Forum Post: How Do We Fight Capitalism & the 1%?
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 14, 2012, 3:43 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80
(6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Capitalism, regulated or non-regulated, is tyrannical and unsustainable; it must eventually be abolished. The wealth and power of the 1% must be stripped from them and given back to the people. The current economic system must be dismantled and replaced by a sustainable participatory democracy in which the communities and the economic institutions are controlled democratically by the participants. A free and just, large scale society like this will not become reality over night, it will come gradually, and it’s important that we discuss what should and can be done in the struggle for freedom.
I now want to present some suggestions which I think are important to get initiated and maintained along the way to a free and democratic society.
- EDUCATION AND INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS
Organizing engaged, solidaric and cooperative communities is very important; this is of course done by people reaching out to others in their neighborhoods and communities. By organizing meetings, contacting workers and unions, giving out flyers, pamphlets etc etc, and respectfully presenting facts and arguments that show how the current destructive system works, and present alternative ideas of how we could organize society – preferably the ideas of Libertarian Socialism – lots of progress can be made. Inviting knowledgeable activists, intellectuals and so on, and organizing lectures, seminars, discussions etc. in the community are also important initiatives. Making good use of the internet in all this is important. Starting political networks on the net and creating websites, writing blogs / articles etc, should also be prioritized.
- BOYCOTTING THE BIG CORPORATIONS AND BANKS
A well known way to fight the financial elite. It can often be difficult do this, since many of the institutions in society that offer services and sell goods we need are owned, or partially owned by the 1%. But if people, to a larger extent at least, without making it too difficult for themselves, choose alternative local stores, co-ops, local community banks etc, this can have effect. Many can take part in this – including more organized initiatives: consumers, workers, unions, organizations etc, could all organize big targeted boycotts. As people become more organized, the boycott will become an effective tool to fight the wealthy.
- STRIKES
Workers and unions getting involved in fighting the state-capitalist system and the ones who control it, is crucial. An extremely important and very effective tactic that workers can engage in is striking. Organizing a really large scale general strike might be hard at first in some areas, but if that’s out of reach in the near future, more local strikes should be organized. Sit-down strikes etc. organized at factories and other institutions in communities can be very effective in increasing workers’ rights. Strikes in all shapes and forms must be a very high priority in the struggle for a better society.
- WORKERS’ TAKEOVER OF INDUSTRY
When owners and capitalists decide to close down workplaces, the workers and the communities should try to find ways to take over, start up production again, and turn the businesses into worker and community-owned institutions, democratically controlled by the participants. That could be done by the workers and the community buying it from the capitalists or by building up strong community-support with dedicated unions etc, and simply just occupying them. Workers’ takeover of workplaces can and should be highly prioritized on the way to a more just and free society. The more people that are being convinced to join the struggle for a real participatory democracy in their community, the more things like workers’ rights and workers’ takeover can be put on to the agenda and eventually achieved.
Btw, Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis made an excellent documentary about workers’ takeover of factories in Argentina, called “The Take”. A must-see for all occupiers! Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEzXln5kbuw
- STARTING COOPERATIVES
Organizing neighborhoods/communities to start co-ops: grocery stores, industry/factories, agriculture cooperatives, local savings banks etc should be started when possible. This is of course hard since these things require capital, but as we have seen many times before: when people organize things together, lots of things can happen. Co-ops are growing in number today; they can become a very important factor if more people get involved.
- PROTEST, CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND PUSHING POLITICIANS
How to deal with party politics will vary from country to country. It depends on the specific circumstances and the political landscape. If there is a party in a country or community that’s dedicated to working for more economic equality, less hierarchies, workers’ rights and a sustainable environment, I think it could play a role in changing the society – at least in the beginning and middle stages. However, I think a big part of the struggle for a free and democratic society must be done outside party politics – especially in the countries with very poor functioning political systems, where the elections are more or less run by the elites (cf. United States f.ex). In addition to the things mentioned so far in this post, other things like protesting, organizing lots of people and communities to push politicians to put higher taxes on the rich, strengthening workers’ rights, etc., should be done. Also, civil disobedience, can be used not only in workplaces, but other situations like occupying foreclosed homes etc etc.
Many of the things mentioned here are of course already taking place – much thanks to this wonderful Occupy Movement, which has managed to not only put a lot of important topics on to the agenda, but also started actual work to try to create a more solidaric society – but I think it’s important to emphasize the importance of these things, so that strategies and tactics can be discussed and planned well. If we do that, the struggle will be more effective.
Please comment and contribute with your opinions as to how we can fight the 1%. This is, as we all know, a very important topic; it can never be discussed enough.
Solidarity!
Links:
Noam Chomsky on Workplace Democracy
Richard Wolff on Workplace Democracy
Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism & Anarcho-Syndicalism
”The Take” documentary by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis
Peak Oil and a Changing Climate by Noam Chomsky
”America is NOT Broke” by Michael Moore
Just want to make the Point that the Corruption in Capitalism is Predictable and always has been since Marx & Engles work.
Conservatives want to control everybody. Like they want to have social controls over what Everyone Learns, Says, and Thinks. But other than making some of us dumber through their patriarchy ... and maybe Ruining our Text Books & Secondary Education ...they are full of shit and are not in Control. Actually, the Internet is a hell of a tool to add to 60s Style Protest & Activisim.
[Removed]
yep. (probably any system will have some, and persons who want to be "controllers")
michael moore's "Capitalism: a Love Story" is playing on Current TV. I had forgotten some of it, TARP was Bush and Paulsen's doing. I had enjoyed it twice previously.
http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/capitalism_a_love_story_2009/ "The rich heard something in the distance....they better be frightened, it was the 'frigin' people". It's better the third time.
Here's another guy Jonathan Haidt on how liberals and conservatives are wired differently, Kind of interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjnDW6qrR0g them
he was on Bill Moyer's show. http://billmoyers.com/?search_type=video&s=conservatives+liberals+&Search=Search and advocates our "understanding" of conservatives so we can meet them in middle, and not typecasting them as "evil incarnate" link may not work so search Moyer's site to see it
Encore: How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World? Moyers & Company Posted: November 19, 2012
Bill talks with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt about the moral underpinnings of our contentious culture.
2nd Bill of Rights: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-2nd-bill-of-rights/
“Just want to make the Point that the Corruption in Capitalism is Predictable and always has been since Marx & Engles work.”
Corruption is predictable in more or less any hierarchical structure where power and wealth is highly concentrated. That’s why we should work to create a libertarian socialist society – a society based on workers’ self management and democracy. Capitalism and any other forms of tyrannical systems, must be abolished and replaced by democracy.
”Conservatives want to control everybody. Like they want to have social controls over what Everyone Learns, Says, and Thinks.”
It’s really fucked up that so many conservatives are obsessed with regulating things like gay marriage etc, things that don’t affect them in any way, but when it comes to the really big things that do affect them and everyone else - the economy, global warming etc - then they want as little regulations as possible.
Good response. Thanks. I suppose Libertarian-Socialist would stress the RIght to Self Determination and Individualism. You have probably gone through some of the implications that I am still just thinking up. I sort of see Tribalism as democratic, but not really having Individualist. I read some where that Korea was like that. The group is more important than the Individual. Maybe some of the Conservatives I'm thinking about engage in a kind of Group think. I'm thinking there is a deep problem in the US where people think in the simplest terms like family values, family budget, communism, big government, gay, work, look like you are working, show yourself to be a serious person no matter what the circumstances, look uniform, act uniform, talk uniform to conservative behavior, drive a truck, always work, ....
Anyway, the point is that life is more complex and you have to have more categories than right or wrong, black or white, City is Bad, Rural is Good.
You have heard of Communes & Kibutz. Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. A commune is an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberal (Looks Progressive)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism (Libertarian)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism (maximizes overall happiness)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics (Maybe good)
Libertarian Socialism strongly advocates both individual and collective rights. Please read this one: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/
“The group is more important than the Individual.”
They’re both important. What we need is a society where democratic say is proportional to how much you’re affected and part of things.
“the point is that life is more complex and you have to have more categories than right or wrong, black or white, City is Bad, Rural is Good.”
Libertarian Socialism is, the way I see it, the only logical, reasonable social organization for a modern society. People should be able to control their own lives, work, and community. That would be an anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist society.
Libertarian Socialism makes more sense to me today. I am drinking rum, but ... normally my mind does clear up a little if I am stuck on a complex thought. Separately we think about:
1) Marketing the Philosophy
2) Implementation
3) Getting people to focus on Philosophy rather than just a political platform, in other words, we want a buy-in from stakeholders in the US ... people have to transition from agreeing to a few ideas ... to using your philosophy as a template (or form) for their everyday lives.
4) You will have to distract people from their everyday lives ... and they have to incorporate a yearning for a new paradigm (your political philosophy)
Glad to hear you becoming more fund of LS :)
Make sure you check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
I think we have the chance here to discuss what truly has happened to our system.
One-- Neo-Con big banker theology, is not true conservatism. True conservatism is open free market barter and trade. However this ideal has been manipulated by Masonic NGO's and lobbyists, to push consolidation of wealth..
Two--left/right paradigm separated us and created the mindlessness propagated in today's world as a whole. Unite, not divide. Free thinkers 2012-2016!
No finance system, no $$
http://www.occupywallstreet.net/story/world-without-financial-system
Good information. I do however believe that we cannot force this idealism on the public. It has to be voluntary.
You're right. And it is idealistic. I personally am not imaginative enough to see how we get there. But I have fantasized about it since the concept was introduced to me in Science fiction (LOL, what can I say I'm a geek).
Interesting reading, great goal. But it doesn't replace my immediate goals of economic equity & justice.
Very Much Agree with you. Sorry if I steriotyped conservatives. There are a few conservatives in here that make sense. I would add that in 1970 Milton Friedman policies of Economics out of the Chicago School became Neoliberalism in Banking and inMarkets. This is the philosophy of Deregulation that fits so well with Ayn Rand, Allan Greenspan, ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, TIm Geithner, Bill Clinton, Georgie W., and Barak Obama. Oh and Mary Schipiro.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I agree with you that "the struggle for a free and democratic society must be done outside party politics."
Great post, sff.
The two party system, which serves only the 1%, must be defeated to make any real progress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVPWNo4rcM&feature=plcp
Of course, in the United States getting too involved in party polics is pretty meaningless, since the corporations and the financial elite to a large extent control the two major parties.
Thanks.
Yeah, organizing outside party politics is extremely important. How much one should get involved in the political parties can, like I said, vary; I don’t think there are any “magic keys” here, it depends on the circumstances. As a libertarian socialist I of course think that direct action and organizing outside the party-systems must be the main focus, but I don’t think that parties should be totally ignored or rejected in all cases during this struggle which will be tough.
This is one of THE best posts I've ever read here - and I've been reading longer than I've be commenting! Although it is all worthy of study, my own favorite section was:
'STARTING COOPERATIVES - Organizing neighborhoods/communities to start co-ops: grocery stores, industry/factories, agriculture cooperatives, local savings banks etc should be started when possible. This is of course hard since these things require capital, but as we have seen many times before: when people organize things together, lots of things can happen. Co-ops are growing in number today; they can become a very important factor if more people get involved.'
Excellent work and great links. Thank you for all your efforts. Never Give Up! Go Occupy!
Thanks so much for those kind words. And please share your thoughts here as well :) The more who contribute on this topic, the better.
Making sure cooperatives and democratically run institutions grow in number is very important. You checked out the "Occupy Your Workplace" video, yes?
Solidarity! Andy.
Your whole post was borne of love and kindness and deserved nothing less. You think my thoughts but in a much more focussed and organised manner. I am a member of a co-op and so also already occupy my workplace, lol. To sum up my thoughts, 'public, good; too much concentrated private, Very Bad! No to Plutocracy and Oligarchy! Solidarity to you and yours too, from me and mine. Go Occupy!
Thanks again, my friend.
Would you mind telling a little bit about the co-op you're involved in (how it's organized etc)?
In short it is comprised of mainly family members and close friends, has been going for nearly 25 years and is in the organic food and catering business. Any new members are employees for the first year and co-op members thereafter. We have a written constitution of course and profits are shared as dividends annually whilst we strive to pay a decent wage of at least over 50% on top of national minimum wage for new members and temporary workers. The most senior and experienced people earn no more than 4x the least paid and we try to democratically vote on all major decisions. In fact I have been on the forum here for quite a while today, so my chores and duties beckon now. Thanks again for this great post. Never Give Up! Go Occupy!
Please contribute here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/cooperatives-info-articles-documentaries-etc/
Sounds good. Thanks for sharing!
The EconomyApocalyse is upon us. The Co-Op is the solution to predatory capitalism. Look for a new documentary called called 'The Four Horseman' featuring Noam Chomsky, Max Keiser and others. Solidarity to the 99%! Never Give Up! Go Occupy!
What we're witnessing right now is the beginning of the end of the neo-liberal policies and capitalism. Capitalism is not sustainable, it must be dismantled sooner or later.
The only reasonable alternative to eventually replace this tyrannical, unsustainable system is libertarian socialism - that is, a participatory democracy controlled from below, with the economic institutions and communities run democratically by the participants:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/
I assume you agree, yes?
I do agree. Thank you for a link to another good post. Solidarity!
Thanks for those kind words. Solidarity.
Solidarity and here's a link and website that was kindly copied to me today by 'toobighasfailed' on my one and only 'Inside Job' post - http://occupywallst.org/forum/have-you-seen-the-film-inside-job-if-not-why-not-i/#comment-880570 . Many good links to articles and videos there too. Happy Thanksgiving. Never Stop your 'struggleforfreedom'! You are appreciated :)
Thanks for noticing me on The Take link.
Thanks so much. I've seen many of the programs/documentaries listed there. Money, Power and Wall St, The Warning, and IJ were all great.
If you haven't already, please check out the documentary "The Take" by Klein/Lewis (I linked to it in this post). Excellent documentary as well.
'The Take' is an excellent film as I recall although its has been been a while since I first saw it. You may want to take another look at the link on your post and amend as required. Never Give Up! Go Occupy!
Yeah, I've been looking forward to TFH. Do you know a link to it?
This is interesting
http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/
“We have this disparity getting wider and wider between those for whom capitalism continues to deliver the goods by all means, [and] a growing majority in this society facing harder and harder times,” Wolff tells Bill. “And that’s what provokes some of us to begin to say it’s a systemic problem.” - from your excellent link.
Also see - http://www.nationofchange.org/america-s-unsustainable-inequality-1362667183 , from which - 'We have to attack the natural tendency of a capitalist economy to produce the seeds of its own destruction – namely unsustainable inequality.'
Never Give Up! Go Occupy! Solidarity.
Thanks for the informative link.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/beat-them-at-their-own-game-the-99er-conglomerate/
Eventually this will end the 2 party system and kill capitalism.
I figure you might enjoy.
Thanks for that and in return, you may also enjoy - http://www.nationofchange.org/people-s-bailout-was-just-beginning-what-s-next-strike-debt-1355501046 :) Never Give Up The Struggle For Freedom! Occupy Social Justice! Solidarity.
These is an excellent roadmap to improve the society and the lives of the 99%.
And just a couple of small individual actions we can all take to improve our lives and the world.
Give up the car.
Give up red meat.
Not as deep and broad as your great post but if we can't change the world, we can change the world in ourselves.
Thanks
Thanks.
Focusing more on creating and using good and affordable public transportation rather than cars would be a great idea – especially as long as most cars aren’t using renewable energy. I’m not sure if I agree about the red meat. I think that’s pretty far down on the list on things we should focus on.
I understand how you feel about red meat. I love it. You ain't lived 'till you had a steak at Peter Lugers in Williamsburg Brooklyn.
I mentioned it because I saw the stats on how much energy is used to raise, process, distr beef. the clear cutting of forests to create grasslands.and so on. It is phenomenal. If we all became veggans there would be great improvement in the environment.
just throwin it out there.
I understand perfectly well why you bring this up. There are certainly things about the production of meat that I would like to see changed. What I’m saying is that there are thousands of things more important than giving up meat.
That may be. The numbers I've seen (I will find them) indicate that it is an enormous amount of each individuals carbon foot print. As much as car use. But I'm not gonna be a pain about it. I've only cut back. Weak n worthless worm that I am!
As water and food scarcity become issues, meat will become the #1 issue. We can feed at least 2 to 3 times the current population (fed by American grain, at least) by switching to a vegetarian diet. 70% of US grain production goes to feed animals for slaughter, causing a loss to farmers of $100billion per year. We produce $100billion in produce and $100billion in meat. If those grains went to feed humans directly instead of slaughter animals that grain would have produced an additional $100billion in income and could have fed an additional 1 billion people.
Good numbers. And as China grows it's middle class their beef consumption has grown. Truth is all poor nations growing a middle class increase their beef consumption. It's a losing battle. but with everything we mentioned it is also healthier to give up beef. It's good in all kinda ways.
The power of 10m dead soldiers is found in the love their descendants and families had for them. Each, particularly the best, gave their life to the ideal of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Few knew it was Native American law, based in human instincts well understood for perhaps 1,000 years. Natural law known by the leaders and used by them to create strong societies that had integrity to the continuity of the people.
The notion of "alter or abolish" was integrated into the Declaration of Independence. From that, Article 5 of the Constitution was created. The ultimate power of the land is with the people and their ability to use this paramount tool for controlling the federal government.
All other strategies fall farrrrrrrrrrrrrrr short of the needed authority to oppose the will of the 1%.
You don't have to answer me on this ... I figure you might be interested and ... you might have some expertise and contacts.
If you want to look at Federal Budget Data a little. I need some help from someone that knows Congressional Staff Members to ask Budget Question below. It is a little fishy, but maybe be a normal data presentation problem ... Like what happens when you "Roll up all the Data under one Heading". Congress would have to call Treasury to get the Answer, but I may try calling them tomorrow just doubt any answers.
Sort of afraid that Funds for education paid by the federal government are getting funneled off to a corporation or to indoctrinate our kids. I'm looking at 2 Treasury Statements a Daily (see 1st page) and a Monthly Treasury Statement (see page 9)
https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=12092800.pdf (Daily Treasury Statement, 28 September 2012)
https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf (monthly Treasury Statement End of Year September 2012)
Hey maybe you could check with your congressman's staff for explaination of the Difference Between Withdrawls on the Daily Treasury Statement for Education Department Programs $226 Billion for the Year 2012... and the Monthly Treasury Statement for 2012 which shows Total Education department Outlays of $57 Billion on page 9.
https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf (end of year, September 2012, Monthly Treasury Statement)
The Question is about if trust Funds, Personnel benefits, or tuition Loan programs are rolling up to the Daily Withdrawls... but are not considered part of Department of Education in the Treasury Monthly Statement. Like outside programs confuse the issue...
The thing is the federal Department of Education should not really have a lot of employees. The Department of Defense & State Department would have some Teachers, administrators, and payroll deductions, health benefit deductions, pension deductions, ... The only other thing that is as expensive as employees ... is Tuition.
But if we have Increased Federal Budget Lines in the Department of defense because we have family dependents overseas, and Increased Teacher Payrolls, increased teacher benefit deductions ... this is kind of a hidden cost of Defense in some ways.
Perhaps as an outside chance, DOD Tuition Programs could apply to Veterans & Soliders within DOD Budget Lines for the Monthly treasury Report ... while showing up as Education Department Program Daily Withdrawls.
I hate to think that there is a Financial Scheme for Paying educators to teach school in the USA when we all think they are State Funded - State Controlled Teachers.... Hate to think this is a War Cost being slid under Education Department Programs ... but the size of the Withdrawls of $226 Billion only fits under a couple of Possible Budgets or Payrolls or Payments to Trust Programs like DOD, State Department...
Chomsky!!!!!!!!!!!
We need a new and larger Operation Breadbasket!!
What do you mean exactly?
Its an awesome system they came up with in the civil rights era. Google Operation Breadbasket its very simiar to what you're talking about
Yeah, I’ve heard of OB. Not too familiar with all their work, though. Other than boycotts, what were their main priorities and achievements?
it was how they did the boycotts that made it so interesting. I read about it in the book "Where Do We Go From Here" but I think this link talks about it nicely.
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_operation_breadbasket/
Why impose your ideas? You want to replace one method of control for another. America gives you the freedom to create your own community. If you want a liberal one, you can make it like that. If you want a conservative one, go ahead. America is the CPU, and your community is a software application. There does not have to be one way, or one type of community. Live and let live.
America is really nothing. It is not pure democracy, it is not monarchy, it is not pure capitalism, or communism. It is not pure fascism or socialism. Neither is it totalitarianism or anarchy. Yet in America you can find elements of all these things co-existing. The problem is when one of these groups wants to ram their BS down everyone else's throat at the muzzle of a rifle.
Gather your people. Preach your message and make your community and be happy. America gives you that freedom. Just don't take away my freedom to make a different type of community.
“Why impose your ideas?”
I’m not imposing; I’m advocating a society in which individuals are free.
“You want to replace one method of control for another.”
Yes, I want a society in which people are in control of their own lives, and not controlled and ruled by others.
“If you want a liberal one, you can make it like that.”
I want a libertarian socialist one, and that means, in long term perspective, organizing the entire society, not just a small commune, or a couple of co-ops. The all-encompassing economy must be democratized.
“America is really nothing..”
America has, like all other countries, some good features and some bad features. The bad features, like the fact that the economy, to a large extent, is run by huge corporations that are in reality tyrannical, must be dismantled. Americans deserve to be in control of their own lives – including at the institution in which they work.
“Just don't take away my freedom to make a different type of community.”
Which freedoms do you fear you’ll lose if we managed to establish a libertarian socialist society?
Maybe I want to run a big business in a dictatorial fashion, and maybe there are people who want to work there under that condition and get less pay for more work. For every S&M act there is a sadist and a willing masochist. Who are you to stop us? (Of course, I don;t want that, but hypothetically, there are neocons who want this). lol
My bottom line here is freedom. That is America to me and I don't anyone F-in with that freedom. If you want co-ops without a boss. Go ahead. If I want to be the boss, then don't tread on me. I think different socio-economic models have to be allowed within reason as long as people are not forced into anything.
The problem of extremism comes when one player in the society who has taken up a socio-economic ideology and wants to force it on everyone else. That creates conflict.
The beauty of Centrism is that it recognizes everyone's position as valid and asks everyone to come closer to the center to the degree that everyone can do their thing. That takes power and profit sharing but doesn't require you to abandon your individual agenda. Like in the human body. The legs get their share from the stomach, which gets its share from the head. But the leg does its leg work and the head does its head work. Maybe the head gets more potassium and the leg gets more carbohydrates. They get what they need to do their job. So everyone is a different part of the socio-economic body and all are important, all have different needs, and all need to cooperate and share info and resources to make the whole thing function. Unity in diversity.
It is not good to force others to our way of thinking or to function according to our idea of optimal. It will never happen like that. Everyone stays in their own camp. So centrism allows people to be who they are naturally in a way that all others can do the same. Otherwise the capitalists want to kill the communists and vice-versa. That is not the way. That is the way of extremism. So unless you are advocating centrism you are some type of extremist, where a socialist, fascist, anarchist, monarch, democrat, totalitarian, communist or capitalist.
The core position of monarch, democrat, communist and capitalist represent different positions and different types of mentalities that need to be accepted to some degree. You can say business, labor, executive and policy makers. They share profit and power in the society. We can't function without any one of them. So we have to tone down our demands to a level that facilitates all four divisions. Right now, capitalists are WAY out of balance and taking everyone for a ride, I agree.
But then if we swing back the other way will equally opposite force, then the pendulum swings way out of balance on the labor side like it did in the USSR. So striking that point of balance is the real key to societal success. We should define the point of balance and then just implement that without all the tit for tat pendulum antics. Forget the past and start doing it right today. Forget payback.
“Maybe I want to run a big business in a dictatorial fashion”
So what? You still shouldn’t be allowed to.
“and maybe there are people who want to work there under that condition and get less pay for more work.”
I think most people want to have decent working conditions and more control at their workplace; and I think most people would like a libertarian socialist society if they were properly introduced to the ideas.
“For every S&M act there is a sadist and a willing masochist.”
Sex acts taking place in your basement is something completely different than the economy.
“Who are you to stop us?”
Like I said above: the economy is all-encompassing. We’re all affected by it. The economy must therefore be controlled democratically by the people.
“My bottom line here is freedom.”
Mine too: http://occupywallst.org/forum/part-ii-workers-self-management-workplace-democrac/
Libertarian Socialism is about human liberation - people getting control of their own lives, work and community.
“If you want coops without a boss. So ahead.”
The whole economy must be addressed as well. Someone starting a co-op isn’t going to change the fact that the financial elite have the overwhelming power in society.
“If I want to be the boss, then don't tread on me.”
We should “tread” on everyone who wants to rule and control others.
“So unless you are advocating centrism you are some type of extremist, where a socialist, fascist, anarchist, monarch, democrat, totalitarian, communist or capitalist.”
Nonsense. It’s not extreme to advocate a participatory democracy in which people control their own lives. Libertarian Socialism is just common sense: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/
“But then if we swing back the other way will equally opposite force, then the pendulum swings way out of balance on the labor side like it did in the USSR.”
There are other alternatives on how to organize society than capitalism or Leninism.
You are an extremist. You just proved it. You are ready to force me to do what you want and deny me the freedom to do what I want. That is not even moderate. That is pure extremist.
And besides someone had to sell a lot of drugs in China to get all that money and establish those old banks. You go and try to sell tons of opium in China on a sailing boat and see how easy it is. Now you are going to go and confiscate all their drug money? And do what, buy more drugs?
Isn't that taking from Paul and giving to Peter?
I just want people to be free and have control over their own lives. How’s that extreme?
Again, which freedoms are you afraid you’ll lose if a participatory democracy were established?
So, what are we waiting for? Why don't we take up a collection, start buying businesses, and give every person in the world one share of the ownership? We could buy more businesses with the profits, automate almost everything, then sit back and collect dividends. Is that so hard to imagine? Here's an example: Wal-mart pays out around $1.34 billion, four times a year! If we grew a business to that level, made every person in the world a shareholder for life, we would have the money to LOBBY our Representatives,Congress,etc, into operating with our best interest in mind! .........J/k That will never happen... Anyway, this is one of my favorite thought experiments.. the possibilities are endless. -elimination of poverty -universal healthcare(for the whole world!) -people happy to give their jobs to robots -rapid modernization of third world nations -dividend income on top of any job income -hire our own police force -referendum votes online(direct democracy) -allocation of money to save the freakin planet -eventually making central governments obsolete... Participation in this would be voluntary, and any person could opt out as they please. The current paradigm of global capitalism would remain relevant for many years...until our new system crushes it. :) Just imagine....
What we should do is try to create a society with more democracy, solidarity and equality. I think we’ll achieve this kind of society most efficiently if we focus on the things I mentioned in the post.
I agree that we should try to create a society that is as equal as possible, and absolutely agree that a world illuminated by a pure democracy would be..a dream come true. There are multitudes of people who believe this as well. However, there are just as many nuts who will not crack. I agree with the things you mention in your post. They are all good ideas. Tried and true. But, there is one particular point that you make. If we expand and focus on just this one point, all the others will become obsolete. I'm of course referring to Co-Ops. The average capitalist business model only benefits the owner, and a few individuals in management. Those people who perform the work, are subject to a minimal share of the benefits of their labor. These people are basically wage-slaves(unless they have a good union). The average co-op benefits the workers and the members who use it. The funds are evenly distributed leaving very little for the purpose of expansion. Co-ops are also exclusive, benefiting a small group of people and leaving out the rest of the world... I'm not convinced that the average co-op is the answer. They can not compete in a world riddled with capitalism (you're never going to see a company the size of Apple that is a Co-Op). They will benefit little from automation. And they simply help far to few people. How are co-ops going to help starving children in Africa? So who benefits the most from any business? The owner of course! We need business to benefit everybody! Every person on the planet with no exceptions! Fuck Greed! Give every damn person in the world 1, uno, one, single share of a company for life. They can't buy another one. They can't own 2. They can't sell theirs. But they can opt out. Run it as a normal, for profit business with all the normal shit that makes those companies competitive. Let the people vote online for the board of directors to run said business. Make everything transparent as fuck. And here's the big fucking red cherry on the sundae. Let the people vote on what to do with the profits! Fuck letting the Board decide. Those bitches will just keep it for themselves. No, let the people vote to give themselves dividends or send money to victims of an earthquake. Or better yet, save half of the yearly profits to purchase other businesses! Don't you see? I hate this cold global capitalism model! And this is the only way to change it! Eventually, we'll have this huge, mammoth corporation that owns businesses in China, America, Germany, etc. The people will get it. They will understand that if they shop at our businesses, the others will go under, and they will see their dividends increase. People out in the middle of nowhere in the serengeti will start receiving dividend checks from post office workers on camelback and they'll be like, whaaa? And each of their kids will get the same checks. Then they'll want to spend that shit, so fucking Mwai from down the trail will open up a shop selling shit he bought off the internet and boom, Tanzania catches up to the rest of the world. Then one day we'll be voting online to build electric cars out of carbon fiber not giving a fuck about how much it costs because we have so many profits from everything else. We'll be building bubble cities on the moon just to watch low-g basketball. And the oil will just sit in the ground where it is. People will still work. There's always going to be people that want more. You could be sending people $10,000 a month dividend checks and they'll still do something to live better than the next guy. But nobody will cry when all the fast food is made by robots. Then we'll realize. Who the fuck do these bitches in government think they are? Telling us to pay taxes and spying on us and shit. We'll realize that we don't need them to protect us from some foreign threat because we'll all be working together. We'll hire our own police force and stop paying taxes. We'll dissolve every government on the planet.
So what are you waiting for? You don't have to start big. Form a pool of investors. Buy or start a business. Institute workplace democracy. Build it up. Make it prosperous. Provide good wages and pensions and benefits, and of course that dividend income as well. You should certainly have no problem attracting willing -- nay, excited -- workers.
And it's cheap and easy. You can incorporate a business on the internet in about 15 minutes for about $100. Get rolling! Go for it!
Thanks for the encouragement. :) It seems that the first step is to spread the idea so that we can form a consensus. If you truly believe that this will work, please spread this idea. It's sooo simple.
Issue of wants v needs is the first front of unity against abuses of the concept of capitalism.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/when-need-becomes-want/#comment-905005
Different strategies are merging here.
I don't think that the accumulation of capital always results in corruption. I've know factory workers who think their factory's owner is a great guy, because he provides them with a fair return for their labor and steady employment.
In a real "American style" capitalist system, not only the owners but also the workers accumulate capital because they are paid well. For example, factory workers, about fifty years ago, which made up about 25-30% of the economy, earned enough money to buy houses, whereby, instead of paying rent, they could accumulate the capital for themselves by paying off their mortgages.
Such workers, as they acquired skill, also were frequently able to start their own small businesses as subcontractors to factories.
What we have today is not real capitalism. What we have is imperialism, which is a predatory system, ripping off the capital accumulated by past generations of a capitalist economy.
A real American style capitalist system is intended to promote the accumulation of capital by as many people as possible through home ownership and starting a business. Such capitalism is lead by government investment, that is, the combined investment of the people, in economic development projects, like FDR's New Deal or JFK's space program.
As I explained here, capitalism is undemocratic, tyrannical, exploitative, immoral, and dehumanizing. Whether what you mentioned here is correct or not, a system that has these kind of charachetistics must be abolished and replaced by something better.
Accumulated capital is bad no matter where it's concentrated, because accumulated capital weakens democracy.
Imperialism is a logical consequence of the economic system we have - an economic system which encourages greed and hunt for profits.
What we should strive to create is a society in which workers and communities control the institutions democratically; that way people will be able to be in control their own lives.
People are sometimes exploitative, and immoral, so sometimes the businesses that they run are that way also. Many businesses are that way these days, because imperialism is dominating our system, but imperialism and capitalism are not the same things.
Imperialism was the old system of Europe, in which people were born into a class, whether rich or poor, and remained in that class all of their lives. They came to America to escape those old ways, and gradually established a system that allowed people to move up by their own efforts, which is called capitalism.
Imperialism, in the form of an international financial oligarchy, still tries to subject whole nations to its dictates these days, and that is what is happening in America today, and is what makes our system as a whole exploitative, tyrannical, immoral and dehumanizing.
The system that we had in America was once the envy of the entire world. As bad as it is now, people from all over the world still want to go to America, because what they have in their own countries is worse. What we should be doing is working to re-establish the system of capitalism that we once had and protect it from imperialism, and dismantle imperialism around the world.
FDR wanted to do this by exporting advanced infrastructural equipment to the poor countries of the world on credit. This would have allowed them to develop economies that are independent from the global financial oligarchy and capable of defending themselves from it.
There are individuals that behave badly, but that's not an argument for organizing the economic institutions in society in an undemocratic manner.
Based on some of things you wrote here, I'm not sure if you're understanding of "imperialism" is entirely correct.
Capitalism is based on private ownership on the means of production. This kind of organization must eventually be abolished, because it creates hierarchy and domination. Workplaces should be controlled democratically by the participants. Capitalism must therefore be abolished.
If you think that my understanding of imperialism is incorrect, it may be because you have accepted the definition of imperialism that the mainstream would prefer you to have.
Democracy has its limitations too. The poor and middle classes, can be just as immoral and exploitative as anybody, particularly if they are manipulated by the media.
This is why America was established as a republic, in that it was meant to be governed by principles. The principles for the optimal governing of societies can be identified, just as other scientific principles can be understood. Democracy needs to function within the limits of the principles established for a republic.
Families are also based on hierarchies, so does that mean you also want to abolish families, or should children have an equal say in running a family as parents do? We know that children often do not make the best choices for themselves, they may want to eat candy, whereas vegetables would be better for them.
People who attain some level of leadership in a business generally earn that level of leadership, because they have proven themselves capable of making the right decisions for a business. All employees may not have that capability.
Some businesses have self managing teams of employees, but also have a management hierarchy.
“If you think that my understanding of imperialism is incorrect, it may be because you have accepted the definition of imperialism that the mainstream would prefer you to have.”
Well, if you’re making up your own unique definition of words, then it’s going to be a little difficult to have a conversation, don’t you think?
“Democracy has its limitations too. The poor and middle classes, can be just as immoral and exploitative as anybody”
If democracy was organized from below based on libertarian socialist values and ideas such as solidarity, cooperation etc, there’d be no exploitation, and cynicism and immoral behavior would be down to the minimum.
“Democracy needs to function within the limits of the principles established for a republic.”
I don’t mind principles, but it must be the people living in society today that should get to decide how things are organized. People should have the right to participate and have a democratic say in the things that affect them, and this right should be proportional to how much one is affected. Therefore Libertarian Socialism is the best way to organize society.
“Families are also based on hierarchies, so does that mean you also want to abolish families, or should children have an equal say in running a family as parents do? We know that children often do not make the best choices for themselves, they may want to eat candy, whereas vegetables would be better for them.”
Ideally hierarchies within families should be down to the minimum as well, but as long as things are organized voluntarily, families must organize their lives as they want.
Children are not fully developed; there need to be some authority if necessary when children are involved.
“People who attain some level of leadership in a business generally earn that level of leadership, because they have proven themselves capable of making the right decisions for a business. All employees may not have that capability.”
Irrelevant. No one should be able to dominate and control others. If someone wants to make decisions on behalf of others, then they must at least be elected democratically – which always should be under direct control of the voters.
I'm not making up a definition of imperialism, I'm telling you what I've read and researched about.
I don't see why you think there would be no exploitation if democracy was organized from below. The lower classes can be just as immoral as anyone. The key is to have a kind of educational or cultural system which helps to develop morality in the people.
I think that if businesses could function in a democratic way as you suggest, there would be more of them. And if they were superior to today's conventional businesses, they would in some way out perform and eventually replace them.
"I'm not making up a definition of imperialism"
What's your definition of imperialism?
"I don't see why you think there would be no exploitation if democracy was organized from below. The lower classes can be just as immoral as anyone."
I already explained this. In a libertarian socialist society exploitation, greed, and other immoral behaviour, are down to the minimum.
" The key is to have a kind of educational or cultural system which helps to develop morality in the people."
Morality is, to a certain degree at least, determined and part of human nature. In a libertarian socialist society, human characteristics such as altruism, solidarity etc will flourish.
Teaching children how to think for themselves should be a high priority in the ed.system.
"I think that if businesses could function in a democratic way as you suggest, there would be more of them. And if they were superior to today's conventional businesses, they would in some way out perform and eventually replace them."
First of all, co-ops are growing in number. Second, societies based on workplace democracy/anarchist principles have worked fine, but have been crushed by powerful opponents. Third, it's hard to start co-ops, because very few workers have the capital. The business would also have to compete within a capitalist framework with huge concentrated private power.
These days, imperialism is the efforts of corporations and the people who own them to dominate countries.
Do you have any examples of libertarian socialist societies minimizing immoral behavior? Why would it cause moral behavior to flourish.
There are historical precedents for advancements in moral behavior, one such example is Confucianism in China.
Usually, successful business people come from families of successful business people. This is because the children learn from a very young age how businesses are run.
I don’t think that’s an accurate definition. Imperialism primarily means military and/or economic control outside national borders.
Wherever workers have organized and gotten more impact in society, values such as solidarity and equality have increased. Feelings of solidarity, cooperation and mutual aid would flourish in a libertarian socialist society, because it would be a society that’s based on these values.
Do you think people should have the right to a democratic say in the things that affect them?
Today's imperialistic corporations wish to promote the view that it is aggressive nation states that are the imperialists.
To give an example of corporate imperialism, the British empire got started when the British East India company colonized the country of India. Then with the tremendous wealth gained, the East India Company returned to England and "colonized" it, by using money to buy off politicians or to establish their own representatives in positions of power.
These days, Wall Street, which is a part of the global financial empire, uses its money to "colonize" the US government by buying out its politicians or establishing its own agents in positions of power.
I can see that organized workers have promoted positive values in society. But I also think that workers and private owners can work together harmoniously, and that this was the original intention of the American system. That is, that both profits and salaries could rise together.
I think workers co-ops are a good idea. But an educational system would be need to teach people from a young age how to run a business. Also, I'm not sure that all workers want the headache involved in running a business.
Yes, I think people should have a say in things that effect them, and that this is what organized labor is supposed to accomplish. I don't think this requires outlawing private business ownership, however.
The corporations have lots of power, of course. However, imperialism primarily has to do with foreign policy and expanding control outside the borders.
Private ownership is illegitimate because it allows some individuals to control and dominate others.
So you think people should have a say in things that effect them. Good. But the institutions in which people work and contribute - their workplaces - affect their lives pretty much as well, right? So if you believe people should have a say in things that effect them, shouldn't you be in favor of workplace democracy as well?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFZtI8UozvU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls7QZm7omh8
In the most recent case of imperialism, the British empire, the foreign policy to expand control outside of the borders was motivated by a private company, the British East India company, which had taken control over the British national government.
The same thing happens these days. When the US national government moves to expand control beyond its borders, for example in the middle east, it is doing so at the behest of Wall Street banks. It is certainly not the people of the US, nor the US constitution which dictate that we should do so.
If workers have no experience in managing a business, there is no reason to think that they would make the correct decisions that are required to run a business.
Workers that want to manage a business democratically should start their own businesses and run them that way if that is what they want to do. Nothing is stopping them.
Well, maybe one thing is stopping them, which is the generally unfriendly policies towards business startups in the US today. Of course private business start ups face this problem as well.
"So if workers want democratically owned businesses, the only way its going to happen is by them taking responsibility and making it happen for themselves."
Correct, but creating new co-ops isn't the only thing that should be done.
"Most people, however, just don't want the responsibility of running a business, nor do they want to take the financial risk that is involved."
I think most people would like to have a say in how things are done at theri workplace. There are lots of ways people can organize the institution, but decitions should be made democratically - because people should have a say in the things that affect them.
"People who start their own business, work very hard, take risks and make sacrifices."
Irrelevant. Working hard does not justify you getting power and undemocratic control over others.
"They feel that they have a right to run their businesses the way they want to."
That's predictible and irrelevant.
"If workers don't like it, then the workers already have a right to vote, the right to vote with their feet and go work someplace else"
"Why don't you just quit/move" etc is a horrible argument.
You agreed that people should have a say in the things that affect them; that should include everyone.
"or start their own business, or start a co-op."
Not everyone is capable of doing that.
Nothing is stopping you or anybody from doing it, yet still co-ops do not exist on a wide scale. Until they do, its all just talk. I wish anybody good luck if they want to do it, but I'm not holding my breath to see it happen.
If you really believe in these things, why don't you invest a lot of time and money into starting a business, and then allow your employees democratic control over it? Saying that other people "should" do these things, without being willing to do them yourself, is pretty much just hypocrisy.
I have started a business, an English school in Argentina:
http://www.englearningsolution.com.ar/
so I know a little about the initiative and sacrifice that is required. Because of the high inflation currently happening in Argentina, our school currently doesn't make enough money for me to live and work there. So, I've returned to China, where I can make enough money to continue paying for the advertising in Argentina, while letting my partner run the business, in hopes that a good economy will someday return.
Having learned how to start a school, I've tried to talk some of my teacher friends here in China into forming a co-op to start a school. Generally speaking, these people just prefer to work for someone else, not put their time or money at risk, and collect their paychecks.
I spoke with a friend recently, who makes his living as a political activist, this is what he said about the limitations of democratic institutions:
"When someone says something should be done on a democratic basis, one knows that person is just repeating a slogan which has, at best, virtually no meaning.
Worst, you do not want anything run on a democratic basis. Athens was a Democracy and found Socrates guilty and killed him. After establishing a dictatorship and crushing the will to resist from the German people, the "democratic" elections repeatedly gave the okay to Hitler's policies.
A lynch mob was the democratic majority of the people in the Southern community. Democracy is always dangerous. Since the majority is in most cases, the most uneducated part of the population, and the most easily manipulated, the result of democratic decisions are mostly disastrous.
That is why the US is a Republic of representative government. The idea of the Constitution is that the better, or more educated, or those committed to the Preamble's idea of defending the general welfare of all the people, shall govern the nation.
Under those that do represent those ideas, the nation has prospered, developed and increased the participation, power and well-being of more and more sectors of the population.
On the other hand, when the nation has fallen under those professing "democracy," like Andrew Jackson, the nation collapses, hell is unleashed, and, as in the case of Jackson, mass genocide of sections of the population are carried out. Specifically the Cherokees and other Indian tribes by Jackson.
Workers are fully capable of running their own workplaces. There are plenty of examples of that. Also, It would be no problem organizing some kind of course etc on how to manage the institution if that was necessary.
How much every individual wants to participate must be up to him/herself to decide. The point is that things in society should be run democratically by the participants.
So you're only for people having the right to control their own workplace if they're able to create their own? That's not good enough. If you believe in democracy you should advocate everyone having that right, including the ones incapable of creating cooperatives.
Things generally don't happen in life by telling other people what they "should" do. They happen by people taking responsibility for it and making it happen themselves.
So if workers want democratically owned businesses, the only way its going to happen is by them taking responsibility and making it happen for themselves. Most people, however, just don't want the responsibility of running a business, nor do they want to take the financial risk that is involved.
When I talk about business owners, I want to distinguish between average people who start their own businesses, and mega corporations that are owned by old wealth. I'm talking about the small to mid sized businesses.
People who start their own business, work very hard, take risks and make sacrifices. They feel that they have a right to run their businesses the way they want to. If workers don't like it, then the workers already have a right to vote, the right to vote with their feet and go work someplace else, start their own business, or start a co-op.
Don't forget the Virginia Company in Jamestown. We would not be a nation if it were not for Corporate colonization in 1606. In my opinion, I believe Jamestown was more of a precursor to our nation than Plymouth rock.
http://www.historicjamestowne.org/history/
By corporate colonization, I refer to the policies of "looting" established by the British, Dutch and other imperial groups. It generally involved using slave labor to extract the natural resources of an area. Wall Street was a primary example of this:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3842no_need_wall_st.html
Other colonies, such as those lead by Winthrop and Mathers, took a more republican approach (republican, that is, in the sense of Plato's Republic), carrying out an:
"economic revolution through the use of public credit, raising living standards, developing an iron industry, building infrastructure, and erecting the world's first system of universal public education."
I'm not sure where Jamestown fits into all this, but thanks for your link about it.
I believe the indigenous tribes living in the Americas when the the Virginia Company came here to colonize and expropriate would see the similarities between The East India Company and the Virginia Company. Just sayin'...
Perhaps so, but most native Americans that I've met these days, prefer the living conditions of middle class America to that of a primitive tribe.
[Removed]
Some info/resources on worker owned businesses.
http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue2/2rescoop.html
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6361
http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100
Thanks for the links :)
Please check out these two that I uploaded today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls7QZm7omh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFZtI8UozvU
Thank you
I love the idea of "democracy at work".
Workers should decide how/when/where/what to produce, how to use profit, and how much they should get paid. Fuck the CEOs, they aren't necessary.
That's right. Libertarian Socialism is the way to go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY
Occupy your Workplace!
CEO's = mostly arterial clogging fat.
Hell they are responsible and accountable - FOR NOTHING
Here is a way to convert Wall Street beholden corporations into employee-run companies. abettercountry.org/abc-fund/
The best way is to join the one percent, and vow to help others once you get there. As people develop their talents they can sell their idea, to the corporations who buy from the middle class businesses all the time and end up creating jobs in the process. Once you get there, dont forget to help others. As more and more of us make it, we can sway the tide and bring the rest of the people up with us. Using this economic philosophy (All boats rise when the tide comes in), remember how hard it was when you were at the bottom. As more and more people help others instead of themselves, we will begin to realize that we truly were blessed above every other nation, and there is no end to our riches.
If you like the idea of democracy, you should join the struggle to strip the 1% from their power.
The capitalist system is immoral and undemocratic; it must be abolished.
I've started by not buying anything with a corporate name, in this we have real power.
What you buy and don't buy doesn't change the fact that wealth and power is very highly concentrated on the financial elite. These people must be stripped from their undemocratic power, and we must work to create a real participatory democracy.
The ONLY way to make a significant change is to Occupy Congress. While you may be able to swing the opinion of existing lawmakers, it is better to elect lawmakers who already have the opinions that match the Occupy principles. Many laws are against the creation of a new political party, so you must Occupy Democrat and Occupy Republican parties to get there. Perhaps this could be similar to the Tea Party faction within the Republican party. Keep a common Occupy organization to maintain a common set of Occupy objectives. Ultimately laws must change to bring about the changes represented by the Occupy principles.
In the United States party politics is rotten to the core. Could you elaborate a little more on how this would come to be?
Through the will of the people. Propose and vote on policy ideas at http://policyvote.com. I believe this concept of the people articulating and voting on public policies on the internet will catch on and force change in Washington.
And how could this come to have an effect?
(1) If any site like this becomes popular -- e.g., 100s of thousands of users-- the ranking of policies will become very meaningful in the conversation. (2) The site functions as an election guide that helps people decide which candidates they're more like-minded with.
I can talk more on the topic. This is the key issue with such a site catching on: people doubt that it can make a real difference. I have a strong belief that it can, and I think the site shows/indicates a way that democracy can work better in the 21st century. I could be wrong, but it seems worth investigating. It's very quick & easy to use and provides a pretty good return on time spent in terms of feedback/reads.
I'm all for people getting more informed on political issues. If this site contributes to that, then that's good. I'm just not sure how effective this will be.
Occupy the Fed!! It is the source of all the phony debt money that drives American capitalism and it does so in violation of the US Constitution. People don't seem to know that the Fed is not part of government, has hijacked the US money system, creates money out of thin air and lends it to the nation, and does it all illegally.
Lots of things can be done about the fed, but that's not where our main focus should be. The main problem is the economic system - capitalism - and the huge concentration of private wealth and power.
You want to substitute a Capital dictatorship by a Proletariat dictatorship. Booth of these ideas are repulsive in any civilized country who defends freedom of thought.
People can adhere, be indifferent or hate social libertarianism and it is NOT your business to discuss their preferences. Democracy is about respecting your neghbours, not meddling in their house and dictate them rules. Subsitute a financial lobby elite by a syndicate elite in this sense will keep thing intact. Classes working for their self-interest... Your system of co-operatives and syndicates leading the whole leads to a ruling group, working for itself in its interest regardless of others. I don't like the idea of even listening to this.
Presently the financial system is rotter than ever and this requires higher regulation and very bold politics. Probably bolder than the time of the American independence.
And you're all wrong about education.
Education is not about innundate people with panflets. Start that and people will just disconnect. Education requires school work, liberty, qualifications, civic culture, responsibilities, and social participation. To enhance this free-though, speech and consience have to be absolutely enhanced. Encourage reading, history knowledge, cultural visits, travels, critic-socratic thinking is the key.
Also about strikes, usually strikes are led by syndicates who are interest groups - that is lobbies whose purpose is to increase worker's pay at ANY, yes at ANY cost. - and therefore their motivations are biased. I'm not defending anti-strikes policy, all I'm saying is that this group is not exactly a group of "angels". Some unions even force non-affliliated workers to strike, another indicator that they really don't care about individuals.
I would rather prefer civic groups in society to have stronger place than biased unionism.
I don't want any kind of dictatorship. I want a free society where people are in control of their own lives work and community. This society can only become reality when the communities want it.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is about building democracy from below, and organizing the entire society on non-hierarchical principles. There'd be no ruling elite; it would be a decentralized society. Libertarian Socialism is the only logical and reasonable way to organize society. Please read this:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/
So what 's stopping you. Get all of the people who believe as you do and start a community where Anarcho-Syndicalism is practiced and put it to the test.
So far Occupy has been unable to convince America to do something as simple as to vote outside the duopoly. 98.5% didn't listen. What you want is a thousand times more difficult.
I'm not against your idea, but to have a chance of it being implemented by a nation of 300 million people, it will need more than the written word of Noam Chomsky assuring that it will be successful. Working examples in the real world are required.
You might also check out the real life experience of the communes of the 60's and 70's and find out why none of them exist today. It's a lot easier to say a system will work than to actually make one that does work.
Very well said. For a long time I've seen anarchism - communism/fascism/libertarianism etc....and yet when told to start a community they make excuses.
“So what 's stopping you. Get all of the people who believe as you do and start a community where Anarcho-Syndicalism is practiced and put it to the test.”
It's not that easy because the economy is all-encompassing. Yes, starting co-ops and anarchist communes is great; those are important initiatives and I hope they will grow in number, but the entire economy must be addressed as well. A co-op here and there does not change the fact that wealth and power is very highly concentrated on the financial elites.
During the Spanish Revolution huge areas was organized based on, to a large extent, anarcho-syndicalist principles. These societies worked really well, so we already know that it’s possible.
“So far Occupy has been unable to convince America to do something as simple as to vote outside the duopoly. 98.5% didn't listen.”
Fighting the extremely wealthy and powerful elites is going to take time. It’s only been a little over a year. The movement’s still young
“I'm not against your idea, but to have a chance of it being implemented by a nation of 300 million people, it will need more than the written word of Noam Chomsky assuring that it will be successful.”
Sure. There’s a lot of convincing that must be done, and I think that if more people did the things I mentioned in the post, we’d be moving more and more towards a free and just society.
I can't think of anything more convincing than a real world, working, thriving Anarcho-Syndicalism community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp= (7:52)
Bad link: This video contains content from New Video Group and APM Music, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds
That sucked. Well try this one instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUig0lFHDDw Huge areas organized on libertarian socialist priciples during the Spanish Revolution.
It's worth noting that Chomsky himself has never shown any interest whatsoever in doing any such thing. He's been more than content his entire life to be a tenured academic and successful commercial author. As a tenured professor at a major university he is very much a member of a Mandarin elite, in the most elitist part of American society. And of course he's quite wealthy. He seems to have no interest whatsoever in going out there and actually trying to start a real workers commune of any sort whatever. It would appear to get in the way of his no doubt very comfortable lifestyle
"It's worth noting that Chomsky himself has never shown any interest whatsoever in doing any such thing."
How is that relevant? Chomsky has for several decades dedicated huge parts of his spare time to activism - often with great risks, so questioning his engagement in any way, is ridiculous.
"As a tenured professor at a major university he is very much a member of a Mandarin elite, in the most elitist part of American society. And of course he's quite wealthy."
I don't understand this. So professors at universities, whose books have been bought by a lot of people, should somehow be discredited their opinions and principles?
If you don't walk the talk, the talk is worthless.
This is all correct and valid, but the question comes down to human nature. Why do people persue these inhumane objectives? What fundamental misconceptions are they under? Why do they think unlimited material aquisitian will fulfill their needs?
The problem comes down to us, and our unintegrated view of being - of doubt about where our spirits came from, and where they are going - in short from desperation, and disbelief in the meaning and immortality of the soul.
These are fundamental doubts and fears that go to the core of our being, and they cannot be swayed, but briefly, by one political or economic ideology or another. They are innate in us, and can only be assuaged by a deeper spiritual understanding. Without this, we will never change, never find peace.
Now these questions can be resolved through a synthesis of knowledge aquired. We can now see the truth regarding immortality, and the essential nature on the soul.
It is the capitalist system, and the propaganda spewed out by the ones who control it, that create all this destructive inhumane behavior.
Things like solidarity, altruism and cooperation are fundamnetal human characteristics, but they're being supressed by the capitalist system. I've written a little bit about this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/human-nature/
Also check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8C-ntwUpzM&feature=plcp
A libertarian socialist society is totally in accordance with human nature. Experiments during the Spanish Revolution show that this kind of organization is possible. But more people must be introduced to these ideas. Libertarian Socialism is the only logical, reasonable alternative to capitalism; most people would embrace these ideas if they got introduced to them.
I think that basic capitalism is probably here to stay - unless we can redefine labor as the essential mechanism for distributing wealth. Trying to get rid of capitalism is essentially trying to get rid of greed - a difficult prospect.
I see the corporation as a different matter. Greed is built, by charter, into the corporation, and it's structure is anti-democratic, and a fundamental enemy of liberty.
I want to see the corporation go, but even this seems to be a huge challenge. This latter one, at least, seems to be a fight that's probably unavoidable for the sake of liberty.
Just my two cents worth on this oft debated subject.
Getting rid of capitalism is going to take time and hard work, but it must be our goal. Getting rid of the Soviet Union, slavery in the US, feudalism etc was hard and took time, and there were many who said that these systems would last forever, but eventually they got dismantled - and that was the right thing to do. Capitalism is, just like the other systems mentioned, tyrannical immoral and undemocratic, it must be dismantled as well.
Yes corporations are illegitimate structures, and must be dismantled - along with the system in which they operate.
I agree with you in theory. The whole question of HOW goods and servies are distributed is an extremely difficult question, and one that is a re-emerging issue now, do to modern tech. advances (whether we like it or not). My mind is open on the subject, but to my knowledge, the essential model of supply and demand, at the root of free markey theory, is still the only efficient means of distributing goods and services, and of allowing (theoretically at least) for the most freedom.
But of course as we all know, the system as it is, is extremely unjust and terribly flawed.
The technology of the info. age may allow for original theories of distribution however. It may be possible to arrive at different means.
As I say, this issue is extremely complex,and even more difficult would be the tactical question of actually implementing fundamental change here, because it would fly in the face of tremendous resistance.
Having said this however, I don't believe anything has ever been improved without making the attempt, and I have no problem with anyone willing to take up such a daunting challenge.
"The whole question of HOW goods and servies are distributed is an extremely difficult question"
My point is that decisions over production, distribution etc must be decided democratically by the participants. It's a principle thing
"the essential model of supply and demand, at the root of free markey theory, is still the only efficient means of distributing goods and services, and of allowing (theoretically at least) for the most freedom."
How so? In my view, the most free society is one where people have the freedom to control their own lives, work and community. That's not possible in capitalism. Capitalism is undemocratic, coercive and immoral - it has very little to do with freedom. There are btw lots of systems that have been efficient, but still was immoral and wrong.
My point is this, that it seems to be more effective to regulate economic transactions, in order to bring them up to ethical standards, rather then to control economic transactions through any descision making body. That has been the whole disaster of deregulation. After the Great Depression, Roosevelt put into place effective regulations, and labour practices. In my opinion they didn't go far enough, but they did stave off a repreat of that economic melt-down, until Reagan started wistling about de-regulation and people actually thought it was a good idea. That set the stage for 2008.
What I am saying, in a nutshell, is that nations like New Zeland have functioning systems in place. We have models to draw from. America just needs to get over it's propogandized outlook, and stop seeing democratic control of capital as a bogy man, but rather as a model for maintaining a free market, while also taking care of people's needs, and the needs of the planet.
I don't think "systems" in and of themselves have the answer; the answer rather lies in the individual, in flexible thinking, and in human growth. We are faced with unprecidented problems, and our only hope lies in the ability of the individual to adapt their thinking, and get away from the dogma's that have governed their lives.
The Soviet experiment should convince anyone that "systems" are simply comprized of people, and that they can't shield us from our own natures. We need to grow beyond fear, selfishness, mistrust, envy and greed. Only we as individuals can work towards these ends, and firstly that work lies in involvement in the process until the process produces the desired goals. That isn't easy, but it is what we must do for self-preservation.
I’m all for regulating capitalists and corporations, but in the long run we shouldn’t just accept the regulated state-capitalist system. It must eventually be abolished. It’s going to take time, but it should be our goal.
The number one priority for a future just society should be organizing and maintaining a real participatory democracy. That’s more important than organizing the most efficient society, fex.
You mentioned the “free market”. What exactly do mean by that?
The Soviet system just showed us that the Soviet system was awful :)
Man I like you. You do challenge the mind:)
I think there are two goals here, the long term and the short term.
The problem is that the world is facing very immediate crisis. I don't think I have to innumerate the issues - we all know them - potential environmental collapse being just one.
It is the immediacy of the issues that calls for flexibility, I think, and for the need to go with whatever is working - to gravitate to where the action is. The last election in the U.S. gives us heart. There has been a shift in thinking in the U.S. (FINALLY!)
Now, we need to make politicians feel the heat, through active involvement. The Walmart Strike is very good as well. I would like to see unions take advantage of this new climate of opinion and get aggressive in their demands and expanding their base.
What I mean here is that in the short term we must be scrappers, we must be flexible and seek out those methods that produce results and keep pushing until the dam breaks. Our survival is on the line, it's no time to hold out for utopian solutions.
The long term will take care of itself, if we do these things in the short term. That is my honest belief. We live in an eternal moment. One moment leads to the next. If we make change now, it opens the door to further change. Much beyond that cannot be accurately predicted.
That is my best accessment of the situation, based on realism concerning the force of those we are trying to sway to sanity.
As far as the Soviet system was concerned - what I am saying is this - that no "system" is foolproof, no system can innoculate us against the darker side of our own natures. Therefore, it seems we must work, for now at least, with the system as it is (as well as outside of it in ways that produce RESULTS). We simply don't have a choice because things are what they are. Wanting it to be something else is just wishful thinking, unless we have the power in the now - not in some theoretical future moment - but now, to change it. The system hasn't failed us, so much as we have failed it.
There is a great desire to blame "systems" for human failings, and to believe that if we just change the system everything will be fine. This isn't true - we must change ourselves, rid ourselves of apathy, laziness, and reforge the will to engage.
"The fault lies not in our stars . . . but in ourselves that we are bondsmen."
P..S
What I am trying to do here is help us all to become clearly aware of the time factor in this equasion, and also the difference between what is actually possible at any given time, and what is merely theoretical. These are important distinctions.
I agree with lots of what you're saying here.
Just a small comment: We now live in a state capitalist society, that's reality, yes. Our concern, however, should be to as soon as possible (based on realistic and constructive plans) abolish this system.
No social organization will ever become a 100% perfect utopia, but we should strive to establish the society that is most humane, just, and where human freedom is most achieved; that would be a society based on anarcho-syndicalist/anarcho-communist organization.
I am with you in my heart, but after spending about eight years working in cooperatives, I learned the unforturate lesson that any system - be it cooperative, socialist, utopian, or what it may be, is still made up of people, and that these people are still capable of being stubborn, obtuse, greedy, selfish and pigheaded, as well as often being well intentioned, and so systems have limitations.
Of course systems also matter! Nothing good can come of fascism, for example. My point is this, that democracy leaves the door open for transformation. If we can't transform it, and then use it to transform economic inequlity then we can't blame democracy. The blame must rest instead where it belongs, not in democracy but in the people who comprise that democracy. A new system can't cure a problem that resides in the people who comprise the existing system.
And so although I am with you in my heart, I cannot bring myself to agree with your proposed solution, and in that I am genuinely sorry, because I wish that I could believe that changing the system could, in this case solve the problem.
Of course you might very well be right, and I wrong.
The fact that some people behave badly, is not an argument against people having the right to be in control of their own lives.
Also, there will always be a certain amount individuals who act badly, but a libertarian socialist society would be based on solidarity and cooperation, rather than greed and hunt for profits; that would reduce these tendencies.
Libertarian Socialism is the only logical, reasonable and just organization. I wrote an article about this, and I also put together a video about LS. Please check them out:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarian-socialism-is-the-best-way-to-organ/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp
P.S. I hope more than anything that a bottom-up grassroots solution such as you are advocating here triumphs in the end, but after the way that occupying public space was crushed by the State in NY and Oakland last year, it is hard to see the mechanism that would allow for that.
Having said this, I do think it is POSSIBLE. I haven't entirely given up on that method, and in any case I still DO believe in occupations and protests, and boycotts and strikes as part of an overall push for change. My point has always simply been that we shouldn't exclude the established method of working democracy as well, and not become too rigid regarding process, but rather focus on the goals themselves, and the flexibility to attain them. In this case, especially given the dire state of the world today, I think it's fair to say that the result is more important than the process
There will be ups and downs in the struggle for freedom. In some cases things are achieved, inother cases it's beaten back by the establishment. But in the long run we will prevail. Capitalism and corporate tyranny is unsustainable, exploitative and undemocratic; sooner or later we will get rid of it.
Flexibility, sure, but also some well thought out ideas and strategies.
I think we need some term that means simply the exchange of goods and services other then capitalism, because that (the exchange of goods and services) has always gone on and always will, and it doesn't have anything to do with corporatocracy.
But I won't nit pick with you here about terminology. I agree with you in essence.
I have a blog where I am trying to develop "well thought out ideas and strategies," or at least attempting to understand the root problems we face, which may not be as simple as they first appear to be.
Thanks for the link to this website on the above comment, and for it's droll sarcasm. I appreciate that - although I must admit, not so much when it's aimed at me, ha, ha:)
Well, all I can say is that I respect both you and what you are struggling for. My objection, such as it is, revolves around not the concept itself, but the likelyhood of implementing it, at least in the U.S.A. This is based on my past expierence of involvment with progressive movements in America. But I am all for every effort to turn this situation around, and also believe that everyone just needs to find their place and push. Together we will reach a place of harmony, justice and freedom. I do believe that now, and I almost can't believe I said it.
Good luck to you, and to your cause, and please keep me informed of any promising developments:)
"I think we need some term that means simply the exchange of goods and services other then capitalism, because that (the exchange of goods and services) has always gone on and always will, and it doesn't have anything to do with corporatocracy."
There are lots of alternatives to capitalism which there can be exchange of goods. The question is how it's organized and who controls it. In Market Socialism, f.ex there'd be lots of exchange of goods similar to how it's done today. The difference would be that there'd be no private ownership on the means of production (capitalism). There are lots of ways to organize a non-capitalist society .
Yes, my point here is that in many cases the lack of a clear definition of the word capitalism leads to ambiguity. I'm not saying you are guilty of ambiguity, only that in addressing the question I think we must clearly define our terms.
This subject is too complicated, and important, for me to address it here. I will try to address it in my blog, as soon as I have the time, and maybe repost it here.
I don't really know of any subject more complex, and with such twisted and tangled roots. I'm sorry, it will take me some time to get back to you here:)
It's going to take time to end capitalism, but I believe we're witnessing the beginning of the end now. The birth and growth of the Occupy Movement is one indication of it.
Many things have happened in the past that very few thought were likely; it can happen again.
"please keep me informed of any promising developments"
There's a very good site that provides lots of info. Here's the link:
http://occupywallst.org/
:)
Agree. I'm trying to open up a little tonight to many ideas. I have a similar article here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/failure-of-us-long-range-strategic-planning-nation/
But maybe my solutions for the corportion will always be opposed by corporate interests.
Will reiterate that regualtions make markets work & regulations discourage fraud while ... we will always have crime. Implementations and Enforcement are just not reviewed by the poeple. Cut the staff ...and there is little enforcement. Add new responsibilities without staff & there is little enforcement.
Thanks, I'll hit the link. Right now I need to sign off. Interesting points you make here. Glad you're with the movement.
As I eat Kim Chi now, I know many will not follow me. Follow your heart, dream the dream, fight the fight.
Wonderful.
Global Voices Video, "Poor Us", focused on Poverty and pointed out:
1) Capitalism + Welfare State - poverty might equal success
2) Capitalism - Welfare State = Failure
3) Welfare State - good Economy = Failure
Then a Question about what the solution to Poverty Might be:
a) Aid
b) Communism
c) State Spending
d) Globalisation
And when the animated character started to say Globalism, a Riot Broke Out, Bolivians had their water rights sold to corporations. A German Economist then points out "There Must Be Regulations of Globalization" (paraphrasing the video was a little fast for me to catch everything)
The Animated Film shows that China and Africa had Riches before and the West knew this from Explorers. The Portugues moved in to Africa, West Africa, noting that the Textile Industry and Iron Industry was bigger than that in Europe (not sure the exact working here, believe he was pointing out Congo). China went through a revolution that cost 30 Million Lives due to poverty & famine that wiped out former structures. Now China has over the last 20 years raised 200 Million out of poverty ...I'm guessing through investment and monetary policy.
The video does a kind of survey of poverty .... looking at how people moved from the land to the cities ...and how poverty resulted. Also a quick look at Workhomes ...Factoryhomes ... Like in Oliver Twist.
The idea was that many men would join workhomes for the small wages. It turned out that mostly women and elderly poor joined the workhomes. It was just a place for people in poverty to go.
Has to be Systemic Corruption. Has to be Systemic Conflict of Interest. People feel something from Winning or Making a Big Pay Check. Perverse Incentives is a William K. Black phrase. But there is an opportunity Loss ...if they give up their higher paying job, bonuses, ...or rock the boat, or speak out to friends against capitalism.
But there is a De-Humanizing going on ... has been going on in Capitalism at least since Factory Management of employees used the Military Management System. This is called Theory X style management by threats, intimidation, control, time management, punishments. Theory Y style Management uses incentives like job enlargement, job satisfaction, new responsibilities, opportunities ot learn new skills or try out new jobs. Go deeper and corruption and setting aside ethics is rewarded.
the solution is simple
the solution is ALREAD SUPPORTED by 80% of Americans
the solution is supported by over 100 representatives & senators
the solution is supported by over 1300 mayors
the solution is supported by hundreds of local resolutions
disconnect capitalism from democracy
just ask Sanders & Lessig & Chomsky & Reich & Warren etc etc etc
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
OWS working group
The things mentioned in the link are reasonable suggestions.
In the long run the entire state-capitalist system must be abolished and replaced by a libertarian socialist society. I think most people would embrace LSideas, if they got introduced to them.
I guess to put my view as succinctly as possible, I'm in with socialism. It has been tried and works in real time, in the most successful nations on earth, and I don't think we have time to re-invent the wheel. There are just too many other problems (global warming, proliferation of wars etc., etc., that require urgent attention. The liberatarian part I'm not sold on.
The "Libertarian" part in Libertarian Socialism is just the anarchist, anti-authoritarian part. Libertarian Socialism is about democracy and workers' self management - socialism, but also about controlling this socialism from below and opposing all kinds of concentrated power.
Thanks for that clairification. The word "libertarian" is fairly loaded in American politics, having been long associated with the far right wing, so although this may have nothing to do with the system you and those of like-mind are proposing (something I have understood to be true for quite sometime), the word has a great drawback when trying to win adherents in the US, just as the word "anarchy" does,
I am not suggesting anyone chages there words. Far be it from me to suggest such a thing, I am just giving my impressions of how these concepts may be interpreted from the perspective of Americans, given our history, and our state of our 1% media consolidation.
Yeah. "Libertarian" and "Libertarian Socialism" are two very different political branches. The reason why it came to be this way is that "Libertarian" used mean anarchist communist or anarchist socialist. Then these ultra right wingers "stole" the word, so now it has been given a very different meaning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
I have to add here, that I think that very mechanism of wealth distribution through labor is breaking down, and that intellectual property rights (which are the fumdamental property most of us posess in the info. age) are being protected for corporations and not only neglected but trampled upon for people. This is a complex and volitile situation. We haven't seen the likes of it since the industrial revolution. I don't have any blanket answers here, the question is too complex. I do believe however that we are in for a wild and wooly ride.
We must work to establish a society based on cooperation, with property rights based on collective ownership of ec.institutions, and free access to information.
Have you managed to get anyone to endorse your site? Schumer?
Senators dont endorse sites
Move to amend, taking a similar stance has 100,000+ "endorsers"
However, Shumer, Sanders & Udall & 100 other senators/reps
endorse and or co-signed the amendments
So did Lessig
If you go to the site you will find all of the amendments & many polls & 70+ videos & 40+ documents
Where is the official amendment that they have signed, like the Grover pledge?
there are twelve [ in congress] plus a few others-
from Ratigan & Lessig, etc
they are ALL on our web site
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com clock on the amendments tab and scroll down
You're a shill kag.
[Removed]
Excellent post. I dont agree with all of it, but I appreciate this because its well laid out and gives clear direction, and following it would lead to change that would be good.
Thanks :)
Where do you disagree, and why?
I dont think that capitalism needs to be abolished, because I think regardless of the system in place, it takes people willing to keep their guard up against the establishment.
I honestly dont think there is a system that will not lead to massive abuse in this current state of the country, its been dumbed down to teh point where no one has a clue whats going on, as many on here prove on a daily basis.
Like I mentioned in the article, more enlightened people is an important on factor in the struggle for a free and just society. Capitalism is very undemocratic, and immoral; that's intolerable. Capitalism is not going to be abolished over night, but don't you agree that a real participatory democracy with workers and communities controlling the economic institutions collectively, is what we should strive for?
[Removed]
[Removed]
Yes! Capitalism must be destroyed.
Definitely! This system is destroying lives and destroying the environment. It must be abolished.
What should it be replaced with, in your view?
I think libertarian socialism is the only logical and reasonable organization for a sustanable and free society.
I do believe government has a place in our economy, which probably seperates me from libertarians. But, where many talk big vs. small government, I talk wise vs. unwise government. In my view, a wise government is one that the people have their eyes on. That is monitored by us, instead of the other way around. A transparent, ethical government, free from corporate influence. Which would be achieved through the people electing wise, ethical candidates. I know, easier said than done. The first step is exposing the two corporate parties, because as long as Democrats and Republicans run the government, Wall Street will be pulling the strings. There must first be a boycott of mass media. After all, what more powerful a tool does the 1% have? After that, people will be more aware of other candidates, other parties, other schools of thought. Before we tackle income inequality, we have to expose the mainstream media for the corporate tool it is. After all, it shapes the way people think. After that, everything Occupy wants to achieve gets much easier, because you won't have mainstream media to ignore us and divert attention away from us, from the struggles of the 99%. This gets traditionally outside candidates more exposure. People start to see what other ideas there are. Elections change by this alone. People NOT tied to Wall Street get elected. Laws cutting out corporate money from our elections, wise government regulating banks, major corporations, big pharma and oil and coal. Subsidies are ended for them, given to clean energy, SERIOUS funding. Oil and coal either get in on it, or fall. After all, Apple made typewriters, but got into computers when the market changed. They didn't fight to keep us using typewriters. We have to force our market to change. Then, increase the amount of federally protected land. Which will create new jobs, as will green energy jobs. Companies that build solar panels and wind turbines and hydroelectric pumps and any new part of the energy infrastructure will be rewarded through tax breaks, as long as they pay a living wage, at the least. Then, this wise governments also enact laws protecting workers rights to form a union. Also, for those companies that try to ship out... They will forfeit the right to sell their product in the United States, laws would be passed enacting this too. Any foreign company wishing to sell their products here may, after we pass fair trade laws making sure that they are priced the same as American made products, this levels the playing field. It would do wonders for our economy. Of course, we will close down most military bases and end all covert and open wars we are in, saving us billions and billions of dollars. Jobs would be plentiful, so soldiers would come home to a good paying job, able to support their families without having to risk their lives. With plentiful, domestic jobs in green energy, no more wars for oil. That money stays here. Heavy taxes on capital gains and bonuses create even more public money, but the rich will be kept happy by tax breaks for creating jobs here. With so many people having fair paying jobs, more tax revenue is generated, money can go to universal healthcare and universal higher education. Those that choose not to go to college will have manufacturing jobs that pay fair, and a union to represent them. Strict environmental laws would be put into place to stop their polluting, and rigorously enforced by the EPA. Which, any agents accepting bribes, along with those attempting to bribe, would serve mandatory jail time, which would deter corruption. Federal money would also be given to local economies to fund start up and small businesses. Also, urban farming programs would be funded to cut down big agriculture. That's just the economy. A few ideas I have, at least. Some things I would enact. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
As long as we have tyrannical institutions – corporations – and enormous concentrated wealth and power, we need government for self defense. But as capitalism is gradually being dismantled, so can other forms of power centers.
Yes, a wise government – and that would be a government who seeks to strongly weaken the power of the financial elites.
Yes, the political system in the US is rotten to the core; lots of things must be changed in order for it to work. But like I said in the post: the work that’s done outside of party politics is extremely important.
Lots of what you presented here are pretty reasonable suggestions. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Well might be call for a good strategy here. Seems like we would have to get some rich people in Washington (and around the Country) to go along with some small steps toward reform... Or at least we hve to eduated everyone on all the Corruptions in all it's forms ... so that there is a groundswell of support for many reforms.
We live in a Mixed Economy under a Limited Republic form of Government. That means we have social Programs & Capitalism. The 99% don't want to give up Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, SOcial Security... We like Socialism. So ...I say what we have is very predicatable situation of Corurpt Capitalism.
We have an Administration that doesn't want to Prosecute Financial Crimes or make the Rich Pay Taxes by going after the loopholes or Tax Avoidance... So not only have we Deregulated, but we don't have enforcement in all Federeal Agencies... The Fix is In It is just like Mafia.
Reforms will have to have good strategies for Implementation. Regulations need Funding, Staffing, Training, Resources ... And Authority from the President & Congress to carry out the Law against the Corporations, Law Breakers, and Tax Evaison.
Absolutely, but we cannot count on the two major parties to do this. I don't see any serious reforms being made without getting rid of them.
Agree. I was sure of that the first year after Obama Election ...er, well I never really liked politicians anyway. And you heard how the 2 party system seized and holds control of all Presidential Debates. The legue of women voters used to run them...
Right. I'll admit, I was a huge Obama supporter and a registered Democrat back in '08. It took me about three years to see it. But once I deprogrammed myself, stopped watching mainstream media, I did my research, and went to unregister myself, what really got me started was when I learned about Occupy, and the watched the news to see little coverage, no coverage, or just a complete badmouthing of the movement. So I stared reading into alternative media, after the media blackout of the NDAA, I have boycotted the mainstream media all together. Except for Moyers and Company on PBS. I'm about as liberal as they come, but I'm starting to think that there aren't too many real liberals in America. Because anyone that call themselves a liberal and voted for him is either an idiot, ignorant on what he's done, or is not truly a liberal.
Yes, Many in the US are Blind or Brainwashed ... or just staying too busy with work & family. Even the Republicans should be supporting Social Security fixes (like taking the cap off high income), should be supporting unemployment insurance, food stamps, and medical care price controls & fixes. We all want & Need social safety nets (at least 80% anyway). And WAR! No one should be supporting War, Torture, drone strikes & Kill Lists. Okay Privacy I can see Republicans falling for this one authorizing phone taps. Individual Rights should be defended by both Repubs & Democrats & Liberals.
I just don't get the Passive population except that maybe 50% of Americans depend on federal dollars for their jobs. So maybe passive, Yes Men in the US are afraid for losing their job or funding for their company. They are in bed with Politicians in other words. Conflict of Interest.
People are staying busy, alright. American idol, Dancing With The Stars, and Jersey Shore are much more valuable to the sheep than the future of their world. As if they can't see their standard of living drop before them...
[Deleted]
Obama got more contributions from Goldman-Sachs than any other financier. He is on the side of the banks. His record on human rights is atrocious too. Even if he had a good economic model, is it worth trusting a man with a secret kill list? Not to mention, he signed the NDAA. Also, he has extended the Patriot Act. He has continued drone strikes in Pakistan and ordered strikes in Yemen the day after his reelection. If a right wing nut job did these things, liberals would be calling for a total overhaul of the system and the removal of the president and any in Congress who allowed these actions. But since it's their guy, they ignore it. These things are unacceptable. Democrat or Republican. But, the vast majority of the left chooses to ignore it.
Apparently the abject FAILURE of every communist country around the world, and tens of millions MURDERED under communism doesn't bother the asshole struggleforfreedom from still supporting it.
Also, communism has never existed.
I reject any kind of tyranny and dictatorship. I'm an anarchist.
Are you having fun trollin'? Are you getting ready to get the boot and send out nasty little PMs?
GF - it is self proclaimed flatulence - how funny is that?
It's like dealing with a child.
Nasty child - wheres my hickory switch.................... spare t...he....r...o...d.. spoil........the/////f'n........child............heh...............
Yeah!!!
Damn . . . I thought that I had one of those . . . hickory switch - - - huh . . .