source software? We don't even have to deal with issues of liability, because we write good software! Why? Because we're not motivated by profit, we're motivated by doing things right. Liability wouldn't even be an issue if people who are motivated by profit weren't cutting corners and lowering wages (thus, encouraging the production of crappier products) in order to make even more profit.
Please don't act as if these people don't work. You know better.
I can spend 16 hours a day writing random numbers on a peice of paper. Yes, it is tiring, and in a way, it is work. But is it productive? No.
Show me one product that a CEO has ever designed or produced in his time as a CEO. Production is the only force that is necessary in an economy. Everything else is administrative bullshit, and all that beauracracy only exists in order to justify the existance of administration itself.
Why do you think Dilbert is so popular?
They _MUST_ do it as a corporation, otherwise everyone that works for the "collective" is liable if they get sued.
It seems to work just fine for REI, Land o' Lakes, Ocean Spray, as well as numerous local cooperatives across America.
Hell, I would quit! Im mean money is money, but I would never allow someone to place my health at risk. They need to organize a union or gather up their things and move to where the jobs are.
What if you're an illegal immigrant after NAFTA screwed your home town over by pushing people off their land, and there were no jobs left, so you came to America. What if speaking out about sexual abuse, low wages, dangerous conditions, etc., will get you shipped back to your home country, where you will probably starve?
I would suggest that the bean pickers, soccer ball makers and sweatshop workers create a union.
Indonesia, Guatamala, Haiti. Mention the word "union" in these countries, and you will probably get tortured, disappeared, or killed. How? Why, by soldiers who were trained on american soil! Gotta love the capitalist state, no?
McDonalds pays $10/hr here in Nashville, its FAR above minimum wage.
You failed to notice that I didn't mention the payscale of McDonalds (which isn't $10 everywhere, and even if it is, is still far below a living wage of $16/hr), but the availability of jobs. In inner cities, there are no jobs! Which means that people who do have jobs will put up with basically any shit they have to in order to keep the job, because if they speak out, they get fired, and somebody else takes their job, and they're now unemployed.
Criminal negligence for not going to a silly protest that no one will remeber?
Criminal negligence for taking a bullshit, Rush Limbaugh, "blame-the-victim" attitude.
You should be locked up, because you have real convictions about these issues and yet I don't see you going to the inner city to teach these people how to manage their money, or going to these 3rd world contries and show them how to make themseleves economicly viable.
I'm working on an initiative in my community for taking kids out of the drug-filled violence-ridden high school, and starting a system of collective community homeschooling based on the teachings of A.S. Neill and Francisco Ferrer.
I am very soon going to be starting a low income student housing cooperative for the community college students in the area who can't afford the gentrified areas outside of the city.
We are also looking at starting a food cooperative as well
I am also talking with people about setting up a low power radio station in order to broadcast community debates, reports of police brutality, local music, and other local information.
But the main thing is that this paragraph above that you've written has revealed your true position. You feel that somehow these people need to be "made" economically viable. I wonder, have you ever read anything about institutionalized classism and racism in our society? Do you know about people like Amadou Diallo and Brian Deneke? Do you realize how hard it has become for *anybody* to move from one position in the social caste system to another, especially if you're a minority?
Do you realize that the greatest majority of shoplifters are the elderly?
You simply want to get attention for yourself and get on the font page of USA today.
Why, then, do anarchists wear masks at protests, and get very upset if people take our pictures without asking?
Answer: Because media is not what we're after.
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net