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?
Andrew Carnegie was able to use his Pinkertons and strike-breakers to crush the Homestead steel strike because he had government sanction
If you'd paid attention in history class instead of reading the cliff notes, you'd remember that the Pinkertons got their asses thoroughly kicked when the townspeople organized against them. It was only after the national guard was called in that the strike was broken. Same for the Ludlow massacre, they were holding out until the National Guard came in.
This is why governments exist, to *aid* large corporations. In order to oppose government, you have to oppose the whole reason that it exists, and that is capitalism (concentrated ownership of resources). As much as Libertarians think that removing government wouldn't topple capitalism, it would, and that is why no matter how much multinationals may bitch and moan about taxes and (diminishing) regulations, they realize that government is absolutely necessary in order to protect their own interests. Look at the WTO, it's all the multinationals doing their best to make sure governments are dwindled down to purely military and police operations, which will be orchestrated by the rich.
Contrary to the beliefs of Libertarians, welfare moms are *not* the reason that goverment exists.
I imagine the "indigenous people" of Mexico are, since those jobs are now theirs.
Okay, normally I wouldn't bother responding to such reactionary bullshit, but I have to clarify the lie that he's spouting...
Mexicans *DO NOT* want our factory jobs! They do not want to be pushed off their land and forced to work in factories, they view it as dehumanizing and unnatural (go figure!). Why do you think the Zapatistas in Chiapas were more willing to revolt against Mexico as opposed to accepting the neo-liberal policies of NAFTA?
Don't tell me that Mexicans are happy now. Their culture isn't as deeply rooted in materialism and superficiality as ours, and as such they don't find their happiness in buying a cheap television set after working 14 hours for less than living wage in an unsafe factory (Mexico has very few labor/environmental laws, remember, the reason that the companies move there).
Before you start going on about how Mexicans are *so* happy to be able to work for a living (as opposed to working for themselves), go down to the Yucatan and talk to some of the young girls who work in sweatshops, or to the indigenous Tzotzil speakign people who are being forced off their land and into poverty.
And don't even get me started on genetically modified crops. Aw what the hell. Science knows *very little* about the effects that GMO's will have, and as such, it doesn't matter if they can create billions of pounds of food if it all ends up being wiped out by some natural factor that nobody foresaw, or if it causes cancer. Instead of pushing this bastardized technology down their throats, give the people their land back and let them start growing *real* food.
Using carefully engineered acts of terrorism-for-profit as an indicator of market failure is about as accurate as proudly placing the word 'libertarian' next to the word 'socialist'.
Protecting your health and the health of your people isn't terrorism. Terminator seeds are terrorism.
And secondly, if you had taken the time to even click on the link that I had provided you, you'd know that Libertarian Socialism (aka, Anarchism) has a much longer and involved history than modern day Libertarianism will ever have.
You, sir, have no idea about the history of free socialism. In other words (and if you had read the link I had provided you), Anarchism. A complete rejection of all forms of coercion and authority.
Please do your research and open your mind just a crack before you start spouting off like a twit.
Libertarianism is, for the most part, an Internet political party. It doesn't really exist outside the white, middle-to-upper class internet.
Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but for the most part, I can almost guarantee you than an out of work steelworker or logger in the pacific northwest isn't singing the praises of the free market. Neither are the students at the UNAM in mexico, or the indigenous peoples of Ecuador.
I totally agree with the idea of no government intervention, but for a much different reason than most American Libertarians. With no government intervention, corporations have little-to-no power against the people. Remember, Pepsi never bombed any cities because they've never had to do it themselves. That's what governments are for.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that corporate power is frightening as hell, so I don't think the Libertarians are going to gain many converts in the coming years by going on about how public services should be privatized or eliminated, all the while being conspicuously silent about corporate welfare. The free market has failed quite a few people, and people are starting to understand that, and take matters into their own hands (Yahoo Search: "Monsanto Karnataka").
Oh yeah, and here's a surefire way to stump a Libertarian: Ask them about labor issues. What happens if there's a general strike and workers halt production? What about factory occupations? What about sweatshops in a "free market?" Upon whose shoulders does the world *really* rest? Labor? Or CEO's?
And the labor issue to top them all: What about the Pinkerton Thugs, the Ludlow Massacre, and every other example of corporate aggression before the government started doing it's dirty work on a daily basis?
I'm posting this here because I submitted it, and (oddly enough) it was rejected. I think it's something that Slashdotters would be very interested in.
It's good to know that Microsoft is a firm believer in free speech. And riot police. Free speech and riot police, they believe in both of them.
Sometimes maybe it's useful to get companies together when their services can complement each other. Can anybody name one real reason why Time/Warner and AOL shouldn't merge if their stockholders want them too? Isn't this a free country?
If you're a corporation, a CEO, or a majority stockholder? Yes, this is a free country. Not only free, but a country willing to bend over backwards to do your bidding.
If you're a person, and not worth seven figures, then no, this is not a free country.
Anyway, if they don't like being conglomerated, or if it doesn't work out, they can just separate again, and we'll be back to where we are now.
What if they don't like it? What if we don't like it? What do we do? Boycott them? How do we boycott a corporation that has their hands in hundreds of different markets?
There's more to this world, and to living life, than money and the "free market." Just because corporations feel that they should be able to do anything unfettered by morality or the needs of people, doesn't mean we should support them.
Anarchists fall into three main categories: Individualist/Philosophical/Egoist/Libertarian Communist Syndicalist
Erm, I had a long-winded response, but then I remembered that this isn't usenet.:) Basically, I like individualist economics on a community level (ben tucker), but I also like the way syndicalism fosters interraction between communities.
But in any case, back to the point...
Food Not Bombs are cool though - ideology in action!
Definitely, they're one of the reasons I've never identified with Liberals. I don't like whining about problems and not doing anything about it. Food Not Bombs actually *does* something about hunger. Very cool.
Note, I am not being defeatist, just warning that strikes that challenge authority in a half-assed manner usually end up being squashed unpleasantly and then, rather than being radicalised people are frightened off. Even situations where there is mass popular support (Allendes' govt) can be squashed by the plutocrats (admittedly with US help).
I wasn't really referring to a *full* general strike throughout all industries, just a general strike within the high tech industry, where we basically all strike for a certain amount of time to scare the hell out of the people in charge...
Open Source is a revolution? I hope so. I like your spirit! DOn't listen to me! Fight on!
Nothing short of a revolution. I think a couple of decades down the line we're going to look at open source software and Linux as being one of the greatest unintentional social experiments of all time.
And I'll definitely fight on.:)
Speaking of, my little brother just told me that they're installing eight video cameras and hiring two security officers to watch the cameras all day at his high school, because of Columbine. I'm going to be doing my best to be helping him organize a little (civil, possibly) disobedience at his school so they can't do it.
If anybody feels they can help me out in any way possible, please email me at mchisari@usa.net. Thanks...
I posted this recently, but I'd like to post it again, because the Linux Journal article is related to my point here. I think that, no matter whether linux users choose to move that way, we will be pushed towards stronger radicalism, in our beliefs, our tactics to retain our right to free speech/code, etc.
The good thing is that, unlike most activists and radicals, we're in a *very* strong position, because the stock market, and the economy in general has bet the farm on the industry we work in...
Imagine what were to happen if, in protest of the recent attacks against the linux community, we were to coordinate a general strike?
Even more powerful is another possibility, what if great portions of the industry took large paycuts in order to work on free software?
We may not always be at the forefront of our economy, IT jobs may move wholesale to India where wages are much lower. If you don't think it'll happen, I'm sure I could introduce you to a GM worker in Flint, MI who thought the same thing about his job in the 70's. But for the time being, we are a very strong force in the economy, and because of that we have a responsibility to protect freedom.
In any case, here's my post from a while ago. Think about it, and remember that whether you consider yourself a right-Libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, or an Individualist Anarcho-Syndicalist, you and your peers (the linux community) will have your freedoms attacked, and it will radicalize you. Think about it...
--
Which means you should prepare to face a barrage of court orders, attacks on individual freedom, attempts to bottleneck the Internet, and arrests of prominent Open Source gurus.
It's quite possible. I'm not saying it's definite, but the possibility exists. Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future attempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
One of the popular Linux slogans has been "Welcome to the Revolution." So welcome - and welcome to the front lines. Prepare to duck!
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression', society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer society.cc: function.
But in the end, the choice of what causes to support and the support for them comes from individual people.
Don't you find it odd that the same corporations which promote the class-divide and ecological destruction would be aiding charities to solve said problems? McDonalds makes billions off of unskilled labor (especially in inner cities where it is abundant and desperate), and pays minimum wage (less if they could). They also clearcut rainforests for cheap grazing land for their beef. Does that make a donation on their part to a poverty- or environment-oriented charity in any way sincere?
I think something that people don't realize (but Linux helps) is that we don't need corporations! We can do things without shareholders, CEO's and upper management. In fact (and nerds realized this a long time ago, some would even argue back in high school), they're the ones keeping us from moving forward. Bureaucracy and heirarchy just get in the way of being able to do really cool stuff.
Personally, I am a bleeding heart libertarian. I want government out of the charity business, and I give generously to charities that I think are getting it right.
If you ever find yourself leaning in a more radical direction, remember that there is an alternative to both government and capitalism.
Do you expect the secret police to come knocking on your door because you speak out about US government abuses? Didn't think so. The situations are not even vaguely comparable.
Have you ever heard about COINTEL PRO? Look into it.
In the end, it will benefit both sides and make both sides more free.
Sometimes I wonder if right-Libertarians really hear what it is they're saying. In theory, yes, free trade *should* help everybody. But in the corporate capitalist economy that the US is trying so desperately to impose on other unwilling populations (just because the government is willing doesn't mean the people are), theory and reality are very opposed to eachother.
The theory is that free trade helps everybody. The reality is that since NAFTA, the economies of countries like Mexico and Ecuador (keep your eye on the current beginnings of a revolution in Ecuador) have been devastated, despite the fact that a large amount of our factory work has moved there.
Opening up trade with China will not make China a free country. More importantly, giving the WTO power over China is definitely not going to help either, although I don't think there are many labor or environmental laws in China that can be repealed.
Think really hard about the difference between the theories of unchecked capitalism and the reality. Look at what your favorite companies (those at the top of the food chain) have done and are doing to remain in their position of power. Look closely at how "free trade" (and how it relates to our current views on economics) and the actual effects that it's had on the environment, labor unions, indigenous peoples, etc. It's not pretty.
The USSR proved that the welfare of people and the environment is ignored when power is put in the hands of the government, and it's my belief that the next 20 years are going to show that the welfare of people and the environment are non-existent when placed in the hands of multinational corporations and the capitalist class.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found! society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression', society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer society.cc: function.
Which means you should prepare to face a barrage of court orders, attacks on individual freedom, attempts to bottleneck the Internet, and arrests of prominent Open Source gurus.
It's quite possible. I'm not saying it's definite, but the possibility exists. Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future attempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
One of the popular Linux slogans has been "Welcome to the Revolution." So welcome - and welcome to the front lines. Prepare to duck!
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression', society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer society.cc: function.
Capitalism, with all of it's terrible warts, exists simply because (for example) a person who is better at growing food than I am (aka, a farmer) trades with what he does best for what another entity does best -- perhaps building things like tractors, etc.
Actually, that would be incorrect. You are confusing the idea of a market economy with the idea of capitalism. Just because you have a market economy, identified mostly by the concept of value-add, does not mean that you have a capitalist market. There are such things as market socialists, and I'll tell you why that's not nearly as much of a contradiction as you'd think.
Forget everything you've ever been told about capitalism and socialism and the differences between them. Both are very easily defined, it is only their variations that take on such complexities.
Capitalism: Ownership is in the hands of the capitalists, who pay, via a wage, laborers for their labor. Laborers sell their labor, since it is the only ownership they have. Capitalists, despite not producing any actual product, recieve most of the profits indefinitely due to their initial investment. Socialism: Ownership is in the hands of the workers. Workers split the profits based on who did the most work, who has most seniority, whatever. The idea is that if you don't actually *work* (as in, produce the product yourself), you don't recieve any money.
Of course, there are many variations on these basic ideas. Petty Bourgois systems are basically capitalistic, but private ownership is severely limited (small farms, family-owned operations, etc). This, initially, was the basic idea behind the USA, with corporate charters being damn near illegal. Then there's communism, which abolishes markets completely (which is why the USSR was not communism, since they used a monetary system which promises inequalities) and instead bases subsistance on need and ability.
The basic idea, however, is that Capitalism is based on private property (leveraging ownership of more than the owner can use theirself and employing workers) and socialism is based on communal or collectivised property (public ownership where no single person claims rights to use or destroy a resource) and possessions (such as your toothbrush, which, in a socialist society, will *not* be collectivised:) )
Something to think about: Given these two basic concepts, which category does Linux fall under?
Also, just as their are State and Libertarian versions of Capitalism (Fascism being State Capitalism, Objectivism/Libertarianism being Libertarian Capitalism), there are State and Libertarian versions of Socialism (Marxist-Leninism being State Socialism, and Anarchism being Libertarian Socialism).
Just remember that there's a lot more to society than we've been led to believe, and just because conventional "wisdom" tells us that a certain system just won't "work", don't reject it outright. Just keep in mind: There is no spoon.:)
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.
I don't think that human beings are destroying the planet, per say. I, personally, tend to agree with Utah Phillips when he says "The planet is not dying. The planet is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses."
Humans aren't killing the planet, as much as specific humans are...
You seem to be under two false impressions: that I am a facist or other authoritarian, and that I am over 21. Both are false.
I concede the second point, but I stay adamant on the first. Anybody who proclaims "Jews are the disease and I am the cure" is a fascist.
I am a right-leaning libertarian.
Really, now? Okay, so let's see... Don't right-libertarians believe that heirarchy is natural? If Jews really do excel in the areas you've specified (I'd argue it has nothing to do with their heritage and religion), wouldn't you have to accept that as normal and natural?
And by the way, a *lot* of the founding fathers of modern day right-wing Libertarianism are Jewish.
Also - are you threatening me with physical violence?
No, I'm threatening you with opposition. How do you know I'm not Jewish, and that you're not threatening *me* with violence?
But regardless, you want a debate, I'll give you a debate. What you feel is a matter of race is not a matter of race at all.
Racists constantly try and convince people that race is a linking trait between people. That somehow, if I'm white and lower class, I have more in common with Bill Gates than with the hispanic person who lives down the street from me.
That is ridiculous. There may be cultural differences between "races" (which is another ridiculous concept), but the fact of the matter is that a poor white and a poor black person both have to worry about things that a rich person doesn't have to. Getting time off work to get an oil change, being laid off so their factory can move to a third world country (so the rich people who own it can become richer), having enough money to take out their girlfriend or boyfriend on a Friday night, paying for college for their kids so they can have a better life than they did, all these things are *real* concerns of people, and saying that poor Jews don't share these concerns is ridiculous. If you honestly think Jews run the media, I'll introduce you to the old Jewish man who runs a corner store and has barely scraped by for the last 30 years. I'm sure he can call up Ted Turner and have him run any story he'd like, right?
It's not about race, it's about class. The upper class tries to divide the lower class by convincing them that they're different from eachother, but that's BS. The lower class have a common thread, and that's the fact that they have to *work* for a living, not live off of old money or large stock values.
Do you honestly think that OJ Simpson got off because he was black? That the fact that he was rich and could hire that "dream team" of lawyers had nothing to do with it? Do you honestly think that if he was a poor bus driver, that he wouldn't have fried by now?
If, for some reason, you feel that you've been "wronged" by Jews or other minorities, look closer. You'll find that, for the most part, it's the greed of the ruling class that causes oppression and violence in this world, and they are truly color blind. Black, white, jewish, or asian, they don't care, as long as you're a billioniare with congress on your speed dial.
You have the choice to help build a society based on freedom, equality, peace, and solidarity (anarchism), or a society based on fear, heirarchy, war, and adversity (fascism). Take your pick.
To paraphrase the matrix: "Jews are a disease, and I am the cure."
Hey, man, where do you live? Are you giving any speeches about fascism any time soon? Because I know a couple thousand ARA members who would *love* to make your acquaintance.
Be young, have fun, smash fascism. Now that's something I can get into.
Cheap access is something that needs to happen, but it doesn't have to be like this, does it? Has anybody considered starting ISP cooperatives, or community supported internet access? Something that's cheap, accessable, uncensored, and with *no* strings attached?
Wasn't there something a while back about a cooperative in San Fran that had done something similar with T1 lines?
I love technology. Linux, mp3's, the internet, it's all wonderful stuff. It has the potential to liberate, bring people closer together, and create a very roddenbury-esque future that I'd love to live in.
But there's a distinction to be made. I hate greed. I hate what it does to technology, how it affects it. I hate seeing mp3's getting attacked by the music industry, I hate seeing the Internet become just another shopping mall. I hate the way technology, fueled by greed, has the potential to oppress, silence, alienate, and destroy.
A little history: The Luddites were not concerned with technology, exactly. They weren't afraid of the technology itself, but with the way it could be used against them. They were afraid for their jobs, and how the looms could be used to force them out of work, instead of making their lives easier and their days shorter, as the promise has always been.
This is why I, despite loving technology, *hate* Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotech butchers. Their movements into the fields of genetic modification aren't fed by world hunger, or a love of science, but by greed, pure and simple. "Maximise those stocks, my good man. By any means necessary."
Why isn't all this research and funding going into organic farming? Sustainable, local farming. Creating *good* food. I don't want to rely on huge factory farms in a third world country for my food. What if there's a revolution there? What if there's a natural disaster? What if they get sick of the US pushing them around, and decide to close trade? Where does the food come from, then?
Organic farming (once commonplace, now a luxury) was replaced with chemical factory farming. There were unforseen problems with large agri-business, though, and now we see Monsanto all too willing to "fix" them, as long as farmers pledge allegience to them until the end of time. I say, it's time to take a move back to how food was supposed to be farmed, and go from there, as opposed to continuing on this skewed timeline towards a potentially disastrous outcome.
Choosing someone who made a lot of money is nicely symbolic, I think. In the first part of the century, our world was defined by war. As the 20th century comes to a close, it's defined by money.
I have to say, I think the latter is better, don't you?
Personally, I don't see much of a difference. The two depend on eachother.
What do you recommend for people like me? I'm curoius...
I understand where you're coming from. Those of us who have the misfortune of living in the suburbs see problems like this all the time (mcdonalds, mcdonalds, everywhere).
I would recommend encouraging other people to patron the independant bookstore, as well as give the people there advice on what would make them more competitive. More books, sure, but maybe they could get involved with being able to order books, quickly, for people if they don't have them. Or maybe they could have local bands play accoustic shows there to encourage people to shop there, things like that.
Get people to boycott the large corporate bookstore, and to focus on the small, independant one, and the small independant one will be able to grow to meet the demand.
Of course, there's always the more radical option (which I always prefer), which is to start your own bookstore. Get enough people together, and start a cooperative, that way no single person has to devote their life to it. It's a great way to meet people, too.
Instead, visit your local, independantly owned and operated stores. There are a number of issues with supporting global corporate stores, one of which is local economic drain, where the money in your locale is drained to a far away place into the pockets of corporate CEO's and majority shareholders. The minimum wage that workers recieve as payment doesn't count towards offsetting this, either.
This is one of the reasons I discourage anyone from buying on the Internet, especially common items like books (uncommon items are fine, though, since I understand not a lot of local stores are going to carry weird things like programmable LCD displays).
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
Andrew Carnegie was able to use his Pinkertons and strike-breakers to crush the Homestead steel strike because he had government sanction
If you'd paid attention in history class instead of reading the cliff notes, you'd remember that the Pinkertons got their asses thoroughly kicked when the townspeople organized against them. It was only after the national guard was called in that the strike was broken. Same for the Ludlow massacre, they were holding out until the National Guard came in.
This is why governments exist, to *aid* large corporations. In order to oppose government, you have to oppose the whole reason that it exists, and that is capitalism (concentrated ownership of resources). As much as Libertarians think that removing government wouldn't topple capitalism, it would, and that is why no matter how much multinationals may bitch and moan about taxes and (diminishing) regulations, they realize that government is absolutely necessary in order to protect their own interests. Look at the WTO, it's all the multinationals doing their best to make sure governments are dwindled down to purely military and police operations, which will be orchestrated by the rich.
Contrary to the beliefs of Libertarians, welfare moms are *not* the reason that goverment exists.
I imagine the "indigenous people" of Mexico are, since those jobs are now theirs.
Okay, normally I wouldn't bother responding to such reactionary bullshit, but I have to clarify the lie that he's spouting...
Mexicans *DO NOT* want our factory jobs! They do not want to be pushed off their land and forced to work in factories, they view it as dehumanizing and unnatural (go figure!). Why do you think the Zapatistas in Chiapas were more willing to revolt against Mexico as opposed to accepting the neo-liberal policies of NAFTA?
Don't tell me that Mexicans are happy now. Their culture isn't as deeply rooted in materialism and superficiality as ours, and as such they don't find their happiness in buying a cheap television set after working 14 hours for less than living wage in an unsafe factory (Mexico has very few labor/environmental laws, remember, the reason that the companies move there).
Before you start going on about how Mexicans are *so* happy to be able to work for a living (as opposed to working for themselves), go down to the Yucatan and talk to some of the young girls who work in sweatshops, or to the indigenous Tzotzil speakign people who are being forced off their land and into poverty.
And don't even get me started on genetically modified crops. Aw what the hell. Science knows *very little* about the effects that GMO's will have, and as such, it doesn't matter if they can create billions of pounds of food if it all ends up being wiped out by some natural factor that nobody foresaw, or if it causes cancer. Instead of pushing this bastardized technology down their throats, give the people their land back and let them start growing *real* food.
Using carefully engineered acts of terrorism-for-profit as an indicator of market failure is about as accurate as proudly placing the word 'libertarian' next to the word 'socialist'.
Protecting your health and the health of your people isn't terrorism. Terminator seeds are terrorism.
And secondly, if you had taken the time to even click on the link that I had provided you, you'd know that Libertarian Socialism (aka, Anarchism) has a much longer and involved history than modern day Libertarianism will ever have.
Michael Chisari
You, sir, have no idea about the history of free socialism. In other words (and if you had read the link I had provided you), Anarchism. A complete rejection of all forms of coercion and authority.
Please do your research and open your mind just a crack before you start spouting off like a twit.
Thank you.
Michael Chisari
Libertarianism is, for the most part, an Internet political party. It doesn't really exist outside the white, middle-to-upper class internet.
Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but for the most part, I can almost guarantee you than an out of work steelworker or logger in the pacific northwest isn't singing the praises of the free market. Neither are the students at the UNAM in mexico, or the indigenous peoples of Ecuador.
I totally agree with the idea of no government intervention, but for a much different reason than most American Libertarians. With no government intervention, corporations have little-to-no power against the people. Remember, Pepsi never bombed any cities because they've never had to do it themselves. That's what governments are for.
I speak for a lot of people when I say that corporate power is frightening as hell, so I don't think the Libertarians are going to gain many converts in the coming years by going on about how public services should be privatized or eliminated, all the while being conspicuously silent about corporate welfare. The free market has failed quite a few people, and people are starting to understand that, and take matters into their own hands (Yahoo Search: "Monsanto Karnataka").
Oh yeah, and here's a surefire way to stump a Libertarian: Ask them about labor issues. What happens if there's a general strike and workers halt production? What about factory occupations? What about sweatshops in a "free market?" Upon whose shoulders does the world *really* rest? Labor? Or CEO's?
And the labor issue to top them all: What about the Pinkerton Thugs, the Ludlow Massacre, and every other example of corporate aggression before the government started doing it's dirty work on a daily basis?
-- A Proud Libertarian Socialist --
Michael Chisari
I'm posting this here because I submitted it, and (oddly enough) it was rejected. I think it's something that Slashdotters would be very interested in.
It's good to know that Microsoft is a firm believer in free speech. And riot police. Free speech and riot police, they believe in both of them.
Read all about it here.
Michael Chisari
Sometimes maybe it's useful to get companies together when their services can complement each other. Can anybody name one real reason why Time/Warner and AOL shouldn't merge if their stockholders want them too? Isn't this a free country?
If you're a corporation, a CEO, or a majority stockholder? Yes, this is a free country. Not only free, but a country willing to bend over backwards to do your bidding.
If you're a person, and not worth seven figures, then no, this is not a free country.
Anyway, if they don't like being conglomerated, or if it doesn't work out, they can just separate again, and we'll be back to where we are now.
What if they don't like it? What if we don't like it? What do we do? Boycott them? How do we boycott a corporation that has their hands in hundreds of different markets?
There's more to this world, and to living life, than money and the "free market." Just because corporations feel that they should be able to do anything unfettered by morality or the needs of people, doesn't mean we should support them.
Michael Chisari
Anarchists fall into three main categories:
Individualist/Philosophical/Egoist/Libertarian
Communist
Syndicalist
Erm, I had a long-winded response, but then I remembered that this isn't usenet.
But in any case, back to the point...
Food Not Bombs are cool though - ideology in action!
Definitely, they're one of the reasons I've never identified with Liberals. I don't like whining about problems and not doing anything about it. Food Not Bombs actually *does* something about hunger. Very cool.
Note, I am not being defeatist, just warning that strikes that challenge authority in a half-assed manner usually end up being squashed unpleasantly and then, rather than being radicalised people are frightened off. Even situations where there is mass popular support (Allendes' govt) can be squashed by the plutocrats (admittedly with US help).
I wasn't really referring to a *full* general strike throughout all industries, just a general strike within the high tech industry, where we basically all strike for a certain amount of time to scare the hell out of the people in charge...
Open Source is a revolution? I hope so. I like your spirit! DOn't listen to me! Fight on!
Nothing short of a revolution. I think a couple of decades down the line we're going to look at open source software and Linux as being one of the greatest unintentional social experiments of all time.
And I'll definitely fight on.
Speaking of, my little brother just told me that they're installing eight video cameras and hiring two security officers to watch the cameras all day at his high school, because of Columbine. I'm going to be doing my best to be helping him organize a little (civil, possibly) disobedience at his school so they can't do it.
If anybody feels they can help me out in any way possible, please email me at mchisari@usa.net. Thanks...
Michael Chisari
I posted this recently, but I'd like to post it again, because the Linux Journal article is related to my point here. I think that, no matter whether linux users choose to move that way, we will be pushed towards stronger radicalism, in our beliefs, our tactics to retain our right to free speech/code, etc.
The good thing is that, unlike most activists and radicals, we're in a *very* strong position, because the stock market, and the economy in general has bet the farm on the industry we work in...
Imagine what were to happen if, in protest of the recent attacks against the linux community, we were to coordinate a general strike?
Even more powerful is another possibility, what if great portions of the industry took large paycuts in order to work on free software?
We may not always be at the forefront of our economy, IT jobs may move wholesale to India where wages are much lower. If you don't think it'll happen, I'm sure I could introduce you to a GM worker in Flint, MI who thought the same thing about his job in the 70's. But for the time being, we are a very strong force in the economy, and because of that we have a responsibility to protect freedom.
In any case, here's my post from a while ago. Think about it, and remember that whether you consider yourself a right-Libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, or an Individualist Anarcho-Syndicalist, you and your peers (the linux community) will have your freedoms attacked, and it will radicalize you. Think about it...
--
Which means you should prepare to face a barrage of court orders, attacks on individual freedom, attempts to bottleneck the Internet, and arrests of prominent Open Source gurus.
It's quite possible. I'm not saying it's definite, but the possibility exists. Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future attempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
One of the popular Linux slogans has been "Welcome to the Revolution." So welcome - and welcome to the front lines. Prepare to duck!
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc
society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression',
society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer
society.cc: function.
Proceed with compilation? Y/n
Michael Chisari
But in the end, the choice of what causes to support and the support for them comes from individual people.
Don't you find it odd that the same corporations which promote the class-divide and ecological destruction would be aiding charities to solve said problems? McDonalds makes billions off of unskilled labor (especially in inner cities where it is abundant and desperate), and pays minimum wage (less if they could). They also clearcut rainforests for cheap grazing land for their beef. Does that make a donation on their part to a poverty- or environment-oriented charity in any way sincere?
I think something that people don't realize (but Linux helps) is that we don't need corporations! We can do things without shareholders, CEO's and upper management. In fact (and nerds realized this a long time ago, some would even argue back in high school), they're the ones keeping us from moving forward. Bureaucracy and heirarchy just get in the way of being able to do really cool stuff.
Personally, I am a bleeding heart libertarian. I want government out of the charity business, and I give generously to charities that I think are getting it right.
If you ever find yourself leaning in a more radical direction, remember that there is an alternative to both government and capitalism.
Michael Chisari
Do you expect the secret police to come knocking on your door because you speak out about US government abuses? Didn't think so. The situations are not even vaguely comparable.
Have you ever heard about COINTEL PRO? Look into it.
Michael Chisari
In the end, it will benefit both sides and make both sides more free.
Sometimes I wonder if right-Libertarians really hear what it is they're saying. In theory, yes, free trade *should* help everybody. But in the corporate capitalist economy that the US is trying so desperately to impose on other unwilling populations (just because the government is willing doesn't mean the people are), theory and reality are very opposed to eachother.
The theory is that free trade helps everybody. The reality is that since NAFTA, the economies of countries like Mexico and Ecuador (keep your eye on the current beginnings of a revolution in Ecuador) have been devastated, despite the fact that a large amount of our factory work has moved there.
Opening up trade with China will not make China a free country. More importantly, giving the WTO power over China is definitely not going to help either, although I don't think there are many labor or environmental laws in China that can be repealed.
Think really hard about the difference between the theories of unchecked capitalism and the reality. Look at what your favorite companies (those at the top of the food chain) have done and are doing to remain in their position of power. Look closely at how "free trade" (and how it relates to our current views on economics) and the actual effects that it's had on the environment, labor unions, indigenous peoples, etc. It's not pretty.
The USSR proved that the welfare of people and the environment is ignored when power is put in the hands of the government, and it's my belief that the next 20 years are going to show that the welfare of people and the environment are non-existent when placed in the hands of multinational corporations and the capitalist class.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc
society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression',
society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer
society.cc: function.
Proceed with compilation? Y/n
Michael Chisari
Which means you should prepare to face a barrage of court orders, attacks on individual freedom, attempts to bottleneck the Internet, and arrests of prominent Open Source gurus.
It's quite possible. I'm not saying it's definite, but the possibility exists. Keep in mind that Food Not Bombs gives away free vegetarian food to anybody who's hungry. Their reason? Because "food grows on trees."
Despite this wonderful example of altruism, they've had numerous encounters with the police, and are a constant target of brutality and harrassment. Strange, no?
Maybe not. Food Not Bombs are very progressive and radical (as opposed to being liberal, and just whining about poverty), and have decided to take matters into their own hands. Becuase of this, they also use the opportunity to hand out flyers, organize protests, meet other social activists, etc. Most probably, this is what scares the government and corporations into repressing them.
Probably open source's saving grace is the fact that most of it's members are not equating the sharing of code with political ideologies. Regardless, it will be targetted by the corporations it threatens, but in the first wave of repression, you'll see very IP-oriented attacks (such as the actions by RIAA), lobbying to forbid the use of open source software in government institutions, along with future attempts to use the antiquated patent and intellectual property laws against the open source community. As this begins happening, you will start seeing open source advocates becoming increasingly more radical in order to challenge the powers that be.
More protests, more electronic civil disobedience, etc. Once people start using the freedom of open source as a point of advocacy towards a more free and equitable society is when you will see the real repression by the elites. Not because giving away code (or food) is inherently dangerous to them, but because it represents a flaw in their dominance that they will go to great lengths to conceal. What is that flaw? That we don't need them!
One of the popular Linux slogans has been "Welcome to the Revolution." So welcome - and welcome to the front lines. Prepare to duck!
Make no mistake, Open Source is a revolution, but what most "Linux zealots" don't realize is that the people in control never welcome a revolution of any kind.
--
gcc -o -Wall society.cc
society.cc: Classes 'government' and 'capitalism' not found!
society.cc: Derived classes, 'greed', 'oppression',
society.cc: 'hierarchy', and 'violence' will no longer
society.cc: function.
Proceed with compilation? Y/n
Michael Chisari
Capitalism, with all of it's terrible warts, exists simply because (for example) a person who is better at growing food than I am (aka, a farmer) trades with what he does best for what another entity does best -- perhaps building things like tractors, etc.
Actually, that would be incorrect. You are confusing the idea of a market economy with the idea of capitalism. Just because you have a market economy, identified mostly by the concept of value-add, does not mean that you have a capitalist market. There are such things as market socialists, and I'll tell you why that's not nearly as much of a contradiction as you'd think.
Forget everything you've ever been told about capitalism and socialism and the differences between them. Both are very easily defined, it is only their variations that take on such complexities.
Capitalism: Ownership is in the hands of the capitalists, who pay, via a wage, laborers for their labor. Laborers sell their labor, since it is the only ownership they have. Capitalists, despite not producing any actual product, recieve most of the profits indefinitely due to their initial investment.
Socialism: Ownership is in the hands of the workers. Workers split the profits based on who did the most work, who has most seniority, whatever. The idea is that if you don't actually *work* (as in, produce the product yourself), you don't recieve any money.
Of course, there are many variations on these basic ideas. Petty Bourgois systems are basically capitalistic, but private ownership is severely limited (small farms, family-owned operations, etc). This, initially, was the basic idea behind the USA, with corporate charters being damn near illegal. Then there's communism, which abolishes markets completely (which is why the USSR was not communism, since they used a monetary system which promises inequalities) and instead bases subsistance on need and ability.
The basic idea, however, is that Capitalism is based on private property (leveraging ownership of more than the owner can use theirself and employing workers) and socialism is based on communal or collectivised property (public ownership where no single person claims rights to use or destroy a resource) and possessions (such as your toothbrush, which, in a socialist society, will *not* be collectivised
Something to think about: Given these two basic concepts, which category does Linux fall under?
Also, just as their are State and Libertarian versions of Capitalism (Fascism being State Capitalism, Objectivism/Libertarianism being Libertarian Capitalism), there are State and Libertarian versions of Socialism (Marxist-Leninism being State Socialism, and Anarchism being Libertarian Socialism).
Just remember that there's a lot more to society than we've been led to believe, and just because conventional "wisdom" tells us that a certain system just won't "work", don't reject it outright. Just keep in mind: There is no spoon.
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
And of course, let's not forget Earth First!.
I don't think that human beings are destroying the planet, per say. I, personally, tend to agree with Utah Phillips when he says "The planet is not dying. The planet is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses."
Humans aren't killing the planet, as much as specific humans are...
Michael Chisari
At first I thought it said that Fred Durst had won the Turing Award.
Had me pretty scared for a second there.
Michael Chisari
You seem to be under two false impressions: that I am a facist or other authoritarian, and that I am over 21. Both are false.
I concede the second point, but I stay adamant on the first. Anybody who proclaims "Jews are the disease and I am the cure" is a fascist.
I am a right-leaning libertarian.
Really, now? Okay, so let's see... Don't right-libertarians believe that heirarchy is natural? If Jews really do excel in the areas you've specified (I'd argue it has nothing to do with their heritage and religion), wouldn't you have to accept that as normal and natural?
And by the way, a *lot* of the founding fathers of modern day right-wing Libertarianism are Jewish.
Also - are you threatening me with physical violence?
No, I'm threatening you with opposition. How do you know I'm not Jewish, and that you're not threatening *me* with violence?
But regardless, you want a debate, I'll give you a debate. What you feel is a matter of race is not a matter of race at all.
Racists constantly try and convince people that race is a linking trait between people. That somehow, if I'm white and lower class, I have more in common with Bill Gates than with the hispanic person who lives down the street from me.
That is ridiculous. There may be cultural differences between "races" (which is another ridiculous concept), but the fact of the matter is that a poor white and a poor black person both have to worry about things that a rich person doesn't have to. Getting time off work to get an oil change, being laid off so their factory can move to a third world country (so the rich people who own it can become richer), having enough money to take out their girlfriend or boyfriend on a Friday night, paying for college for their kids so they can have a better life than they did, all these things are *real* concerns of people, and saying that poor Jews don't share these concerns is ridiculous. If you honestly think Jews run the media, I'll introduce you to the old Jewish man who runs a corner store and has barely scraped by for the last 30 years. I'm sure he can call up Ted Turner and have him run any story he'd like, right?
It's not about race, it's about class. The upper class tries to divide the lower class by convincing them that they're different from eachother, but that's BS. The lower class have a common thread, and that's the fact that they have to *work* for a living, not live off of old money or large stock values.
Do you honestly think that OJ Simpson got off because he was black? That the fact that he was rich and could hire that "dream team" of lawyers had nothing to do with it? Do you honestly think that if he was a poor bus driver, that he wouldn't have fried by now?
If, for some reason, you feel that you've been "wronged" by Jews or other minorities, look closer. You'll find that, for the most part, it's the greed of the ruling class that causes oppression and violence in this world, and they are truly color blind. Black, white, jewish, or asian, they don't care, as long as you're a billioniare with congress on your speed dial.
You have the choice to help build a society based on freedom, equality, peace, and solidarity (anarchism), or a society based on fear, heirarchy, war, and adversity (fascism). Take your pick.
Anarchism FAQ
Michael Chisari
To paraphrase the matrix: "Jews are a disease, and I am the cure."
Hey, man, where do you live? Are you giving any speeches about fascism any time soon? Because I know a couple thousand ARA members who would *love* to make your acquaintance.
Be young, have fun, smash fascism. Now that's something I can get into.
Michael Chisari
Cheap access is something that needs to happen, but it doesn't have to be like this, does it? Has anybody considered starting ISP cooperatives, or community supported internet access? Something that's cheap, accessable, uncensored, and with *no* strings attached?
Wasn't there something a while back about a cooperative in San Fran that had done something similar with T1 lines?
Michael Chisari
I love technology. Linux, mp3's, the internet, it's all wonderful stuff. It has the potential to liberate, bring people closer together, and create a very roddenbury-esque future that I'd love to live in.
But there's a distinction to be made. I hate greed. I hate what it does to technology, how it affects it. I hate seeing mp3's getting attacked by the music industry, I hate seeing the Internet become just another shopping mall. I hate the way technology, fueled by greed, has the potential to oppress, silence, alienate, and destroy.
A little history: The Luddites were not concerned with technology, exactly. They weren't afraid of the technology itself, but with the way it could be used against them. They were afraid for their jobs, and how the looms could be used to force them out of work, instead of making their lives easier and their days shorter, as the promise has always been.
This is why I, despite loving technology, *hate* Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotech butchers. Their movements into the fields of genetic modification aren't fed by world hunger, or a love of science, but by greed, pure and simple. "Maximise those stocks, my good man. By any means necessary."
Why isn't all this research and funding going into organic farming? Sustainable, local farming. Creating *good* food. I don't want to rely on huge factory farms in a third world country for my food. What if there's a revolution there? What if there's a natural disaster? What if they get sick of the US pushing them around, and decide to close trade? Where does the food come from, then?
Organic farming (once commonplace, now a luxury) was replaced with chemical factory farming. There were unforseen problems with large agri-business, though, and now we see Monsanto all too willing to "fix" them, as long as farmers pledge allegience to them until the end of time. I say, it's time to take a move back to how food was supposed to be farmed, and go from there, as opposed to continuing on this skewed timeline towards a potentially disastrous outcome.
Michael Chisari
Choosing someone who made a lot of money is nicely symbolic, I think. In the first part of the century, our world was defined by war. As the 20th century comes to a close, it's defined by money.
I have to say, I think the latter is better, don't you?
Personally, I don't see much of a difference. The two depend on eachother.
Michael Chisari
What do you recommend for people like me? I'm curoius...
I understand where you're coming from. Those of us who have the misfortune of living in the suburbs see problems like this all the time (mcdonalds, mcdonalds, everywhere).
I would recommend encouraging other people to patron the independant bookstore, as well as give the people there advice on what would make them more competitive. More books, sure, but maybe they could get involved with being able to order books, quickly, for people if they don't have them. Or maybe they could have local bands play accoustic shows there to encourage people to shop there, things like that.
Get people to boycott the large corporate bookstore, and to focus on the small, independant one, and the small independant one will be able to grow to meet the demand.
Of course, there's always the more radical option (which I always prefer), which is to start your own bookstore. Get enough people together, and start a cooperative, that way no single person has to devote their life to it. It's a great way to meet people, too.
Michael Chisari
Instead, visit your local, independantly owned and operated stores. There are a number of issues with supporting global corporate stores, one of which is local economic drain, where the money in your locale is drained to a far away place into the pockets of corporate CEO's and majority shareholders. The minimum wage that workers recieve as payment doesn't count towards offsetting this, either.
This is one of the reasons I discourage anyone from buying on the Internet, especially common items like books (uncommon items are fine, though, since I understand not a lot of local stores are going to carry weird things like programmable LCD displays).
In conclusion: SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL ECONOMY!
Thank you, that is all
Michael Chisari
Why do terrorists/anarchists/whateverists have a higher profile?
As a quick note, please do not confuse terrorists and anarchists.
The former create heirarchy through violence against people, the latter seek to liberate people from all incarnations of the former.
To put it another way: Terrorists == cracker, Anarchists == hacker.
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