Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism, Exploitation and Involuntary Agreements

Posted 2 years ago on March 18, 2012, 8:31 a.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6276)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

(Today’s Society And How To Improve It - part V)

The right-wingers often talk about Capitalism being a system of “voluntary agreements” in which all people enjoy the fruits of their labor. Well this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Now, I touched upon the “fruits of one’s labor”- issue in the article "The Free Ride Society", arguing that these “fruits” aren’t measurable and that we all get much more from society compared to what we contribute ourselves. Another thing that should be addressed in this regard is the issue of exploitation.

One of the hallmarks of capitalism is that the means of production are privately owned by some individuals, while others do not have this ownership. In other words, some own the means of production others are using. So it’s a system in which the ones using the means of production must sell their labor to these owners in order to have a decent life. The owners can then make a profit from other people’s work by just owning. This happens when the value of the worker’s pay is less than the value that was added thru his/her work in the paid hours. That creates a profit for the owner of the means of production who did not create the value, but still gets paid in the form of profit. This profit is hence capital for future investments and more profits. So, the capitalist is making money simply by just owning, not adding or creating value. Since a capitalist economy is based on the need for growth and profits for the investors and owners, this method of exploitation - profiting on other people’s work - is of course used by more or less all of them. This exploitation is in other words just a logical result caused by the capitalist system. And we see this all over the place, from poor indonesian girls working in Nike factories for 50 cents an hour, to people in America working for minimum wage for companies whose profits are skyrocketing.

http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-new-rulers-of-the-world

Now, the agreements taking place in this kind of system are of course far from being voluntary. In a capitalist / state-capitalist class society, you have some people with huge wealth and recourses - which on the national and global level are very highly concentrated - and others with very few or no wealth and resources. It is of course meaningless to talk about “voluntary agreements” in such a society, because the ones owning the recourses, the wealth and the means of production etc, have much more power in society. That includes of course that they have the advantage and overwhelming power in a job hiring, negotiations etc. So the non-owners - the workers - are trapped in a society in which they, in order to have a decent life or necessities in order to survive, must sell their labor to people who have much more power than they. This has very little to do with voluntary agreements, rather it’s submission to necessities.

So in reality we have a system in which some people, because of their wealth and ownership, have an overwhelming power in society, including in the labor marked. The owners, the employers, then have much more influence and power when contracts and agreements are being made, whether it’s in relation to working conditions, salaries etc.

This is intolerable. This exploitative unjust system must be dismantled and replaced with democracy in which the people are in control of their own lives, work and community.

Further readings:

Part I - “Our Democratic Deficit”

Part II - ”Human Nature”

Part III - “Dehumanization”

Part IV - “The Free Ride Society”

Part VI - "Property Rights"

Part VII - "The Transition Phase: The Road To Freedom" (stage I)

Part VIII - "The Transition Phase: The Road To Freedom" (stage II)

Part IX - "The Transition Phase: The Road To Freedom" (stage III)

Part X - "The Transition Phase: The Road To Freedom" (stage IV)

195 Comments

195 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Agreed. Worker's have very little power in setting their wages, benefits and working conditions since they are struggling to secure income to provide for basic necessities and cannot handle much risk. The employer or capitalist, on the other hand, is much more powerful because any risk he takes is simply for profit.

[-] 3 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

What risk does an employer take when he/she is insured.Risk is now an obsolete term.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

True, really.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (247) 2 years ago

Risk is applicable to unknown and uncertain things but when everything can known and things are certain or damages are evenly shared then there is no need of talking of risk.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The foundation for such laws as minimum wage and overtime pay is that capitalism is inherently “unfair” so it is necessary for the people to protect themselves through their government. The foundation of conservatism is to undermine those protections.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Well put.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Sure, but risk isn't the main issue here. The point is: The more wealth and resources you have, the more power you have - including when signing contracts.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

True, but my point is that the capitalists can take more risks because of that wealth, and thereby, they garner more power, but I know what you mean.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

That's true. The faster we dismantle this horrible system, the better!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

how?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Agreed!

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Hasn't that been true for all of human civilization though? This is far from new.

[-] 3 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Tradition doesn't justify the existing conditions. It's our lot to fight for basic human decency in the timeframe we live in.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

This is absolutely not a new thing. The point is that this is very much part of today's society and that the right-wing people talking about "voluntary agreements" are way off.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

worker have all the power - you can choose to work elsewear

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Come on. It is not that easy for a worker to pick up and go to another job.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

He's obviously trolling. He can't seriously mean that workers have all the power, because they can quit. It's seems pretty obvious that he wants to provoke.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Most definitely. It's important to set the record straight, though, for people who might read these threads.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Nothing in life worth doing is easy. should it be?

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wherever possible - YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha! your in for a disappointing & miserable life. It is easy once you come to terms with the fact that you need to take charge of YOUR life. No one is going to do it for you. Is that what you want? Someone else to take care you you make all the decisions for you telly what to do, when to do it what you can & cannot have or do?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

arnt you the same guy that said join the military? talk about silver platter, housing food healthcare for life, all paid for by YOU make up your mind

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

in exchange for service to your country. That's taxes I'm willing to pay for. oh - fyi - defense is the constitutional role of the federal government. unlike 90% of what they now do.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

what defense are you talking about? the only country that could possibly pose a threat is china.. the one we have financed into a position of superior technology and power over us. if you are refering to chasing down half wit islamics in a desert for oil rights.. you are not american enough to know what defense is. there isnt anyone trying to invade this country,, only those trying to destroy it with economical tactics. none of the soldiers today are 'defending' anything besides oil. and that is NOT the constitutional role of the federal government. besides... you do realize that most if not all enlisted soldiers families live off welfare and food stamps also especially the ones in the national guard,, the ones that make up the majority of troops in the iraq and afghanistan occupation.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

oh - we are totally in agreement on what we are defining as defense! but please do acknowledge that defense is really the on legitimate function of the federal govt. also contracts etc. but 90 % of what our federal govt does is not authorized by the const.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ahhhh - whats you point? I don't see China as a military threat. I see Iran NK a threat. bottom line how is that relevant to what I said?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that its ok to support people in military.. cause they defend.. but the truth is they do not defend.. and they still get food stamps ! how can you see iran as a threat... you do know that pakistan has a nuclear bomb? yet thats no problem? they dont have any way to get such a device to america your listening to too much propaganda. besides the fact.. they dont even freaking care about getting a bomb! its just fear mongering to distract you from the destruction of this country at the hands of our own government failure to protect us from big business

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ok so Iran is no nuclear threat - that is your position?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

absolutely no threat iran has nothing .. no big military.. has to defer to religous nuts to make any decisions.. i do believe they are not intelligent enough to realize that setting off a bomb would kill them also but to think that they pose some kind of threat is ludicrous you did see that all islamic country leaders so far did nothing to defend thierselves? they ran and hid in holes.. you think iran is different somehow?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

ok - have it your way.... Iran with the bomb - no problem

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Eat shit and bark at the moon.

Short of taking the law into our own hands ( because that would be wrong ) we are addressing injustice and greed through proper legal channels.

Wage slavery is not an American value, nor are toxic stocks, nor is toxic home loans at inflated prices. nor is oil industry futures speculation which drives up cost for no reason other than pure profit to the detriment of the economy. Nor is Pharma not making life saving drugs because they feel that there is not enough profit in it.

Keep digging your hole. Maybe you can get to China where your attitude will be appreciated if not rewarded.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

hahaha! now thank you for conceding your argument by name calling. you are out of ammo. what are you addressing & through what legal channels specifically? My guess is you havn't a clue. You are basing that statement on something some impressive senior occupier told you lol!

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah yeah your tactics are old as the hills. Pull something new out of your troll manual. I know I know - you will have to think and work on a new routine, but if you have not noticed your current routine is worse then useless.

Work on your material pointy.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You can. "IF" there is an opening somewhere, they are kind of scarce at the moment.

Also - Hey Meet Your New Boss...Same as the old Boss.

Nope, does not work with out reforms.

Thank you for playing.

Please come again.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what kind of reforms? It sounds like you want everything handed to you on a silver platter.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is "YOUR" song and dance.

The movements against corruption are looking to address the devaluing of the American worker, as "you" are well aware. AS well as stopping corporate crime on wallstreet and in banking and else where as a multitude of posts (from real supporters ) point out.

Nope no silver platters I'll accept a paper plate as long as the field leveling is honest.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so how do you suppose we address this corruption you speak of? what are your remedies?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Same old song and dance. They are available for your looking. Lots and Lots of good posts already in existence to fit your need. So take a look for your self.

Backrider.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

no one has been able to be specific about anything. It's all a lot of hot air temper tantrum of children. keep getting yourselves arrested. see where that takes you in life.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Whatever you say pointy.

And you call others lazy.

The fact is you know I am right, because you have seen those other posts already.

You have already tried to belittle them and have not been successful.

Is that why your head is so pointy - you've been rubbing it on the bricks of your impasse?

Take a hike pointy.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

just as I thought - no remedies - just hot air. one big collective temper tantrum. you want to remain a child & have the paternalist govt take care of you. when you dont get what you want you throw a tantrum and are sent to your room. oh wait - sent to a jail cell. that's right - we are grown ups now.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Pointy Pointy pointy - You have offered nothing here but hot air so I must think that you are spellbound by the image you see in the mirror.

Yes that is you in the mirror looking back at yourself all confused-like.

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so - start your own business - then you can tell us how easy it is & how willing you are to just hand over whatever the workers think is "fair".

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

A small business owner has much less power than a corporation. There is more balance between worker and capitalist, the smaller the business.

[+] -4 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

who gives the big corp the power?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

They have the power, and they make sure that they'll keep it as long as they can: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2Q6sdh6Bg

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

and you would do the same. I love how you say "they" as if it is some organized plot to keep you down personally lol! what are your marketable qualifications anyway? before I continue to waste my time.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I thought it was pretty clear that I'm talking about the finacial elite - the very wealthy.

My personal life is irrelevant in the political discussion.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

walk me through it with a specific example instead of generalizations Start by defining the "financial elite" - Give me an example & how it is detrimental to your life.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Start by defining the "financial elite"

The financial elite are the ones who have the overwhelming wealth and power in society - The 1% f.ex, and the owners of these corporations f.ex: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/full_list/index.html

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

give me a specific example of how a rich person or company is hindering your liberty.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Would you buy the argument that a rich person/company/government owning a gross amount of property hinders my liberty as a natural human?

For example, my ability to live OUTSIDE of society is hindered because society is so domineering. Sure, I could move outside of this country; away form my family and friends who I love; I could move to a remote part of the world. However, doesn't that then infringe upon my natural rights as a natural being? That I must because of the construction of a society be forced to vacate the premises because I can't opt out of a society?

Private Property is an invention. Every invention brings us a step further outside of the natural sphere--as the invention did not naturally exist. Consequently, our natural liberty is infringed upon by every invention that comes to exist, for good or bad.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Go read John Locke on Natural rights.

[-] 1 points by brochomsky (208) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Will do. Have you read Thoreau's "Life Without Principle" or "Civil Disobedience"? Or Neil Postman's "Technopoly"?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

That would be the easiest thing in the world, but like I said, I'm done with you. Start debating like a decent human being and maybe we'll talk.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

just what I thought. you have nothing. good luck.

[-] -1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Dude don't try and argue with these people- they're crazy.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"Screw that- go live in your fantasy land"

In other words: you're all out of arguments.

I hope you'll change your mind in the future and someday start working for democracy and freedom. Yours s sff

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I'd appreciate it if you present your arguments in a respectful manner.

We have a democratic deficit. http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/

I just want different kinds of property rights in which ordianry people will be better off.

Current property rights are not graven in in stone, they can be changed just like they were, a certain time ago, changed into the ones we have today. Just like the wealthy business owners have been given the right to own the means of productions others are using and profiting on someone else´s labor, workers can be given the right to instead control their own work and workplace. Property rights are not unchangable and come in different variations, and it has to be the public who have to live by these laws that should get to decide these. In other words, democracy.

I want libertarian socialism, building democracy from below. That way people would be in control of their own lives and work

[-] -1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Screw that- go live in your fantasy land.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

What's crazy about advocating democracy?

[-] -2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

We have democracy, idiot. The kind of democracy that you want is one where my property can be taken away from me by a vote! You are trying to destroy the protections that I enjoy from the bill of rights- quit it.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

It's less about survival and more about profit.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

huh? the question was - who gives the corporations the power you are so fixated on?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Who, being like an economic system? Capitalism gives corporations the power. But capitalism is not a who and neither is a corporation.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Capitalism gives everyone power. You have to hold up your end of the bargain and make yourself marketable though. You cant expect to be given stuff. Politicians favor one group over another for contributions & votes. Why are you not focused on them?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

The way I see it. The private market has consolidated the nation's wealth, and they did this not through innovation but through consolidation of political power; therefore, it becomes the average american's responsibility to shun and oust those who, probably because of the cut throat nature of capitalism, have chosen to write the economic rules in such a way as to make our economy an unfair playing field. If you are rich, the rules allow you to become richer. If you are working class, don't expect to crowed out anyone who helped make the rules.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so - who's fault is that? It seems to me we should be routing our politicians who enable power & money. Which by the way includes union influence & the ACLU by the way among other leftist groups. We get what we deserve. We keep these guys in office for 20 - 30 years & wonder why they are so corrupt.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

In a capitalist economic system power lies with the ones who have the most capital. Why not focus on the capitalists that have bought the political system?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

because the political system is the lens of our focus ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Yup.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what are you doing to be able to participate in the economy? what do you have to offer?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

Were you once Aries or DiogenesTruth?

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

why are you ducking the question? What are you bringing to the table?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

You are aren't you. They always asked me that question. LOL! What does what I "bring" to the table have anything to do with anything? What do you bring to the table?

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I guess it's a very popular question because you keep shirking acknowledging your responsibility as part of the problem. Pointing to all the externalities of the world as the reason you are dissatisfied with life is a losers attitude & hence a self fulfilling prophecy.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20506) 2 years ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

What you're saying is totally irrelevant if one likes the idea of democracy

It's a principle thing. People should have the right to democratic influence in the things they´re a part of and which affect them. In an anarcho-syndicalist organization people would be in control of their own life, work and community.

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

Above here you wrote "You cant expect to be given stuff"

We get free stuff all the time. We live in a gigantic free ride society: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-free-ride-societypt4/

Or are you planning on paying back all the goods you recieve back to society?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

First of all. In order to "start your business" you need resources. Secondly, it's a principle thing: Should institutions be run like tyrannies? Should some people - who are not even democratically elected - be allowed to have an overwhelming power in society and over our lives?

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Excellent point sff.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so - lobby your congressman if you dont like the way they vote. Have you even gone to a townhall meeting ever? or do you just like camping in public places lol!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I'm done with you. If you some day in the future decide to debate in a respectful manner, I'll concider talking to you again.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

so you are basically lazy - never gone to a townhall never engaged the process - just jump on the collective temper tantrum of OWS children. You will never amount to anything but a crybaby.

[-] -3 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Plenty of people start their own businesses every day . With your toxic attitude you will never succeed

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

My attitude is that people should be able to be in control of thir own lives, workplace and community: Anarcho-Syndicalism. That's not toxic, that's common sense. http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how are you not in control of your own life? Other than not having control over social security, medicare, Obamacare, public education.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

If almost all the resources and wealth in society is concentrated on the financial elite, they have much more power, hence making you less powerful. Being in control over ones life must include the things that you're a part of and are affected by - workplace and community.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

specific example please.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I have to start at the beginning, your stuff seems worth the time, me I focus on economy of words, maybe that's because my friends paid me to go away, instead of by the word, you know I'm kidding right?

Hey I get it; some stuff takes a little time to explain.

The important thing is you telling people the truth, and all kinds of people need to hear it in all kinds of ways.

From I have read so far, it is very well constructed and such "proofs" if you will are vital to lay the groundwork.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Thanks for the kind words.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Your welcome, I come from a math background I hate 'proofs" but I understand the need. Thank you for your important work.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

When you promote a new system and a new ideology, you are playing the game your politicians want you to play. You can't make them more happy than that.

The whole political construction today is patently and fundamentally false. Because it promotes electing the people in power, on the hope they will deliver solutions. It doesn't promote building solutions and giving power to those who can build more credibility (by implementing solutions before elections).

The political construction is patently false because it's based on the idea that democracy means just the freedom to vote. While in reality democracy is much more than that - it's mainly about the freedom to associate and act.

So when you call the people to enter in the political game (protesting, electing), you are doing exactly what your politicians want you to do - to feed and maintain a system that is rot from its very roots.

Instead, you should call the people to build solutions and safety nets. Only by creating long term, reliable solutions can build real credibility, it can change the whole system from the core, and it can make the politicians of today totally redundant.

Ideologies and systems can't bring solutions. But people and their actions can.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"If you think the idea of democracy is a good thing, then it would be logical to favor democratically run workplaces and communities, right?"

You make another big error when you say that. You forget that democratically run workplaces can also create cartels in order to inflate and speculate the prices, exactly like the private workplaces are doing today. And then the rest of the people will have to suffer, because they won't be able to buy the things they need. And they won't find a job, because the democratically run workplaces can prevent them to find jobs.

Democratically run workplaces is a good thing, but is far from being a solution. The solution is to eradicate speculation. And then the people can have jobs, they can save money, and they can create democratically run workplaces, and many other things.

Another thing is: it's much easier to create democratically run workplaces by making jobs easier, by making better designs for production facilities, so you need smaller groups to start such workplaces. That's why we should all support projects like Open Source Ecology, who create open source machines. By making industry wide standards, producing goods will be much easier, and that will democratize production. http://opensourceecology.org/

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

No error. I want a highy organized Libertarian Socialist society, not just with democratically run workplaces, but with democracy built from below.

You seem a little obsessed with "speculation". The world has many more factors that need to be adressed and delt with.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"with democracy built from below."

Then we have to build it from below. We have to start creating it. Protesting or electing or taking over workplaces is not building. Building is building.

"You seem a little obsessed with "speculation". The world has many more factors that need to be adressed and delt with."

I am not but, but that's how the crisis was created in the first place - with real estate speculation. We are constantly brainwashed by the media who invite "economists" to tell us how "speculation is good". I just have to repeat the thing, in the hope it will be understood one day. Eradicate speculation and the crisis is gone.

s: "If you think the idea of democracy is a good thing, then it would be logical to favor democratically run workplaces and communities, right?"

g: "and that's why it's logical to assume the people should start building such communities, right? So why they don't start doing it?"

s: "Well, it's hard with the financial elite and private tyrannies being so powerful in society"

Well, before the crisis, people had lots of resources to start cooperatives and democratically run workplaces. And even today, the people in the USA still have a better life than others.

So why they were not doing it back then? Because they had "reasons" like "we are not communists!"

And why they were not doing it now? Because "it's the system's / politicians / rich people's fault".

See? The people always find an excuse for not creating solutions. The sad thing is that you talk like the politicians: you tell to the people what they like to hear: "it's never your fault", "it's the system's fault", "the new system will solve things for you". While you deliver a different message, you talk like the politicians, telling them that the new system will fix things for them. That's totally wrong. The people can build solutions, they can create safety nets, they can be like brothers, they can defend each other, and they can deliver solutions. Not the system.

I do not assume you have bad faith. I'm just trying to show you that you were trained to think in the same political terms, in a mentality where "the (new) system is fixing things for the people".

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"Then we have to build it from below. We have to start creating it"

Building democracy from below also means building it in existing institutions :)

"but that's how the crisis was created in the first place"

Agreed.

Lots of co-ops are being created, and -especially with the rise of the Occupy Mvoement - solidaric communities are also growing. It's important, absolutley, but the finacial elite must also be dealt with; they are in possession of lots of the resourses and power.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Non compete agreements are about the most obvious way employers overstep their rights. U hire. I work. But yet this is even allowed in at will states.

[-] 1 points by JoeStClash (1) 2 years ago

So I think we should create a system, in which managers of companies have the aim to make their workers happy (with money) and not just themselves, like a president of a country should be elected to make the people happy, not himself!

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

You can't have a job and therefore you can't become a worker. Because of the speculation. Because the government is not doing anything against speculation. And because the government is not creating companies to offer to the people the opportunity to produce what they need.

The problem is the speculation and the corruption, not the capitalism, or communism, or anarchism

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I think we should have a system in which the workers themselves were in control of their own workplace and community: Anarcho-Syndicalism

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1317735903_chomsky_explains_libe.html

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

It's structured that way on purpose. The article describes very well the bases for trickle down economics. It isn't about money, thats just paper. It's about control.

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

Good read. My take of capitalism is that it is a system with exploitation and dehumanization at its core. There was a study involving wealthy individuals and moral choices: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/wealthier-people-more-likely-than-poorer-to-lie-or-cheat-researchers-find.html

End result was that the wealthy were more likely to cheat. It's not surprising the way this type of society rewards individuals. I sure wouldn't miss it if this system collapses.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Glad you liked it. Yeah, I heard about that study. Not very surprising. An immoral system breeds immoral behavior.

The current system must collapse because it's not sustainable. The only question is when. The rise and growth of the Occupy Movement indicates that what we're witnessing now is the beginning of the end of this corporate tyranny.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

This is the same for the retailer. He sets the price for product and the buyer is submissive to the prices.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Sure. The more resourses you have, the more power you have in society in general - on all kinds of different levels.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It's undemocratic tyranny !

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Actually it’s monarchy.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

This has very little to do with monarchs and kings. I think plutocracy and kleptocracy are more fitting :)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

John Stewart referred to it as a “wealth incumbency” I thought that was pretty good.

The thing is that this GOP economy is based on inheritance. Wealth by birthright, I do believe the monarchy presents the most accurate picture. Of course one could go back through history and define various monarchs as plutocracy; this is often done by way of study. However in the minds of the average citizen the work king has a much clearer meaning, and one I can defend.

I like to talk in terms of those who have or received a trust fund as opposed to those that don’t, instead of talking about “middle class” truth is there are two Americas and those with trust funds rarely interact with those that don’t.

[-] 0 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

I have to say it.. you talk very much like a politician. Most probably, because you don't see another way to talk.

All the politicians are charlatans, because they offer solutions only if you give them the power. They never implement solutions BEFORE coming into power or before elections. And they do that by claiming that their ideology is "superior" and by blaming other ideologies. And they never implement the ideologies they promote.

An ideology can't save you. Only actions can save you.

And you talk like someone who wants to come into power, and wants to implement "the ideology that saves the people". The politicians never implement their ideology. Why would anyone believe you are different?

The whole political construction is fundamentally and patently false. Because no politician wants to start implementing solutions BEFORE election.

So you should be different. You should call people to action, in order to BUILD solutions together. If only the biggest NGO's would not be so fake like they are today, then we would live in paradise! Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity for example can give you work to produce the things you need. But they are not doing it because they are all FRAUD! We need to build solutions, to make genuine NGO's, and then we can make the politicians redundant.

So please, stop talking like a politician. Start building solutions, and call people to participate.

The problem is much deeper than just politics. The problem is also in us. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-problem-is-much-deeper-than-just-politics-the-/

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"you talk very like a politician."

How so? Besides, I couldn't care less who I resemble or talk like. I express my opinions, and if that resembles something else, it doesn't change anything.

I am very for taking action. Direct action like f.ex workers taking over their workplace should eventually be done everywhere.

"And you talk like someone who wants to come into power"

This does not make any sense. I advocate libertarian socialism. Maybe you should check out what I actually stand for before you start criticizing.

Again, I want much more direct participatory democracy, and less representative democracy with politicians in suits running the show: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

"Start building solutions, and call people to participate."

That's what I'm trying to contribute to.

[-] 0 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"I am very for taking action. Direct action like f.ex workers taking over their workplace should eventually be done everywhere."

WOW !! That's so primitive! Sounds like 1918 ! How about asking the workers TO CREATE their workplace instead of getting workplace with force? The last 100 years of communist experience proves beyond any doubt that just taking over workplaces brings huge incompetence, lack of organization, bad management, and, in the end - economic disaster. The workers have to understand how to manage a workplace. So the best way to make them understand that is to create it from scratch, involving them into the decision process, and that takes time for education. You can't do that over night!

"This does not make any sense. I advocate libertarian socialism. Maybe you should check out what I actually stand for before you start criticizing."

But it very much looks like you promote a new "superior" ideology and action without preparation (which will lead to chaos), instead of well-planned, vigilant and careful step by step approach, that takes people to a predictable future.

You don't call people to BUILD solutions, step by step. And that's how all the politicians act. They promote ideologies and jumps in to the unknown, and they never call people to build solutions together. And that's exactly why all the politicians are charlatans - they don't even want to hear about voluntary work that can build solutions. For them, such things don't exist.

"That's what I'm trying to contribute to."

Sorry for being too confrontational before, I didn't meant to be rude. I just want to tell you that just protesting and radical and violent changes can't make a solution. A solution must be build. We can sign petitions, we can make and collect donations, we can use voluntary work, in order to produce the things we need (starting with food, clothes, houses).

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Please show a little more respect when presenting your arguments.

The economy is all-encompassing. Of course current institutions must be dealt with. There's nothing controvercial about that. But we need to do both: create solidaric societies and adress and deal with the current injustice.

Previous "communist" experiments were not about workers taking over the institution, it was about using leninist type models with a political party taking over the state. That's awful tyranny.

We need to fight all types of tyrannies and undemocratic hierarchies, whether it's state tyranny or private tyranny.

"But it very much looks like you promote a new "superior" ideology and action without preparation"

I don't, so again, you should check out what I actually stand for before you start criticizing.

"Sorry for being too confrontational before, I didn't want to be rude"

I appreciate that. That's ok.

"I just want to tell you that just protesting and radical and violent changes can't make a solution."

I don't disagree, dude. There has to be a change of attitude and a creation of growing solidaric communities, as well as dealing with the finaicial elite who have an overwhelming control in society.

[-] 0 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"Please show a little more respect when presenting your arguments."

Ok, sorry. It's just that I see to many people believing that the communist (or a similar ideology) is the solution.

"But we need to do both: create solidaric societies"

There is no better way to do that than working together. When we work together, we learn how to deal with real life situations.

"deal with the current injustice."

That's why we need investigation publications that monitor the government and expose corruption.

"Previous "communist" experiments were not about workers taking over the institution, it was about using leninist type models with a political party taking over the state. That's awful tyranny."

In Uganda, when they expelled the Indians (many of them owned shops), people from the street took over - no government control on shops. The result was a disaster. The change needs preparation, it's not a good idea to make a violent change.

"We need to fight all types of tyrannies and undemocratic hierarchies, whether it's state tyranny or private tyranny."

There is no better way to fight the abuse of power then creating safety nets.

  • For example we can create apartments and we can rent them (only one per family, ofc). Rents can be payed in money or work, and that can generate resources to build more, until everyone (who needs) has one. No subventions, no inflated prices. Just a fair rent. That will protect the people from being victims of future real estate bubble / speculation.

  • We can work the land and we can give work to the people. We can even pay them in the food they produce, if money is a problem. And by the way, many people will offer to do work voluntary, just for the pleasure to participate into REAL solutions. That will protect the people from possible future food price speculation.

  • We can build more transparency and that is creating another safety net.

"There has to be a change of attitude and a creation of growing solidaric communities"

I gave you examples for concrete actions we can do, and some of them don't even involve money. I am ready to listen to more ideas. We should make a list with ideas and suggestions of possible actions we can do.

"as well as dealing with the finaicial elite who have an overwhelming control in society"

The real power is in trust and unity.They have the power because they trust each other and they are united. We can have million times more power by learning that lesson: trust and unity. When we act together, when we build solutions, we can build safety nets and therefore we can defend each other, rendering their power totally inoffensive against us.

[-] 0 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

The problem is not the capitalism or the ownership. The real problem is the speculation. Some things have to be owned by the government, in order to prevent speculation. For example the government should create good public housing in order to prevent real estate speculation.

But that doesn't imply that all the private property should be eradicated. We just need an intelligent balance between private and public property.

We do not have real capitalism! We are constantly brainwashed! In real capitalism there is control of speculation. We don't live in a capitalist system, but we live in a system where the organized crime can prosper!

We live in a slavery system which is just labeled "capitalist" by those who control the media. Wake UP!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"The problem is not the capitalism or the ownership."

Yes it is. Capitalism is undemocratic, dehumanizing and exploitative. This is intolerable. It must be dismantled.

"The real problem is the speculation."

That too.

"But that doesn't imply that all the private property should be eradicated"

I have not said that we need to do away with every single form of private property. What I want is different kinds of rights: http://occupywallst.org/forum/property-rights/

If one likes the idea of people having a democratic influence in the things they´re a part of and which affect them - real democracy in other words - then that would certainly include democracy in the workplace and community. We need to replace state-capitalism with democracy.

No we don't have pure capitalism. That would be awful.

[-] 0 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

Sorry to answer so late. Wasn't expecting a comment on my message.

"Capitalism is undemocratic, dehumanizing and exploitative. This is intolerable. It must be dismantled."

It feels like that just because of the speculation. You can't blame an ideology. I was living in a communist country where life was hell exactly because it was NOT communist. The leaders were terrorist and had absolute power and they were not what they claimed they are. It was a "communist" country exactly like the way your country is "capitalist" : just playing with words. It was terrorist, exactly like your country is slaverist (instead of being capitalist).

An ideology can even be adapted to fit reality, it can have an evolution. What capitalism you blame? Everyone understands capitalism the way they want. You can't blame ideas in everyone's mind, but you can blame their actions. Any ideology can be implemented in a form of slavery (or terrorism) or in a realistic way, for the benefit of the people. Blaming an ideology is extremely dumb. You have to blame the way the politicians IMPLEMENT the ideology they promote. Obama for example is not a socialist. He just uses empty words. He doesn't give to the people the opportunity to produce what they need (making some government owned companies). All the politicians are charlatans: capitalists, liberals, democrats, communist, socialists, anarchists - they never stay true to their words, they are never what they claim they are.

"If one likes the idea of people having a democratic influence in the things they´re a part of and which affect them - real democracy in other words - then that would certainly include democracy in the workplace and community".

Then you are talking about angels, not about people. Most of the people don't want to involve into decisions and into building solutions. Democracy has no value without the people using it. You can't force the people to act democratic, you can just educate and train them to act democratic. Democracy means, above all, the freedom to associate and to solve solutions together. We have that, but the people don't understand how to use it. Further reading: The problem is much deeper than just politics. The problem is also in us. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-problem-is-much-deeper-than-just-politics-the-/

"No we don't have pure capitalism."

Exactly. Everyone understands "capitalism" the way they want. There is no "pure" capitalism, because everyone wants to see "pure capitalism" just the way they like (and the way it fits their greed, most of the time). I was not talking about any "pure" capitalism. I was talking about realistic capitalism, the kind of capitalism that can be adapted to reality, the capitalism that makes sense, the capitalism that the people don't understand at the moment. Most of the people don't understand that an ideology can be adapted to reality (therefore it can evolve) and they label "capitalist" or "communist" whatever it pleases them.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Capitalism in any form is intolerable (for the reasons I have mentioned before). Whether it's state capitalism or l-f capitalism; all the versions must be fought. If you think the idea of democracy is a good thing, then it would be logical to favor democratically run workplaces and communities, right? Creating a system like that would mean dismantling state-capitalism.

I blame the current system for the things happening in society.

Yes, there is a serious problem with many parlamentary democratic systems: http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/ That's why I advocate more direct participatory democracy.

In a libertarian socialist society participation is voluntary. No one would be forced to get involved in decitionmaking.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"If you think the idea of democracy is a good thing, then it would be logical to favor democratically run workplaces and communities, right?"

Exactly, and that's why it's logical to assume the people should start building such communities, right? So why they don't start doing it? We can make public housing (replacing the crooks at Habitat for Humanity) by simply renting houses/apartments. We can make publications that monitor the governments. We can fight for more transparency. We can expose the corruption of the crooks who are now in power.

So why we are not doing it? Because we were brainwashed and we became spoiled and lazy. The politicians train us to think democracy is only about decision making process. No! Democracy is, above all, freedom to associate and to build solutions together.

"I blame the current system for the things happening in society."

See? This is the biggest problem, by far. Most of the people blame the system, not the lack of building solutions. We can build solutions together, making any politician and ideology utterly redundant.

"Yes, there is a serious problem with many parlamentary democratic systems:"

Then you should call the people to action, to build solutions together, instead of promoting any "miraculous" new ideology.

"In a libertarian socialist society participation is voluntary. No one would be forced to get involved in decision making."

Exactly. That's why people should be EDUCATED to see the benefits of involving into the decision making and, way above that, into BUILDING solutions together. The government should offer to the people the opportunity to participate into decision making and into building solutions. If not the government, then the NGO's have to do that. If not the NGO's, then YOU have to do that. Even if you fail, at least you can be sure you did your best you could.

Take for example Obama. He says "yes we can". But he never offers to the people the opportunity to participate into building solutions. He can make government owned companies that give the people the opportunity to create something - even for free. So, "yes we can" became "yes we can (do it), but I don't want to show you how to (do it)". All politicians are charlatans, because they promote ideologies, not actions. No ideology can save you. But actions can.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"and that's why it's logical to assume the people should start building such communities, right? So why they don't start doing it?"

Well, it's hard with the financial elite and private tyrannies being so powerful in society. But with the rise and growth of the Occupy Movement we hopefully see the start of something that are going to lead to serious changes.

the current system has of course most of the blame. The systme has done a good job at trying to make people passive, but with the Occupy Movement we see that people are starting to break loose from this.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"Well, it's hard with the financial elite and private tyrannies being so powerful in society"

Sorry but you are sooooo wrong!!!

We can put some little money each of us to start an investigation publication that exposes corruption.

We can replace the crooks at Habitat for Humanity (HfH), making houses and renting them, instead of selling/giving. HfH is not renting, and the houses enter into the speculation market. Remember that the crisis started from the real estate speculation! Solve the housing problem and you solved the current crisis.

We can sign petitions, to the biggest NGO's, asking them to stop being fake and disingenuous, and to start implementing solutions. Most NGO's have no real transparency, no forums, don't want to educate people to find solutions together. We can protest against that. We can put tremendous pressure on them.

We can fight for more transparency, we can make an encyclopedia dedicated to monitoring the governments, the economy, dedicated to transparency. We can even add vital data (from transparency pov) to Wikipedia.

And we can do so many other things that don't even involve money.

I started on my own an encyclopedia dedicated to Activism in Spain. http://eae.wikinet.org

From working at it, I can tell you for sure the NGO's are a fraud and they can solve all the problems if they would just try to come with solutions.

"the current system has of course most of the blame."

Totally false. It's always revolutions and new leaders replacing a corrupt "capitalist" system with an even more corrupt "communist" system. And after some decades, the other way around. And always our corrupts are better than the old ones because we are "revolutionary" (Cuba for example)

The blame is on us, because we allow the politicians to be charlatans, because we allow the NGO's to be frauds (do we sign petitions to ask them to change? - no), because we are not doing the above mentioned things (or other things like that).

The big question is "what we can do?". That is a permanent question, not only for today's crisis. It's also for the generations after us. We should always come with ideas and we should work to implement them

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I didn't say that things cant be done. Lots can be done. I'm saying that the fiancial elite control a lot of society making things harder to do. And this undemocratic power that the wealthy possess must alos be adressed and dealt with.

But again, with the rise and growth of The Occupy Movement we might be witnessing the start of something huge.

"the current system has of course most of the blame." Totally false."

This does not make any sense. Not recognizing that the existing system has a lot of blame for things happening in today's society is jsut absurd.

[-] 1 points by gonzo1 (48) 2 years ago

"This does not make any sense. Not recognizing that the existing system has a lot of blame for things happening in today's society is jsut absurd."

It's not absurd at all. It's us that allow all those NGO's who claim they want to "save the world" to be so fake and disingenuous. If those NGO's would be what they should be, then all the big problems would simply disappear. They can simply give to the poor people the opportunity to create the things they need, instead of just making gifts. Doing that can eradicate hunger and poverty in no time.

And all those NGO's are so fake because WE allow them to be like that and because we don't create alternatives to them. So the problem is our lack of reaction - much bigger problem than the politicians.

[-] 0 points by jewieboy (1) 2 years ago

a year ago I was eating steak and shrimp for dinner now I'm eating bread and water That's how hard it is to make any money now where I live

[-] -1 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

""NATO is staging "Massacre of Christians in Syria by Muslims", by bringing Al Qaida and other radical Islamists to Syria, in order to initiate a war, where they can nuke Iran, give a lesson to rising China, control Middle East oil resources, and allow some people to print as much money as they wish by using petrodollars, so they can control the society and the world through their wealth and power. This will also allow capitalism to continue by breaking the Eastern and the Socialist spirituality which is growing around the world and which is the biggest threat to capitalist ruling elite. ""

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Is this a quote from somewhere?

Imperialism is something that must be fought as well; and we need to focus on renewable energy instead of oil addiction, which is very destructive to our planet and its inhabitants

[-] 0 points by Secretariat (33) 2 years ago

My friend: Pope is distracting Christians by his Latin America visit preaching about evils of socialism and communism when Syrian Christians are facing ethnic cleansing. There are more than 2 million Christians in Syria and there was a bomb attempt to massacre Christians. Christian Leaders of Syrian people are saying "if you divide, it will be bloodshed" http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31228&lan=eng

[-] -1 points by jewieboy (1) 2 years ago

Man is nothing but an animal animals fight for territory so does man animals fight for food so does man animals kill each other for survival so does man animals hunt so does man animals breed and then kill their off spring so does man animals are instinctive so are Men animals are smarter then Man Man is stupid dumb morose and ingnorant God should have given power of speech and reasoning to animals instead

[-] -1 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

So who owns the lemons at my kids lemonade stand?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Are you seriously asking me this? I write about the economy and labor marked and you bring up kids selling home-made lemonade?

[-] -1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

"...means of production are privately owned by some individuals, while others do not have this ownership..."

"...ones using the means of production must sell their labor to these owners in order to..."

You do realize that in order to sell something you would have to own it first, right? And that one's own labor is a "means of production"? You contradict yourself by stating that those who do not own "means of production" still somehow have "means of production" to sell. Of course, what you meant by "means of production" were things like factories, refineries, restaurants, etc; Things that were built by the effort or facilitation of the owner.

"This is intolerable. This exploitative unjust system must be dismantled and replaced with democracy..."

Are you suggesting that someone who builds their own business and owns it should not have the authority to choose who to hire and what to pay them? That that person should be at the mercy of the whim of anyone who wishes to work for him? Or that he should be at the mercy of what "society" decides he must pay his workers and who he must hire?

I see no difference between "state-capitalism" and "state-democracy". In both cases the state (military, police, and courts) violates the rights of individuals.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Your labor does not count as means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

If the capitalist built the mop, than it's labor. I'm talking about the fact that a capitalist profit on other people's labor and make money simply by just owning.

What I'm suggesting is people having a democratic influence in the things they´re a part of and which affect them - real democracy in other words. You'll get all the info you need here: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

States are power centers; they must, in long term perspective, be dismantled.

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with your last statement.

Strictly and literally speaking, labor is a means of production. It is the primary means of production. Without labor, nothing is produced. Machines do not run without someone to operate (or build) them. Tools do not extract resources out of the earth without someone else operating them. Labor is a means of production which each and every individual human being owns. It is the private ownership of the means of production which allows each and every human being to decide for himself how he will use the means he owns to accomplish his goals.

The capitalist built the mop. Then the capitalist sold the mop. Then he found that his mop was superior to all other mops and hired several people to help him assemble and sell more mops. It was his design so when he hired people to build them, he paid them less than he himself would make. Then he made enough to build a factory and produce hundreds of thousands of mops. He decided to retire so he hired someone else to run the factory on the condition that he would still receive a portion of its earnings because, after all, it is his factory. Then everyone who had not built a factory decided that he had no right to collect any of the revenues from the factory since he was no longer working there. Why doesn't he have the right to?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I, as well as the encyclopedias, don't count labor as means of production. If you want to discuss semantic, that's fine, but when the article mentiones "mop" than that does not include labor. That's how it is.

"It is the private ownership of the means of production which allows each and every human being to decide for himself how he will use the means he owns to accomplish his goals."

Didn't you read the article? I argued that this is not how the world works. Capitalism and private ownership on the means of production others are using causes exploitation and somebody having control and power over others.

"Why doesn't he have the right to?"

I want to end capitalism, exploitation, dehumanization, and replace this with real democracy in which people can control their own lives, workplaces and communities, that's why.

Private concentration of wealth is also concentration of power and must also be dismantled. It should in fact be prioritized because private power is pure tyranny.

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

To quote from the article you linked (I think this is the most objectionable line, simply because it is the least vague):

"Most services would be free when you need them, and production, distribution, remuneration etc. would be decided democratically by the participants."

Which services would be provided for free? And by whom? And why would they provide those services for free? Which services would not be provided for free and why not? And who are the "participants" who decide who gets paid what? And who decide what gets produced and how much? This sounds, to me, like the dream of Soviet Russia, which failed miserably.

"...ownership on the means of production others are using..." This statement implies that those "using the means of production" have some right to use them independent of who created said means and why they created said means. In other words, since a factory is considered a "means of production" and those "using" the factory are considered to have a right to use it, I pose the following question. If someone built the factory (which, of course, someone did. And it definitely wasn't those "using" it), what right does anyone else have to use it? And if they wanted to "use" the factory, why didn't they build one themselves?

In "real democracy" (a system in which the majority controls what does and does not happen) nobody has any guaranteed control of their own lives. Their control over their own lives is at the mercy of the majority.

One of the largest confusions I hear promulgated is the idea that economic power is equal to political power. It is not, except when governments do not serve their proper purpose (the protection of the natural rights of citizens). If a government serves its proper purpose, then it is not detrimental to one man that another has more money than he.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I don't think we should sketch out a libertarian socialist society in detail. LS has local democracy as a "core" if you will. It also has different "brands" of anarchist philosophies. this means that communities may vary a little from place to place in terms of policies.

Which services that will be free of charge when you need them should be decided by the participants. By "participants" I mean the people who are part of the community, the people who live and work there; but the ones affected by the different decitions made should also have a say. It's in other words important to build democracy form below.

My personal opinion is that we should move towards as much free services as possible with a society based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That way people wouldn't be treated like machines and everyone would have a good, decent life.

You're not guaranteed control over your life with minority rule either. I think we should work for an anracho-syndicalist society with democracy built from below with democratic workplaces, communities, and so on; that way people would have control over their own lives and work.

Capitalism is undemocratic (in fact tyrannical in many cases), dehumanizing and exploitative. It must be dismantled:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-democratic-deficit/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dehumanization/

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

I would put forward that laissez-faire capitalism is the embodiment of democracy in economics. What is commonly referred to as "capitalism" is the state-controlled economy that exists in America. Think about it -- what is the purpose of the FDA? FCC? FDIC? FTC? DEA? Those are all organizations which exist for the purpose of controlling commerce by force. They are not capitlist organizations -- they are the antithesis of it, yet they control every aspect of our economy.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, people are free to use their resources in any way they please (so long as they do not violate the rights of others). The idea of people not being treated like machines under the a society described by the slogan "From eat according to his ability, to each according to his need" is preposterous. Such a society would allow the needy to treat the producers like their own personal slaves, who exist solely to provide them with whatever they need. It creates a society in which those who are least able reap the most rewards of the work done by those who are able. How can it be any other way?

I do not believe that anyone should rule over anyone else. The only way this can be accomplished, in my view, is in a society which understands the concept of rights and where the government exists solely to protect those rights, rather than one which grants and denies privileges while ignoring the concept of rights, as ours does. "Civil Rights" are nothing more than privileges, as the supreme court has demonstrated time and time again.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

State-Capitalism is undemocratic and tyrannical in many cases. LF Capitalism is total private tyranny. LF means giving the power over to private hands, who have not been democratically elected, and run the institutions in a totalitarian way.

You're not free in lf capitalism. Did you read the article above and the links below? Capitalism, whther its LF or current U.S state-capitalism is undemocratic, exploitative and dehumanizing. It must be dismnatled.

"Such a society would allow the needy to treat the producers like their own personal slaves"

No, no. We live in a free ride society. We all get free rides and free lunches all the time. We should just share the wealth :)

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-free-ride-societypt4/

It is capitalism that resembles slavery. The differece is that in slavery you're ownedby the powerful, in capitalism you have to rent yourself to the powerful.

"I do not believe that anyone should rule over anyone else."

Me neither. Corporations and the financial elite should not be allowed to have the overwhelming control over the economy, hence our lives. I think all power centers should be dismantled, and we should start with the undemocratic ones: the private tyrannies.

WHat we should work for is an Anarcho-Syndicalist society in which we build democracy from below. That way people would be in control of their own lives,

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

You're still confusing economic "power" with political power. Economic "power", in a society where government has no control over the economy, refers to nothing more than the liberty to do with what you own as you please. It is political power which allows one man (or a group of them) to rule over others. It is not wealth which allows men to rule over others, it is the obedience of those who are oppressed to their oppressors. People will obey governments even to the point of their own deaths if they believe that the government has the legitimate authority to do what it does. In a society in which government was not assumed to have the authority to interfere in matters of commerce, there could be no legal coercive monopolies. Money can't legally buy armies (police) in a society where doing so is illegal (i.e., in a society in which government is limited to protecting people's natural rights including the right to do business with whomever they choose).

to quote you: "Corporations and the financial elite should not be allowed to have the overwhelming control over the economy, hence our lives." This is correct. It is government that allows those corporations to have that control. It is specifically the government's ability to control any and every aspect of commerce which allows those corporations to have that control. If no one (including government) were allowed to exercise such power, doing so would be illegal. Those corporations would be forced to survive based on the merits of their product or service. We all know that "the evil corporations" can't survive on the merits of their products and practices in a society in which people have the ability to not buy what they're selling. This ability is abridged by the government's power to control entire markets, such that a single corporation can be established as the sole provider of a good or service. This is what is referred to as a coercive monopoly.

I will state my position on "democratic power" quite clearly. No one is allowed to tell me what to do or not to do with what I own.

Furthermore, Tyranny is define as: 1. Cruel and oppressive government or rule. 2. A nation under such cruel and oppressive government.

Tyranny always refers to the actions of governments. Laissez-faire means "hands off", which is quite the opposite of "giving power to private hands". It is the declaration that no such legitimate power exists.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"You're still confusing economic "power" with political power."

No, no. I just want democracy on all levels in society, including a democratic economy.

"Economic "power", in a society where government has no control over the economy, refers to nothing more than the liberty to do with what you own as you please."

I reality this means that institutions are being run like private tyrannies and command economies, and where the wealthy have huge control in society, despite not being democratically elected. This is tyranny, private tyranny

"It is political power which allows one man (or a group of them) to rule over others."

I dont want undemocratic concentration of power and domination over others on the political arena, but i dont want undemocratic concentration of power and domination over others in the economy either. All tyrannies should be dismantled, state tyranny, as well as private tyranny.

"It is not wealth which allows men to rule over others"

Of course. The wealthy have more resourses, hence more power in society, hence more control over our lives.

"It is government that allows those corporations to have that control"

Actually, it is the corporations that, to a large extent control government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2Q6sdh6Bg

"No one is allowed to tell me what to do or not to do with what I own"

You don't live in abubble. If what you do with your life and resourses affect others, than you have to expect others intervening. People should have a right to control their own lives, and bve able to participate in he things thei're a part of - including of course workplaces and communities.

"Furthermore, Tyranny is define as: 1. Cruel and oppressive government or rule. 2. A nation under such cruel and oppressive government."

Oh, you want to discuss semantics? Tyranny can also mean oppressive power http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny , arbitrary unreasonable, use of authority, despotic or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tyranny

Corporations - whteher they exist in a lf capitalist society or in a state-capitalist soceity are private tyrannies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpd3grtjkK8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtdD42XsLlE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPLNobNk7ew

[-] 0 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

I don't understand how you continue to fail to see what I am saying. What resources would private companies control that would allow them to "have huge control in society"? Don't you understand what the current evil corporations do with their wealth that currently, in our mixed economic system allows them to control people's lives? They use it to influence government, so that it passes legislation favorable to them, thus allowing them to maintain their coercive monopolies and insure that they continue to receive government subsidies!!! This would be impossible if government had no authority to do this!!!

Again, I will point out that tyranny only applies to governments.

"Actually, it is the corporations that, to a large extent control government" This is true, and that is why I advocate refusing to allow anyone, even government, to exercise control over economic matters. There would be no benefit in controlling government if no economic advantage could arise from doing so!!!

A corporation is merely an entity that exists in law but not in reality, which is afforded some or all of the rights normally attributed to flesh and blood human beings. One can exercise "tyranny" only over what one owns. What corporation in a Laissez-faire economy could claim ownership of the people of an entire country? I will point out that governments, too, are identically corporations.

Regarding what I do affecting others, Yes! If what I do (negatively) affects them, then they have the right to seek compensation or retribution! But only when I violate their rights. But here, it is not my right of ownership that is being called into question. Rather, it is their right of ownership which is being defended! Me negatively affecting them (in any way), is equivalent to me telling them (or forcing them) to use (or not use) what they own with complete disregard for their rights.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

If you refuse to recognize that the huge corporations in society have huge power and influence over our lives, than you are just willfully ignoring reality.

They influence government and they have huge power in society in general.

"I will point out that tyranny only applies to governments"

You're wrong. There are lots of other tyrannies. Private institutions, run like a dictatorship with non-elected CEOs and owners running the institution with total control while others involved must follow orders, is tyranny. Non-elected wealthy elite having dominant control in the economy that affects all of us is very undemocratic.

If you agree that governments control the government, how can you then say that government can be tyrannical, but people in control of huge wealth and resources are not?

I want people to be in control of their own lives; having a democratic say in the things that affect them and they're a part of. That's not controvercial.

[-] -1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Alright. I'll ask you this. What means, other than the use of the authority of law, do corporations use to "influence society"?

"If you refuse to recognize that the huge corporations in society have huge power and influence over our lives, than you are just willfully ignoring reality." I am not denying that corporations currently have power. I am simply pointing out that money is only political power when government has the ability to regulate commerce. I am pointing out the cause of that power and how to eliminate it. Since there are no legal means that I have identified (or seen anyone else identify) other than the engineering of law to exercise control over society, I propose that the body which is granted the authority to engineer law be prohibited from engineering it where it concerns economic matters.

"...CEOs and owners running the institution with total control..." Control of what? If you say that it's the control over those who work for them, I would say that you are correct. Would you then suggest that an employer should not have the authority to hire whom he pleases for whatever task he decides? Without the use of force (whether legal or not), you do not have to work for any corporation if you do not choose to. Suggesting that a corporation would control those who do not work for it (in a society in which government had no ability to regulate commerce) is preposterous. Through what means would they then achieve that control?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"My continual question to you is how?"

I don't get this. Are you saying that you do not agree that people with great wealth and access to resourses don't have power in society (stock exchange, decitionmaking over owned industry etcetc) Do you disagree that people with enormous wealth ave huge infuence in the economy in general?

"What is wrong with the concept of ownership? Doesn't someone own what they own?"

Property rights come in different shapes and variations. It would depend on which ones you're talking about.

"I do not like the idea of democracy."

I know. This is across the board with the ultra capitalist right wing - don't let people participate and have a say in the things they're a part of and which affect them;but instead protect the private tyrannies and finacial elite

"I like the idea of people having the right to control what they own."

Again, like I said in the article "Property Rights", property rights come in different variations, and the current ones are not graven in stone.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"What means, other than the use of the authority of law, do corporations use to "influence society"?"

Their enormous wealth and resourses gives them enornous power in society, hence over our lives.

"Control of what?"

Of the institution/corporation.

"If you say that it's the control over those who work for them, I would say that you are correct."

Jupp. The owners/CEOs - who are not democratically elected - have all power over the decitionmaking in the institution, while the others have to follw their orders. Control is completely from top down in a undemocratic hirarchy - PRIVATE TYRANNY:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIpJQEcXP7A

All the other things you mention are nonsense and irrelevant if one likes the idea of democracy - that people should have a say in the things they're a part of and are affected by

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

"Their enormous wealth and resourses gives them enornous power in society, hence over our lives." My continual question to you is how? I am asking you to justify your assertion.

"Of the institution/corporation." What is wrong with the concept of ownership? Doesn't someone own what they own?

I do not like the idea of democracy. I like the idea of people having the right to control what they own.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I understand your criticisms of capitalism and your desire to see workers have more ownership but what if the worker can't afford the overhead needed to start and run the factory?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I want a libertarian socialist society in which the people in the different communities cooperate on production, distribution etc - together creating a best possible society for everyone living there: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

You didn't really answer my question. How would something like a car be manufactured in this type of society? Where would the heavy equipment needed to produce a car come from and who would pay for it?

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The same place money came from to bail out the auto industry.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Hehe. Yes, it is a little peculiar when people ask "how is this going to be financed in your dream society, if not by private initiative?", while at the very same time Corporations - command economies in fact ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmakLRxGbW8 ) - are given huge bailouts and subsidies by the public.

This one is pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvlot5VMLGI

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

And you didn't really read the article I linked to. The participants - workers, workers' councils, assemblies, representatives etc - in the community would cooperate together on things like production, funding, and what is prioritized etc.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

I did actually read it. It all sounds very good but I just don't think it is feasible.

A lot of the things that Americans have come to expect as part of their everyday lives are very capital intensive to produce. Simply cooperating with each other is not going to make a factory capable of producing automobiles pop up. Or one that makes televisions, or cell phones, or computers, or anything else we love to have.

Ideas like this would require Americans to completely change how we live our lives and I don't think a very large percentage of them would support something like this.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I disagree. There's no reason to believe that we wouldn't be able to create a soceity in which we are in control of our own lives, workplace, and communities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el1CdxiDo6M

It would change our lives alright: we'd get freedom

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Again, where would something like an automobile factory come from?

Chomsky says in that video that the mill workers should run the mill. Fine. But who will have the mill built in the first place?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"Again, where would something like an automobile factory come from?"

I don't get it. I just gave you an answer. The participants in the community - workers, workers' councils, assemblies, representatives etc - would cooperate together on things like production, funding, and what is prioritized etc.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Workers can easily do that now. Simply create an ESOP, employee stock ownership program. The workers can buy Walmart from the Walton family by buying up all the stock. Make a tender offer for a controlling % of the stock.

No one needs OWS to control a company.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

That's not how it works. The economy is all-encompassing. A co-op here and there and a couple of workers with over avarage fortune does not change the fact that wealth and power are, to a large extent, in the hands of the superwealthy.

It's not about OWS controlling a company, it's about giving the ones working in that company more say in the institution they're part of.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Thry hsve to buy a controling interest. The stockholders have to be paid by the workers.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It would be nice to try government owned and operated business ie factories. The capitalists keep telling us we can't do it, but what they are really afraid of is that we could do it and do it better. And workers would flock to the government run businesses because pay and benefits would be much better.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"Privately run business would be put out of business if government entered the arena. And that's the real reason they don't want the competition. We could hire our own CEOs or elect them!"

I agree. Publically run institutions can do a much better job. But to me, the important thing is democracy .Efficiant or not, having a democratic say in the things you're a part of should be a principle in society.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Okay , I will agree with that. Happiness comes first. If democracy trumps efficiency fine. But let's do both!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Sure. On the way to freedom ( http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html ) government could take over and do more, and do them much better (and to a much smaller cost, becuse we dont have to pay profit). It's also more democratic (if the government is democratic). Privately owned institutions are just private tyranny ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqlTyAMVDUk )

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Privately run business would be put out of business if government entered the arena. And that's the real reason they don't want the competition.

We could hire our own CEOs or elect them !

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Will these communities all be self-sufficient? How large would they be?

That sounds very nice but I cannot see how it can be applied in America without completely changing our way of life. And most Americans are likely far too comfortable in their current lives to even entertain the thought of something so radical.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

We could start with government run health insurance. At non profit would an excellent example of what communities could accomplish.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Mooks, at the end of the day you can't keep skirting around the reality that currency is an abstract & man made construct. In its current implementation it hinders human growth rather than promotes it.

Cost & wealth, in and of themselves are never a viable justification. Especially so for systemic injustices.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

It would be a society in which right to democratic influence is proportional to how much you're a part of it, so it would be workers organizing and coopertaing together on common issues, as would different workers' councils, as would different neighboring communities and so on and so on. So it's not about communities living isolated from one another, but more building democracy from below.

We have a lot of convincing to do yes. I think though, that most would agree that being in control of the things you're a part of and which affects you - including of course workplace and community - is pretty reasonable.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the metal workers ?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I would guess they'd have a central role in the actual building, yes :)

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

They will work for free and bring their own steel, also for free, with them?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

It's about participatory democracy where the participants make the main decitions. Remuneration is debated within libertarian socialism.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

so they metal workers would own a share of the company ?

and some point would they be bought out ?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"re·mu·ner·a·tion/riˌmyo͞onəˈrāSHən/ Noun: Money paid for work or a service."

that's correct. Feel free to provide definitions of words, but that one I already knew, though. But thanks anyway.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"once the metal workers left ,they are not around to participate"

But they're still part of the community and local area. And again, remuneration could be an option.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

re·mu·ner·a·tion/riˌmyo͞onəˈrāSHən/

Noun:

Money paid for work or a service.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

It's aboutcontrolling your work; and of course the ones affected by the actions, the community, should also have a say. In LS ownership of means of p. would be less of an issue. It's about participatory democracy.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Most large companies are publicly traded and as such, you the worker can "own" part of the company. Just buy stock in the company you work for.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

once the metal workers left ,

they are not around to participate

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not likely unless they are workaholics

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The government will supply the capital.

[-] -2 points by Ray1 (22) from Chardon, OH 2 years ago

My kids lemonade stand....Somebody has to buy the lemons from somebody who owns the lemons who in turnn owns or rents the land on which the lemons are grown. And thats just the part of the picture. Good chance that those lemons came here on a produce train on a railroad that owns the track and land that the train runs on...

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Why are you telling me this?

[-] -2 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So you want the government to own the rights to your labor and property? If your production is not yours, who do you suppose will be the one to have the right to it? If you would prefer not to be employed by a particular individual or company, you own the right to your own production. you can work for someone else. You can start your own company and work for yourself. Why would you want someone else to control your means of production?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"So you want the government to own the rights to your labor and property?"

Absolutely not.

"If your production is not yours, who do you suppose will be the one to have the right to it?"

I want people to control their own life and work. Anarcho-Syndicalism: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

"If you would prefer not to be employed by a particular individual or company, you own the right to your own production."

It's a principle thing. I think private tyrannies are illegitimate.

"Why would you want someone else to control your means of production?"

I want Anarcho-Syndicalism, people being in control of their own lives and workplace.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Again, you can do this rignt now by simply having the workers buy the companies for which they work!

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

You're not paying attention. Then you need cash. And again a couple of co-ops doesn't change the fact that the wealth and power are concentrated in private tyrannies and the financial eltie. I want a society where people control their own lives and workplaces.

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Of course you need cash! Seriously, are you that dense? Almost all the companies you are railing about are publicly traded.That means they are owned by large mutual funds and pension plans so almost everyone has a stake in them. Do you actually believe you were going to take ownership of the company without paying off the shareholders? 80% of America owns stock, in one form or another. Those of us with 401ks own stock.Public employee unions own stock.

You surely didnt think you were going to liquidate these companies without reimbursing ALL shareholders? No one is that stupid.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

I personally, want a democratic revolution in which workers and communities don't pay off the shareholders but instead take directly over the institutions.

If enough people want it, takeover of industry is perfectly achivable.

And I'd appreciate it if you present your arguments in a more respectful way. I seldom argue with trolls and trash talkers.

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi (-18) 2 years ago

Look around you, many of your fellow citizens are shareholders. Retirees would be utterly bankrupt, completely penniless. University endowments would be crushed. The California public employee retirement fund would vanish.

Do you actually believe that 50-60% of the population would agree to having their life savings wiped out in the name of anarcho syndicalism?

You would be pitting more than half of the 99% against the remaining 99%, and those that own stock would be joined by the 1% and the people who dont own stock would be wiped from the earth.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

First, in an anarcho-syndicalist society ordinary people would be much better off than what they are now, including when owning stock.

Second, the people must want it themselves. We have a lot of work convincing people that libertarian socialism is the best society. In other wprds, there has to be a change of attitude in the differetn communities choosing freedom and democracy over stock ownership

[-] -3 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Do you support OWS? OWS is supporting more governmental and organized control of our lives, not less. OWS is using anarchist to help create chaos so that the government will clamp down and take more control of people. OWS is about controlling people, not about allowing people their liberty and freedom.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

"Do you support OWS?"

Yes!

"OWS is supporting more governmental..."

Sure. That's perfect! As long as private tyrannies and the tyrannical financial elite have as much power as they do now, the 99% need some kind of self-defense thru government. Govermnet can be used for short term goals as f.ex taxing the wealthy.

"control of our lives, not less."

Actually, the whole point with The Occupy Movement is to try to get more control over one's own life.

"OWS is using anarchist to help create chaos so that the government will clamp down and take more control of people."

That one I didn't get.

"OWS is about controlling people, not about allowing people their liberty and freedom."

Eh, no! That would be the finacial elite and private tyranny.