Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: on capitalist primitive accumulation and the enclosure of the commons

Posted 5 months ago on Aug. 14, 2014, 1:12 p.m. EST by flip (7101)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

They hang the man, and flog the woman, That steals the goose from off the common; But let the greater villain loose, That steals the common from the goose. Anonymous, in The Tickler Magazine, February 1, 1821.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by mayda (57) 5 months ago

this says it all but what exactly is primitive accumulation

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

does this help - An understanding of the Enclosure Acts is necessary to place aspects of the Industrial Revolution in proper context. The Industrial Revolution is often accused of driving poor laborers en masse out of the countryside and into urban factories where they competed for a pittance in wages and lived in execrable circumstances. But the opportunity that a factory job represented could only have drawn workers if it offered a better situation than what they were leaving. If laborers were driven to the cities, then some other factor(s) must have been at work. One factor was the Enclosure Acts. These were a series of Parliamentary Acts, the majority of which were passed between 1750 and 1860; through the Acts, open fields and ‘wastes’ were closed to use by the peasantry.Open fields were large agricultural areas to which a village population had certain rights of access and which they tended to divide into narrow strips for cultivation. The wastes were unproductive areas – for example, fens, marches, rocky land, or moors – to which the peasantry had traditional and collective rights of access in order to pasture animals, fish, harvest meadow grass, collect firewood or otherwise benefit. Rural laborers who lived on the margin depended on open fields and the wastes to fend off starvation. Enclosure refers to the consolidation of land, usually for the stated purpose of making it more productive. The British Enclosure Acts removed the prior rights of local people to rural land they had often used for generations. As compensation, the displaced people were commonly offered alternative land of smaller scope and inferior quality,sometimes with no access to water or wood. The land seized by the Acts were then consolidated into individual and privately-owned farms, with larger and politically connected farmers receiving the best land. Often small land-owners could not afford the legal and other associated costs of enclosure and, so, were forced out. In his pivotal essay “English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization: Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development”, libertarian historian Joseph R. Stromberg observed, “[T]he political dominance of large landowners determined the course of enclosure….[i]t was their power in Parliament and as local Justices of the Peace that enabled them to redistribute the land in their own favor. A typical round of enclosure began when several, or even a single, prominent landholder initiated it….by petition to Parliament….[T]he commissioners were invariably of the same class and outlook as the major landholders who had petitioned in the first place, it was not surprising that the great landholders awarded themselves the best land and the most of it, thereby making England a classic land of great, well-kept estates with a small marginal peasantry and a large class of rural wage labourers.” In turn, this led to new practices of agriculture, such as crop rotation, and resulted in a dramatic increase in productivity over time. (Of course, this may have happened naturally, with common users co-operating for greater productivity.) Whatever the long term effect, the immediate one was to advantage those fortunate enough to become individual owners and disadvantage peasants. The immediate effect was to devastate the peasant class. When access was systematically denied, ultimately the peasantry was left with three basic alternatives: to work in a serf-like manner as tenant farmers for large landowners; to emigrate to the New World; or, ultimately, to pour into already crowded cities where they pushed down each others’ wages by competing for a limited number of jobs.


[-] 3 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago


Full poem here and a practical site for "commoning" starting local...all the white hairs in my community voted for a woman who will keep the status quo who loves landlords and big business chains..I live in a divided community of lower income working class and a class of welfare recipients...in fairness the whole city is teetering on the brink of a crime state vs the working shmoes really putting forth effort to spruce up the community where the welfare class is busy forming gangs and selling drugs...they don't have to live any worse than we do because the only thing making their neighborhoods bad is them.. they don't care much about sprucing up the city and the working folks pay huge tax rates to pay for them to live and their kids to attend school...I fear that when status quo goes we're going to turn into detroit rather than a commons...it's a real problem and I'm starting to see a real problem with immature man childesk adults taking advantage of the commons driving around in souped up cars with bases booming while collecting section 8 housing vouchers...I'm a liberal woman democrat who voted for obama and I'm not racist but I am anti man child...I am very interested in this idea and cause of commoning...can it be done when you have people unwilling to contribute? My husband and I get out and clean our yard and upkeep our modest house on a busy street and they throw garbage and beer bottles on our property..every day...one problem is there are too many landlords and renters instead of home owners? Perhaps people need a real sense of belonging to want to belong? We need to start limiting rental permits and giving more home ownership pathways...housing and rent are causing this great divide among all of us...and as a homeowner I do resent living next to a house full of juvenile jerkoffs that don't go to work and behave like teenage children and are living there thanks to my contribution...discuss? This isn't racist but it is a culture issue...man children in the usa...when is it time to grow up and do something instead of maintaining status quo and spitting in the faces of people who want to change things for the better for all of us?

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

that is the point of the enclosure acts - to turn people who are used to working collectively into individuals who must look out for their own interests. after a few hundred years of this sickness people cannot imagine another way. very sad

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago

We see something like the enclosure acts happening in many third world countries especially in Africa and now in America ...it is forced reliance..here landlords are holding all the housing for ransom...and they reap the benefits of the vouchers and through that obtain enough wealth to outbid would be buyers...you can see the writing on the wall...housing brought to you by the corporate state...it is all getting quite putrid and also quite divisive to those living just above the safety net bracket or voucher help...where is this heading ? In Africa forced reliance and resource pillaging has caused rebel uprisings and war...politicians trade resources for political backing and rebel warlords receiving them threaten the populous...I would say the issue of land and what is common is a great one...why is housing so expensive that one must borrow for thirty years with 100 percent interest from a bank or work 100 hours to afford rent...What is making it so costly? We know the answers..will we solve this before it tears our united country to shreds?

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

all true but none of our leaders can speak of it. they cannot say that "free market capitalism" is one of our basic problems. no matter what some here want to think both parties pledge allegiance to the "free market" and take money from the robber barons. we need to frighten them like in 1930 - we need to let them know that if they want to rule they need to cut us some slack. that would be a start - a new "new deal" - i don't see it happening but you never know.

[-] 3 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago

Often the counter current view reaches the popular culture...and becomes the new normal...it begins local...in the grocery store, in social gathering places...a whisper can turn into a conversation and a conversation into a firestorm...take it out of the blog and into your town...political conversation needs to stop being scorned.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (24084) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 months ago

edit - Communication ( UN-filtered & expanded ) is to be embraced. Pray for the survival of the open internet.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

right on - but sadly even here at ows there is often trouble having a real conversation - and the evidence is right below from the little shill for the democratic party - factsaren'tfun

[-] 2 points by Crackpot (53) 5 months ago

Commons refers to the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately. The commons contains public property and private property, over which people have certain traditional rights. When commonly held property is transformed into private property this process alternatively is termed "enclosure" or more commonly, "privatization." A person who has a right in, or over, common land jointly with another or others is called a commoner.

The commoners in England had long held a belief that they had a birthright to use the land as Englishmen which inspired Levelers movements in the 17th century, the English Revolution, left an imprint of basic human rights amplified by the American Revolution a century later.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

yes - and......

[-] 1 points by Crackpot (53) 5 months ago

The 1% have to divest because they have not managed the privatized they hold in the best interest of the commons. The air, water, and habitable land does not belong to the 1%. It is an absurd illusion they have created to take control. The commons cannot be monopolized.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

we agree that they should not own the commons but as the poem points out they have for a long time. they seem to be taking more lately

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

hmmm interesting How exactly do you expect this post to further your cause of electing Republicans?

[-] 4 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago

I think you wrote that to me so I will address it...neither party is working on behalf of the little guys...my cause is pathways to upward mobility and a fair playing ground instead of fighting for more housing vouchers and safety nets the american underclass needs to be fighting for more jobs , more education, and affordable housing getting the landlord market under control. When some people are taken care of (for example public sector employees and some people having their housing costs covered)..I tend to also see them not joining this fight...they are taken care of and thus appeased...leaving the rest of the underclass not only paying for others to be lifted while they continue to get pillaged by the political wealthy elite who have tax shelters and loopholes...it leaves a very small percentage who have a real dog in this fight...that's why our movement isn't gaining more ground. Unlike many party backers I can see that neither party cares about this...they are only interested in taking bribes and serving their own individual needs and desires. People like me ...pay very high tax rates that bring us down just above the poverty mark...we can't partake in upward mobility but see those not contributing or being cared for with our taxes(which includes the man child ilk and the wealthy corporate elites and state and federal workers) have been left in the cold looking on the other side of the glass at the american dream. You can't wipe away all of our jobs and stagnate our pay and stifle educational opportunities...and solve it by giving only some a way through it. It does build resentment and a divide and the argument has validation. Until we address that...we are ignoring a very real problem tgat's building. I use the example of a young adult living in the same building as a voucher counterpart...working two jobs to afford the unsubsidized rent, paying a thirty percent tax rate...while his neighbor with a drug problem lives there almost rent free and collects disability...meanwhile that working kid makes too much money to qualify for aid and lacks the time or ability to qualify for a loan to get an education since he makes too little vs cost of living to qualify...he will spend his life on that treadmill while the drunk next door has access to many opportunities...due to disability status...free heat and food...federally backed education loans etc. However you appreciate a country with safety nets and I do...and do not want to be like india... where we see starving people laying on the sidewalk...subsidies aren't working like they are supposed to. A fairer system would not make the subsidies a permanent solution and would create a fairer playing field for all as well as stop all this outsourcing of jobs and inflated rents and housing. The subsidies end up back in the hands of landlords and corporate retail stores and utility companies...instead of prices being forced to come down when the job market is in shambles...they have not only not gone down...they have risen...making it even harder for the working poor to survive and depleting our country of a middle class.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

the movement is not gaining ground because the Green Party and Nader helped to put W Bush into the White House in 2000, people like myself who actually pay attention know that there is huge danger in encouraging these third party efforts because they allow the GOP to gain even more power and creates even more inequality, as OWS grew closer and closer to ego driven idiots like the Green Party the majority of people who do not live in a fantasy world left OWS in order that the third parties would not be made stronger resulting in the election of more Republicans.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago

The corporate news played a part in electing people who are beneficial to their causes...and yes they never report on their funding because if you really begin to disect it both parties take their fill and line their pockets. What you don't realize is corporations were responsible for picking that candidate and getting them in front of the public to start with that goes for both parties...all in all it doesn't matter what they preach because once they are elected...k street indoctrinates them to the ways of washington even if they were representing you they quickly learn to put their own needs first...the problem is we now have a corporate government who picks the runners, lines their coffers, and continues to fill the troughs...in turn they are put on boards and courts that really hold power to regulate or deregulate the markets and create laws..in the case of the president and to directly make them in the case of congress...they not only hold huge shares of stock in these companies many are promised future positions as well as funding. We need not only public election funding, we need to cut the financial hold they have over our public servants because they have stopped serving the citizenry and we are all being treated like consumer cogs, and service sector numbers...the government is acting like a corporation aand treating us like employees. In the corporate world employees aren't assets they are always seen as liabilities that need to be controlled and subdued. If companies spent half as much time investing in employees instead of waging war on them we wouldn't have an economic problem in sight. The government has reversed its role with the public they have no business acting like our boss...it is we who employ them and right now we need to start firing them...until we attack the purse strings of corporate influence we will never gain back control. Because they will always sell out..the very nature of someone who has worked their way through the corporate election system lets us know from the start they won't be serving us. Unfortunately people like you still believe the charade...the key is getting you to see that. If enough people did we could get an indie candidates into office to possibly begin a dent ...so when the public tries to get bills that break down corporate power...we have someone to get them on a ballot and give us a chance to decide what is best for mainstreet. Politicians love to spout what is best for mainstreet even as they stuff themselves full of wallstreet bribes. It is truly disgusting. At some points I think rioting in the streets is the only way to go after the corporate influence monster...however a dangerous thing has happened and they have started bringing cops pay well above mainstreet. They are being payed to serve wealthy elites so they won't share our common cause. Bailout riots then have them showing up in their wallstreet armor.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

Unlike Nader i am not blind nor stupid i actually could both then and now see a great difference between Bush and Gore, the inability for 5,000,000 other people to do the same put Bush into the White House, any group that supports that sort of thing will be opposed by people like me who don't want to see more Presidents like Bush.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3206) 5 months ago

Yes and that's why I voted for Obama only to realize he is Bush in sheep's clothing. How long are you going to keep lying to yourself? Power should always be under a microscope...even if you thought this one would work for you...you can't stop there...you have to figure out if they are. The facts show no.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

You should have been pulling for Hilary in the primaries, like I was, she has balls and there would still be bankers in jail if she had been elected, but if you think Mr. 47% Romney, or worse "bomb bomb Iran" McCain would be "no difference" than Obama you are a complete idiot.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

you know we're conducting air strikes again


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

you know OWS is about wealth inequality and reducing the power of money in our public policy,


not bombing Iran yet though, do you think McCain would have been better? or do you think there was no difference? or do you just not care?

and of course we would be bombing no one if Nader had supported Gore....

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

I will vote for no candidate that supports the US air strikes

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

so that part about OWS being about wealth inequality you don't really care about that? or do you disagree? or are you some sort of anti-war troll? oo did i just say that? troll? really? Matt How could I? well even Matt ducks the hard questions. I suppose if your vote or non-vote put Romney in office or McCain in off and twice as many people were killed as a result you would still be proud of yourself for not voting for a "war" person, so the problem with you Matt is your own self righteousness that is the evil in you, you would rather see 100's of thousands die than to have your pureness blemished.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

wealth inequality is created by allowing violence

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

Wealth inequality creates the violence, cure the inequality you will stop the violence.

Or I suppose if people would just stop resisting and give everything everywhere to WalMart then we could all live in peace and work to help The Family prosper we would have one world rule under the corporate board and there would be peace everywhere as long as no one resisted doing as The Board directs and there would no doubt be a well armed police force to handle those rare cases so in effect we would have "peace" like in Fergerson, most of the time.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

Gore, Nader, even McCain are old news for me. I care about the issues today. But for the record, Obviously, Gore would've been better in 2000, McCain worse in 2008, There is obvious wide differences between our 2 parties.

I'm well aware of OWS positions, they are continuing to spread, & be picked up by numerous likeminded groups/politicians.

Progress is slow, backwards steps are inevitable & demoralizing, but progress continues.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

to forget history is to repeat it,

we don't need another Bush/Gore/Nader ballot or anything like it, there are far too many involved with OWS that do not understand this, and so the many who do know this stay away....

in case I'm not being clear it is the very flirting with third party politics that turns millions who really do want change from supporting OWS..

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

I don't support "forgetting history",

I don't support trying to prevent peoples political "flirting".

OWS's most valuable contribution to our society (& Dem party agenda) is getting the right issues discussed, changing the national debate, & inspiring millions of people, & dozens of like minded groups to act.

That is priceless benefit for the progressive agenda that OWS, & Dem party share.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

If you don't support "forgetting history" please explain how Gore, Nader even McCain are "old news"?

Are the issues not affected by those who are elected?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

They made news in the past (older times).

But on the issues of consumer protection/political involvement Naders message/followers may have valuable contributions.

On Green issues Gore still contributes valuable news (not his newsmaking from 15 yrs ago though)

McCain is most important dangerous) now as senator and his clear illustration of what war mongers & MIC sycophants can do. But not so much his failed 2008 campaign.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

"in the past" again you dismiss history as having little or no importance, it is vital that we remember how idiots from the Green Party prevented the most "green" person who could have ever actually won, had the Greens help just a little it would have been a shoe in and just as the GOP do not say they should not have cut taxes in 2000 but instead stayed the course and paid off the debt, you don't hear the Greens saying Nader should not have run, so none have "learned a lesson".

A couple of things about OWS I liked is that first it was about wealth inequality, if we don't deal with that America dies, and it was not "polite" in doing it, but within it's ranks I see politeness extended to the very people most responsible for the Iraq War and CU ruling.

How do you think people that can't see a difference between Bush and Gore to have anything worthwhile to say?

Nader and his blind followers have only their own egos at heart and nothing they have to say matters a bit to any who seek real change. I saw Nader on Bill Maher just a few weeks ago, he still has his head as far up his butt as he ever did he is completely driven by his ego and desire to sell books now as he has been for the past 20+ years.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

if momentum of the empires is greater than the term pilots

they should say so

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

are people being impolite? is that really the big issue of the day? "they should say so"

Matt you should stop expecting someone to spoonfeed you the information and start thinking about how to do something to change the situation, I have gone over at least one viable path, but it requires doing thing that are effective and do not meet your high holy moral position that states "I don't care how many have to die to keep my hands clean"

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

it is about your pureness no matter the consequence, you care not how many wars are started just so long as you didn't vote for the one who starts them....for you it is all about your purity not what actually happens, I care about what actually happens that's the difference between us really

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

his is not about clean hands

this is about end violent actions

[-] -2 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

Loyalists. Gotta love em.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

yeah when faced with simple truth the "Lying Con" will resort to bumper sticker bullshit, note here how "turbocharger" ducks in to attack without any actual response, because truth is the sort of thing lying cons like tubocharger can't deal with

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

When you show me someone here supporting Republicans, I'll teach them a lesson as well.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

no interest in the issues?

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

Democrat supporters are about 100xs more conservative than I am, sorry to burst your bubble.

There is no amount of blodd and guts, atrocities, bailouts or trade deals that could ever get you to see the bigger picture.

You are a boomer loyalist. You have been trained to think a certain way since birth, from pledging to a flag as a kid to being slathered with freedom propaganda for the following 50-60 years. Its not your fault, its the result of social engineering.

Just remember- if you believe in that shit, then you have a duty to practice it, to participate in it and to be involved.

Here ya go (for the 100th time) :

2910 N Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85012

There will surely be a few occupiers who are involved, you can discuss this stuff with them till you are blue in the face.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

You never have a bad word to say about any member of the GOP, you are simply a con pretending to be something else to confuse the issues, you are a complete fraud....oh before I forget....YOU TROLL

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

Wow, not bombing one country while bombing half a dozen others is now the standard by which we judge morality.

How pathetic. What a sell out.\

FYI- OWS was about a lot of different things, to a lot of different people. Thats why it was so fuckin awesome.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

so your one of those folks that "sees no difference" what a pile of moral crap you are, you are a child if you can't have it all your way you just won't play at all, there is a real world where people like W Bush are elected because of fools like you and wars get started and worlds burn but at least you get to feel high and mighty.....

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

Clinton attacked Iraq three times, and bombed Afghanistan, and also created a disaster in Kosovo, not to mention declared war on American workers with GATT, NAFTA and repealing Glass Steagall.

Your idol Obama is even more out of control than Bush and Clinton combined when the topic is aggressive US foreign policy.

That is, if you think the people that run this country really let us "choose" who the middleman/puppets/politicians are.

I see people like you as a dwindling minority, who are kicking and screaming into the past about Dems and Reps being our saviors.

Thank god you all are almost done. Nothing worse than boomers who still believe this bullshit.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

so for you it's all about the bombs? and your comments confirm that you see no difference, things like minimum wage mean nothing to you I see, you can find fault with anyone or anything, the question here is what do you do? Do you sit and allow those who would make the rich richer win even more seats, because you are not King to choose every action so only perfect actions would be taken? It is ego driven idiots like you that put Bush into the White house and will continue to allow the rich to get richer and working class fall further behind be cause you will always have some "better" plan...because you are so perfect

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

how does one not drop a bomb ?

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

The first step at this point is to address the wealth inequality, the Monarchs of the day will wage war on each other to gain more power, the path is to remove the power from money then the love of it will not be able to spur war, this is a long journey, much of the pain and suffering stems from the wealth inequality and as that grows so does the war and suffering, we enter into perpetual war to support the needs of the wealth, aggressively attacking the defenders of the wealthy is a viable path given how many instinctively know that the rich are too damn rich, but OWS has squandered the opportunity to change the world in the hopes of busting up the Democratic Party and building its own power structure to feed the egos of its "leaders".

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

"as I have said as OWS ties with third parties became clear"

Activists abound laughing their asses off at that one.

No offense, but your analysis of most everything really sucks.

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

too bad they're too busy laughing to do shit, that could be why we don't see OWS on the TV anymore.....

"Activists" HA! I could tell you about how to shut down a school or close a town, but kids these days all they care about is "video games" and "social media", you're a HOOT!

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

Name me at least 3 people from Occupy Phoenix who are currently working with the Dems. There are probably a lot more than that, but name at least three.

If you can't, then you dont even know what is going on in your own backyard.

HOw many more bombs have to be dropped by people whom you endorse before you let go of Nader? Does your lust for victory and winning elections have no end?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

there were only five of us at the OWS planning meeting and that was long ago as I have said as OWS ties with third parties became clear, serious people stopped going, there hasn't been anyone at Cesar Chavez Plaza for quite some time

[-] -1 points by turbocharger (1718) 5 months ago

""Activists" HA! I could tell you about how to shut down a school or close a town, but kids these days all they care about is "video games" and "social media", you're a HOOT!"

You certainly have a point there.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

vote republican, we kill 50 foreigners

vote democrat, we only kill 25

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

Those 5,000,000 people that voted for Nader in 2000 should be proud of all the deaths they caused and are still causing I expect it could be another 20 years that the affects of those 5,000,000 votes will last, we will no doubt kill many more because people like you and Nader are waiting for perfection while you let pure evil win. There is an actual path by which we could really change this country but people like yourself waiting to become King so you can have it all your way, your real problem is you hate democracy you hate that people don't just do the "right" thing as you see it, there is/was a real path, it starts with telling simple truth but for those that seek their own political power, truth can be very inconvenient.

[-] -2 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

i understand your thinking here but i wonder how true it is. slick willie killed lots - i would think more iraqis than bush the younger. and we know our noble peace prize winner has killed many we just don't know how many. depends how far back in history you want to go - to lbj and beyond - certainly not to truman and "the bomb!"

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

mr bush said you are either with us or against us - and now ms clinton in her own words - "And I hope that that message has gotten through to everywhere it needs to be heard. You are either with America in our time of need or you are not."...

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us."...... "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. Council on Foreign Relations (15 December 2003) (video)

and now paul street on those words - Clinton clings to her standard talking point: she "wouldn’t have supported the use of force if she had had the intelligence information in 2002 that she had now" (Patrick Healey, "In New Hampshire, Clinton Refuses to Denounce her War Vote," New York Times, 11 February 2005, sec. 1, p.22).

This line has been evoking open popular criticism on the campaign trail – with good reason. I see only three possible explanations of her 2002 vote:

  1. She was a geeked-up post-9/11 war hawk who (consistent with her especially strong support of Israel) was more than ready to join the bloody assault on the oil-rich Arab world.

  2. She was a political coward who concluded that Cheney-Bush’s messianic-militarist war was an unstoppable fait accompli that she could oppose only at potentially serious cost to her long-time electoral viability.

  3. She was unforgivably incompetent in her assessment of relevant information.

The fact that Cheney et al. were lying about the threat supposedly posed to the U.S. and the world by Saddam was well understood at home and abroad. You didn’t have to be some kind of clairvoyant, "expert," or insider to know better than to swallow the administration’s deceptions. The transparently false and imperially motivated nature of the administration’s case for war was obvious to most of the morally and politically cognizant planet. The cooked (not "bad") nature of the administration’s "intelligence" (fixed in advance by the policy, to paraphrase the Downing Street Memo) was obvious to numerous observers.

Saying she was fooled by Cheney-Bush’s "intelligence" is admitting that she (along with numerous other U.S. Senators, of course) was one or some mixture of three things, none good, in the fall of 2002: (1) a disingenuous war hawk; (2) a disingenuous political coward or; (3) shockingly stupid. My guess is that her decision was about a combination of (1) and (2), with (2) being the dominant factor.

Whatever, this is one area where the overnight Barockstar has got Hillary Clinton beat – cold.

Don’t get me wrong. Beneath all his false claims to being a grassroots "outsider" and "progressive," Obama is a conservative, privilege-worshipping man of Empire and Inequality, Inc. He’s an open supporter of neoliberal capitalism and U.S. global dominance (see Paul Street, "The Obama Illusion," Z Magazine, February 2007; Street, "Obama’s Audacious Deference to Power," Black Agenda Report, February 7, 2007, read at www.blackagendareport.com/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61); Street, "Keynote Reflections," ZNet, July 29th, 2004, available online at www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&I temID=5951), consistent with his passion to be president and his Ivy League education/indoctrination.

But even then state Senator Obama refused to be fooled in the fall of 2002. "With no access to intelligence reports," Obama "recognized that administration claims of Saddam’s ‘imminent threat to the United States’ were hype and foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would be of ‘undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.’"

I am quoting liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich (Rich, "Stop Him Before He Gets More Experience," New York Times, 11 February 2004, sec. 4, p. 12), who might want to consider that neither I nor untold millions of others needed "access" to "intelligence reports" to know that the White House was lying about Iraq.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

I said there would still be bankers in jail and you are talking about Saddam, you sound a lot like Bush/Cheney pay no attention to your home look over there those people hate you, distract, deceive that's your plan. It is true Hilary would have gone after the bankers much harder, it is also true idiots like you help elect the GOP and increase wealth inequality which of course leads to wars among other things.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

very sorry i did not answer properly - you said this - but if you think Mr. 47% Romney, or worse "bomb bomb Iran" McCain would be "no difference" than Obama you are a complete idiot. -so i thought maybe bombing countries was allowed. secondly my original post was about primitive accumulation so who is off topic?? lastly we have this - billary pardons marc rich instead of leonard peltier - this makes your position a bit hard to believe - no? read all about it sonny.......... Marc Rich, the man who got away with it, died last week, and I would be remiss if I let his death pass without comment. Rich became internationally notorious in 2001, when, as a fugitive from justice, he was pardoned by Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration. What many don’t recall is that Attorney General Eric Holder, who was then a deputy attorney general, was instrumental in securing Rich’s pardon.

Rich was a pioneering commodities trader who made billions dealing in oil and other goods. He had a habit of dealing with nations with which trade was embargoed, like Iran, Libya, Cuba, and apartheid South Africa. Rich also had a habit of not paying his taxes, to the point where one observer said that “Marc Rich is to asset concealment what Babe Ruth was to baseball.” The United States indicted Rich in 1983, hitting him with charges—tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, trading with the enemy—that could’ve brought life in prison. Rich fled the country.

He remained at large for almost 20 years. (Rich’s obituaries have said that, for much of that time, he was on the FBI 10 Most Wanted List, a claim that I have not been able to independently verify. A Lexis-Nexis database search reveals nothing; a call to the FBI’s press office was not fruitful.) Rich lived in a big house in Switzerland and spent lots of money trying to make the charges against him go away, giving money to American politicians and to various Israeli causes, motivated at least partly in the latter case by the hope that officials in Israel might petition the United States on his behalf.

Finally, in 2000, he saw some return on his efforts. Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

WOW so many words yet not one word of criticism for the GOP, you would think just by chance it would happen once in a while, I don't normally mention this sort of thing but are you feelings a little exposed odin, err i mean flip? not that you are he, you are a different con but like I said before I can do for you what i did for him if you really want me to.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

I heard on KPBS the beheader mentioned the president's name

does that count as GOP?

if the people are not happy with the government

The GOP will rotate in

are you happy with your government ?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 4 months ago

You sound very confused this morning Matt, I suppose the Nader disease could be affecting you and your mind may be losing completely, the ability to distinguish reality.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 4 months ago

if people took voting seriously we would drop far fewer bombs I think, I think most people don't want to drop bombs, but people in power can trust the people not to take voting too seriously so they are safe to drop bombs....

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 4 months ago

the people in power have control of both parties

[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

When you start defending the GOP the criticism will come. In the meantime you prefer to defend Democrats, so therefore you should and are criticized.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 4 months ago

I don't defend shit, I just attack the GOP and their supporters, like you.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

well once again we disagree but i have to admit you did some nice wiggling here. and at least you admit to being partisan on a non partisan ows site - very good - thanks

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 4 months ago

oh I forgot you have become The high Keeper of the True Path,,,,bullshit..... and I'm glad to see you finally admit that you do help to get the GOP elected...so I am not wrong to point out your support for the GOP

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

is it ok for me to say the same?? i do not defend the gop i just attack the dems and their supporters - seems you may have a tough time explaining why you can do it and i cannot

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

lol exactly.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 4 months ago

we could stop dropping bombs today

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 4 months ago

And it is ok for you to say my efforts help the Dems, note I don't defend them but I do help them get elected, and it is fair to say you help the GOP, you don't defend them but efforts do help to elect them.

[-] 0 points by HalalDali (17) 5 months ago

This for-us-or-against-us group think goes back to 2002. The Iraq War is more than an internal personal decision made by the loyal US Congress in solidarity with the White House. Checks and balances would have kept us out of this situation.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/blair-bush-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-malaysia-/#comment-423368 -not found

http://occupywallst.org/forum/code-red-bush-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-in-/ -not found

In November 2011, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, in which Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, led the prosecution team, convicted Bush and Blair of crimes against peace and humanity, and genocide over their roles in the Iraq war.

On May 11, 2012, the tribunal also found Bush, former US Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld guilty of the crime of torture.

"We will keep after Bush and Blair for sure for crimes against peace, war crimes and torture in general," Boyle told Press TV in a recent interview.

"We got them both convicted of a Nuremberg crime against peace," he added while referring to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.



If successive U.S. Presidents and Congresses continue to fail to take appropriate actions regarding these war crimes then every country should or will be against us.

The Nuremberg executions took place on October 16, 1946, shortly after the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials. Ten prominent members of the political and military leadership of Nazi Germany were executed by hanging: Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Julius Streicher. Hermann Göring was also scheduled to be hanged on that day, but committed suicide using a potassium cyanide capsule the night before.

The collapse of 9-11 WTC Buildings should have a full investigation. What evidence implicates Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden? No one has gone to trial or to jail for the deaths of nearly 3000 victims.

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

right on. and how many were hung in tokyo?

[-] 0 points by HalalDali (17) 5 months ago

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was convened at Ichigaya Court, formerly the Imperial Japanese Army HQ building, in Ichigaya, Tokyo. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trials, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, or simply the Tribunal, was convened on April 29, 1946, to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for three types of war crimes. "Class A" crimes were reserved for those who participated in a joint conspiracy to start and wage war, and were brought against those in the highest decision-making bodies; "Class B" crimes were reserved for those who committed "conventional" atrocities or crimes against humanity; "Class C" crimes were reserved for those in "the planning, ordering, authorization, or failure to prevent such transgressions at higher levels in the command structure".[citation needed]

Twenty-eight Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class A crimes, and more than 5,700 Japanese nationals were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly entailing prisoner abuse. China held 13 tribunals of its own, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.

The Japanese Emperor Hirohito and all members of the imperial family, such as career officer Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, were not prosecuted for involvement in any of the three categories of crimes. Herbert Bix explained, "the Truman administration and General MacArthur both believed the occupation reforms would be implemented smoothly if they used Hirohito to legitimise their changes".[1] As many as 50 suspects, such as Nobusuke Kishi, who later became Prime Minister, and Yoshisuke Aikawa, head of Nissan, were charged but released in 1947 and 1948. Shiro Ishii received immunity in exchange for data gathered from his experiments on live prisoners. The lone dissenting judge to exonerate all indictees was Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal.

The tribunal was adjourned on November 12, 1948.


[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

920 was the number I read. Yours was different or did I read it wrong? Racism at work here?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

Japanese nationalism

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago


[-] 0 points by HalalDali (17) 5 months ago

The War Crime Tribunal is a serious matter. Instead of putting the responsible members of the Bush Administration on trial, we may see more innocent Americans targeted by terrorists abroad.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

another beheading for the CIA

when will the US people stop speaking against their governments wars

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 4 months ago

a human being and a reporter

it would be convenient to run to some ancient undead hamas document

to find a reason for the execution made for the western media

to degrade the reputation of the people we want to bomb.

[-] -1 points by HalalDali (17) 4 months ago

Steven Sotloff had dual Ameircan-Israeli citizenship. He was a Zionist.

[-] -1 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

well you are unlike nader - that much is correct but you are both blind and stupid

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

very nice job here elf but you are wasting your time with this young boy. i can only assume he is working for the democratic party. you are correct that the bottom 80% of the population has very little chance to move up or to have a reasonable life. it was not always like that here in the u.s. when i was a kid a very low level job supported a fairly good standard of living. through out much of western and northern europe that is still true - the lower 80% of the population lives much better than ours. that needs to change and neither party is really addressing it

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

how exactly do you think your efforts to help the GOP win the Senate in 2014, something you have stated as your goal, how will that make things better?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 months ago

I'm not dismissing anything/one. My focus is on the present, & continued fight to implement progressive solutions to the problems that face the 99%.

Of course history informs our efforts, I just don't re fight old battles, in fact I avoid partisan battles, all battles really.

Issues/action is my preference

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

any group that puts a name on any ballot where that name is not the most likely to defeat the GOP name is hurting America anyone that helps such a group grow is hurting America, avoiding "partisan" fights is like saying "I don't really care what actually happens, but I do like to complain sometimes." I didn't come here to complain, I came to change the world and it can be done if people will simply tell the truth.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 5 months ago

your ignorance is on full display - again!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

Your love of and support for the GOP is always on display, as we determined in the previous thread you have admitted your support of the GOP and your desire that they win control of the Senate in 2014 I was just wondering how you see this post advancing your agenda?

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (2196) 5 months ago

all of congress is a war congress

let's vote for the lesser of two slaughters

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6274) from Phoenix, AZ 5 months ago

Similar things can be said of growing old, it being the worst possible thing, other than the alternative, often failure to consider the alternative leads to poor decisions as it did for so many in 2000 even today we still suffer from those that refused to accept reality over a decade ago.