Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The Alternative to Capitalism

Posted 2 months ago on Jan. 29, 2014, 2:31 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6195)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism is a system in which there is private ownership of the means of production. If there is no private ownership of the means of production, it is not capitalism. So what would a society without this private ownership look like? How could a society without capitalism be organized?

Some believe -- or want to trick us into believing -- that the only alternative to capitalism is some kind of authoritarian society with a powerful state owning all the means of production (cf. the Soviet Union etc). This is of course completely false.

Leninism, Stalinism and all other similar tyrannical systems are awful. They should not be introduced, they should be rejected.

So what other alternatives are there to capitalism?

There is another proposal. It's about creating a society where the means of production are controlled not by powerful capitalists, nor by a powerful state, but instead by the workers and communities. In other words, a decentralized federated society with a more participatory and direct democracy in which the communities and the workplaces are controlled democratically by the people who work and live there.

This way of organizing society is often called libertarian socialism. It is the anti-authoritarian socialism that opposes all forms of authoritarian systems and illegitimate hierarchies, and instead wants a free, non-hierarchical society with collective ownership of the means of production.

This has also worked very well in real life. We’ve seen many examples of societies and businesses based on libertarian socialist, or at least libertarian socialist-like principles that have worked very well. The Spanish Revolution is obviously worth mentioning here, as well as Mondragon and the Evergreen Cooperatives, but there have also been interesting developments in other countries as well, like Argentina, for example.

In other words, it’s not a question of whether we can achieve a free and just society based on workers’ self-management & workplace democracy, but how we most effectively can get there (I mentioned some of the things I think we should focus on in the struggle for such a society here ).

A libertarian socialist society will lead to human liberation. By creating a participatory democracy where people have control over their own workplaces and communities, people will be free from authority and dominance, and no longer treated like cogs in a machine. They will have control over their own lives; they'll be free.

The alternative to capitalism is democracy - including workplace democracy

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA6jWAYzTIJeUdm0xO_DAZYRYkdRNPuP5

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA6jWAYzTIJfb-LPnn8FhTwF8KWCldeGt

77 Comments

77 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Penston (80) 1 month ago

The type of company you're talking about is called a cooperative (co-op, for short). The agricultural sector in Ireland is dominated by co-ops and they've been thriving for decades.

I wouldn't describe it as an alternative to capitalism. Rather, it's capitalism in an inclusive economic environment. The agricultural sector in the U.S. is an example of capitalism in an extractive economic environment.

Co-ops also exist in the US. You may have seen Alvarado Street Bakery featured in a Michael Moore documentary called Capitalism: A Love Story. At the time, employees were all earning an annual salary of around $60,000.

http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/index.php

If the environment is inclusive, it means that workers who create wealth through their hard work are included in the resulting benefits. The IT sector in the U.S. is more inclusive than other sectors in the country - entrepreneurs can enter the market easily and it's even possible to become wealthy by working for someone else (because you're included in the wealth). Other sectors are more extractive (the wealth is extracted by the people at the top) because of over-deregulation, in most cases.

[-] 1 points by carlylesanders (1) from New Hope, PA 3 weeks ago

Are you talking about co-ops? They already exist, and anyone can create them if they wish. The bank I use is a co-op.

What kind of work do you do? Do you work in a co-op too? I started mine back in the early 80s. We're like 80 people working now. Doing translation work for governmental offices.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

Well, kind of. I'm talking about a system in which the economy is democratized and decentralized. So it would be a co-operative economic system where the entire society is controlled democratically by the participants.

Co-ops are growing in number all over the place. If this continues and escalates, they can play a huge role in transforming our economic system.

[-] 1 points by Durvasa (-4) from Davie, FL 1 month ago

cool, an alternative to capitalism or economy. Now anybody got any ideas about the new religious or political system?

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

I need to clarify something. "It is the anti-authoritarian socialism that opposes all forms of authoritarian systems and illegitimate hierarchies, and instead wants a free, non-hierarchical society with collective ownership of the means of production."

Now when I think public ownership I think that is in fact the government, by the people for the people. Isn't that what the government is supposed to be? Public ownership?

Let's say the democracy of one community decides to create something that harms the planet and everyone else. How does that and our government (public ownership) all fit together when you say something like non-hierarchical society?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 1 month ago

But there can be decentralized public ownership. In short term perspective the government can be given certain tasks to improve the lives of the population, but in long term perspective we should try to create a society with as little concentration of power as possible. Power shouldn't lie in an authoritarian state, and it shouldn't lie in the hands of powerful corporations, it should lie in the hands of the communities and the workforce. Then people will be in control over their own lives, and not having to be ruled or dominated by some outside force.

If someone does something that's harmful for others, then the people affected should have a say in these decisions. Libertarian socialism/anarcho-syndicalism is not about every cooperative or community for itself, it's about creating a highly organized society with democracy on all levels; it's about creating a democracy from below, so that your say in things is proportional to how much you're affected.

[-] 2 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

One more thought. Participatory democracy which advocates more involved forms of citizen participation causes me to cringe a little. Most people really just don't want to participate. "We don't want power, we don't want to be congressmen, or bankers....we want to be ourselves."

I can sympathize with that. I would much rather focus my energy on the things I'm more interested and talented with. I simply don't want to wrap my head around diplomacy and economics. I would rather be able to trust that simple truth can keep things functional and free for everyone.

Think about how most people have their face buried in a cell phone. They want to enjoy life and make friends. We could very well end up with the same, power hungry, trickster people being the ones to pay attention and take advantage, while normal, modest people remain more concerned about their own state of being alive.

What do you think? What would stop the power hungry from dominating the distracted? Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree that something independent like this is the right formula to protect our united rights. But what can really solve the problem of democracy in that way?

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 1 month ago

Most of the participation would be at local level: in your neighborhood, at the workplace and your local community. What you want to contribute with and participate in should be up to you. If someone doesn't want to participate, if they don't want to have more control over their own lives, then that's up to them, but I think most people would like to contribute.

Libertarian socialism prevents authoritarian structures because power always lies in the local communities. Delegates would be elected from the group to which they belong, and would have to take orders from them.

I think Norwegian anarchist Syphilia Morgenstierne summed up the, in my view at least, ideal form of organization for a modern society pretty well:

"Anarcho-syndicalism is unionism with direct democracy. In syndicalism individuals organize not by craft, but by location -- it does after all not make much sense if nurses and engineers have to fight over the same money. Syndicalism is about organizing the entire business, as well as the entire city or town. Direct democracy is practiced by careful balance between town meetings and voting; and education and training, so that there'll be more "strong" votes. Power-oriented "clicks" will then be suppressed.

The association between these syndicates, or clubs, can be seen not as something superior, but something equal, or inferior. These are called federations. The delegates in these federations have voting power proportional to the number of members they represent; they are elected for only one period, and they don't receive any form of remuneration. The ones in charge in this kind of organization, are the individual members. This system is well organized, well tested various places around the world, and it's a very democratic system."

--Syphilia Morgenstierne

[-] 2 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

Aye, it does seem like enough people would be interested for that positive affect, even in America.

So what happens to the corporations in power right now that are spread out in various forms all over the globe? Would they be split up into localized components, or would they remain a larger organism of operations, just with publicly owned regulation? It seems like a hierarchy model does work pretty well in some cases, and I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I'm not thinking of a good example right now (besides the military). Anyone?

Also, what if someone has a great idea but it's way ahead of its time and goes against the comfort zone of most people. Let's say it needs great resources to accomplish but nobody votes in favor of it. Let's say people think it's stupid, but if it actually happened they would be totally amazed and enlightened. How can you experiment with big ideas if absolutely everything is democratic?

Here's what makes me cringe a little too, groupthink. Would that rule the world?

"Power-oriented "clicks" will then be suppressed." <-- by what? Gang mentality is most common. People want to be accepted, and in fact fear of disapproval can dominate a personality.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 1 month ago

Corporations are illegitimate structures in my opinion. The economic institutions must be democratized and controlled by the ones affected. I've written a little bit about what we should do here: https://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-fight-capitalism/

In a libertarian socialist society there'd be an effort to seek out and try to dismantle all forms of hierarchies --and that certainly includes multinational corporations.

Hierarchies work very well... for the ones at the top. As I pointed out in the post, we should fight all forms of authoritarian systems, and try to replace them with a democracy built and controlled from below. That way the system would work well for the people, not the CEOs.

Well, just think about how many great ideas that are never realized today because of lack of resources etc. In a LS society, great ideas and creative solutions would flourish, because people would be free to participate and contribute with their ideas. Also, if you have an idea that few supports, there's no stopping you from asking others to help you with your project etc.

Not everything is democratic. Things that only affect you is your business. Things that involve more people should be decided by the ones involved and affected.

Power oriented clicks will be suppressed by the way the system is organized. The system prevents power hungry individuals from gaining power.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

What would stop you is that nobody wants to help you. And you say this system would prevent dominant personality by the way it's organized, but how? I want to be clear about what you're suggesting, because you're saying to abolish all forms of hierarchy, but that's exactly what levels and rules are, with or without democracy.

The classic story is being cast out by society and having to prove an idea on your own. How could that happen if everyone controlled everything? Nothing would allow you to build a factory, or waste funding on research that the sky was falling. I think that was the real American dream, that anyone could pursue their dreams, and sometimes the world isn't flat, it's round despite prevailing thought.

Imagine it from the point of view of an artist. You're trying to create a vision that nobody else understands, but countless people are all trying to assert their personality into everything.

And what about group-think? Didn't Hitler become so powerful because he was popular? Maybe that's a bad example because things can be much more subtle, but the point is that groups of people are a completely different animal.

Anyone can voice their opinion even now, unrelated to democracy. I'm not sure that more people would have more opportunity, because if everything was decided by everyone then the law of averages would dictate that we'd have less. If elitist profiteers weren't undermining technology and our system was allowed to promote itself then that would cause people to have more opportunity.

Think about this in terms of absolutes. On one hand you have no democracy, like an artist, but also limited to a singular view. On the other you have total democracy, unlimited in view, but at the same time confined by group dynamics. It’s a great idea for a lot of things, like grocery stores, but for example try to picture the military without having a chain of command, it'd be a mess.

Nature has been doing things a lot longer than we have, and what will always kill the natural world are the extremes. Balance is key and I don't think this is any different. We need democracy to keep structure serving the people, and we need structure to keep democracy from becoming oppressive.

I'm not convinced we understand the extent of these things, and instead of diving headlong from one extreme right into another, I think we should start with the most necessary changes and take it slow from there, experimenting while trying to understand the impact our transformation has.

The public ownership of world resources and necessities that affect everyone, along with a government that can truly apply democratic regulation, seems like the right idea to start with.

What is democracy? Without the combination of education and free speech it is nothing but the justification of opinion. -- just like the manipulative comment point system of this forum.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 1 month ago

"What would stop you is that nobody wants to help you"

Sure. And then you'd have to continue to try toconvince others to help you. That's how it is to live in a society with other people. You can't get your will all the time.

"And you say this system would prevent dominant personality by the way it's organized, but how?"

S.Morgenstierne explained it.

"because you're saying to abolish all forms of hierarchy, but that's exactly what levels and rules are, with or without democracy."

No, it's not. There's no contradiction between having a classless society and at the same rules and representation.

"I think that was the real American dream, that anyone could pursue their dreams"

If this dream includes wanting to exploit workers and have undemocratic control over others, then that shouldn't be allowed.

In a classless society where no one controls others, people are free to control their own lives and work.

"And what about group-think? Didn't Hitler become so powerful because he was popular?"

His lies, his demagogy, his scapegoating, this made him popular, and he took advantage of the parliamentary system and state power. In a libertarian socialist society, power hungry people like Hitler would be prevented from gaining power. The system would stop him immediately. When hierarchies are being dismantled, there'll be no hierarchies to take over.

"We need democracy to keep structure serving the people, and we need structure to keep democracy from becoming oppressive."

A libertarian socialist democracy would not be oppressive, because it would be controlled from below, allowing the individual to have control over its own life and work.

[-] 3 points by shooz (26667) 1 month ago

"If this dream includes wanting to exploit workers and have undemocratic control over others, then that shouldn't be allowed."

A little etymology, by the man who coined the term.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=American+dream

( For those that never follow my links)

"[The American Dream is] that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position. [Adams] Others have used the term as they will."

A misused term, indeed.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

Alright one more thing. Who said anything about classless society? That sounds awesome. I was talking about hierarchy, like an artist, or the military. Or any rules that dictate from above, like thou shall not kill, or someone running their company the way they want to.

People should have a choice of what kind of buisness they make. If it's a good buisness it would do well. We need artists and leaders, as well as fairness, not one or the other. Something modular, bottom up and top down at the same time, like a circulatory system?

Maybe i'm too accustomed to hierarchy in programming languages. Is this semantics?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 1 month ago

In a classless society hierarchic structures would be down to the minimum. No matter what kind of society we live in, we should always try to find structures of hierarchy and domination, and dismantle them if they're illegitimate.

We don't need leaders; we need a democracy from below in which the ones electing representatives are the ones in charge.


No one's talking about "total democracy". I'm talking about a democracy in which your say in things is proprtional to how much you're affected. AGain, what only affects you is your business, what affects you and your friends, is you and your friends business, and so on.

Libertarian socialism is about strengthening both collective and individual rights. You can't have good individual rights without at the same time having good collective solutions.

What should I explain? She is a norwegian anarchist and has written books on the topic. I quoted her from a lecture I heard.

There will always be disagreements -- and that's why we have discussions, debates, and democratic process. And this should be done by the ones affected by the decisions.

In a classless society, things associated with defense should be handled the same way other things would be handled: controlled from below, and with as little structures of authority and domination as possible. Also, in a classless society, there'd be less reasons for people to become involved in crime and violent conflict, so spending would be far less then in today's society.

There are and have been many societies, businesses etc where there has been much more participation then in the US for example. The main problem is that we have a system that discourages and prevents participation way too much.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

You are talking about total democracy, that's what having your say being proportional to how much you're affected is. Things that only affect you are isolation, but we all have to live together.

So I did some research. Apparently it's commonly known that too much democracy is oppressive, but I found some better verbiage, much more politically minded than I am. And since I came to pretty much the same conclusion by looking only at the universe, I think that bodes pretty well for the argument.

Politics is a euphemism for 'control of the collective means of violence backed coercion', the essential core around which 'society' exists and interacts. And a completely democratic society would mean completely political.

Individual liberty fails immediately by virtue of the fact that you cannot opt out of a democratic political society: if my neighbor gets to vote on all aspects of 'any arrangement by which people organize their lives', then clearly my individual wish regarding my own life is by no means my choice unless that choice is quite literally a popular one.

To maintain such a condition of total political governance requires the use of force to prevent any consensual but not democratically sanctioned acts between individuals. To maintain this suppression of spontaneous several relationships, a collectivist socialist society must be organized and structured in certain ways that make it indistinguishable from a collectivist socialist state.

Now of course all societies have laws, however the collectivist places the protection of the political collective as more important than the individual. If the political collective says 'a factory may not put dioxin in Dick's lungs because we want a more environmentally safe place to live for all of us', then that is the law because the political collective has said so, not because Dick has the right to control the contents of his own lungs.

But if they say 'a factory may indeed put dioxin in Dick's lungs because we want a better economy and more stuff for the rest of us' then that too is the voice of the collective. If Dick does not like it, well, it is 'only through interaction with others in political activity and civic action that individuals will fully realize their humanity'. If Dick is the minority, he'll have to suck it.

Forget constitutions that constrain democracy because those are anti-democratic (which is rather the point). And forget custom and culture as a means to moderate interactions because that is not political. Every aspect of life is subject to the views of a plurality of other people, with no inalienable truth.

How can the individual rights of people be insulated from the democratic political process which may seek to abridge them? You can either have complete democracy enshrined or, as the American founding fathers tried with limited success, you can have individual rights enshrined and placed outside the reach of democratic politics.

Unlike a voluntary collectivist commune, you cannot just walk out the door of a collectivist 'society' and begin private arrangements with other willing people if the majority do not want you to do that: they can in fact deputize the use of violence to prevent it. Put another way, this democratic society is in fact a state but organized to enforce the political will of the plurality on an epic scale.

Is the collective mind a better idea then dictatorship? It's the same thing, except that groups of people can become the most irrational animal, especially when dominated by the assertive personalities who take advantage of them. Take it from Nature, the secret to Ying and Yang is balance.

Libertarian socialism is individualist collectivism; ergo an oxymoron. In reality this is a locally organized totalitarianism that completely invalidates individual liberty. It's also the perfect trap, because at first glance it appears so good. But I'm finding that these things are already so well understood, it's only used now as a trap to lure the uneducated, like me.

We need a level of democracy that we don't have now, that much is for sure.

[-] 4 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

A lot of hairsplitting here. I also wondered sometimes what you were actually responding to.

Like I said, good individual rights are dependent on good collective solutions, as well as equality -- including economic equality. Only in a classless, non-hierarchical society are individuals free from authority and domination. In other words, Libertarian Socialism is not in any way an oxymoron, it’s a society where real individual freedom is realized. It’s a society where individuals control their own lives, where the ones affected by the decision-making are the ones making the decisions.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

Are you the same person as stuggleforfreedom90?

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

You have to change your statement to this: In a classess, non-hierarchical and also democracy-free society are individuals free from authority. Isn't that anarchy? You're saying a lot of things that sound good, but they wouldn't actually work the same way in reality, just like an oxymoron.

This isn't hairsplitting, it's a valid argument. You say that true individual freedom would be realized, as if people would actually agree on everything. Not everyone will, and there goes the variety of individuality because the democratic society is law (backed by means of force).

People have a million different opinions about everything, and that's what our contitutions protect. Think about it, no independent and politically neutral courts would be stepping in to support the objective and several rights of Dick against the collective because that would be undemocratic.

Like our founding fathers realized, we need both. Golden rules placed outside the reach of democratic politics in order to keep the foundation of civilization. The problem is democracy has been subverted, so we don't really have it for anything, and total dictatorship isn't the answer either.

Our government was trying for this: nobody hurt each other, but otherwise do whatever you want. But, what you're suggesting would amount to popular opinion designing everything, just like a dictatorship. Collective solutions yes, but democracy from the bottom up to become law is a different animal.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

"Isn't that just anarchy?"

Yeah, sure. Libertarian Socialism is basically the same as anarchism.

"You say the ones affected by the decision-making are the ones making the decisions as if people would actually agree on everything."

No I don't. Of course there will be disagreement. And that's why everyone should have a say in the things that affect their lives.

"and there goes their individual rights because the democratic society is law."

On the contrary. One of the most important rights an individual can have is the right to a say in the things that affect its life. When a decision affects person a, b and c, the decision shouldn't be made only by person a or a and c; all three should have an equal say -- in other words, democracy. The alternative to all three having an equal say in the decisions that affect all three would be some kind of system in which one individual is dominated and controlled by others.

A democracy should, like I said, be built and controlled from below. Then an individual's say in things would be proportional to how much it's a part of and affected by these things.

"Our government was trying for this: nobody hurt each other, but otherwise be whatever you want."

As long as there's flow of capital, resources concentrated in the hands of powerful owners, this is extremely naive and a superficial way of looking at it.

We need to democratize the economy and create a classless, non-hierarchical society; a society where no one can control and dominate others. Then, and only then, can we live based on that principle.

I'm not that fond of constitutions. Ideally it should be the population that lives today that should get decide what kind of society they have to live in, not dead slave owners.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

Not on the contrary. If everyone wants to put a loud night club on the 2nd floor of every apartment in the city, and i'm part of the minority who doesn't, i better pack my bags, take myself and my sick mother, and hit the road, just to find the same kind of bullshit happening everywhere.

People have a say in their communities right now. And yes, we need democracy to regulate the economic monopoly. But you're talking about democracy that could do whatever it gosh damn wanted, a society defined by holy wars. Not only that you're talking about decentralizing infrastructure like the state and military which organize resources to confront all kinds of threats to survival.

My whole life I've been advocating that sharing opens all doors, bigger, better, stronger and faster. But even to me it's obvious that totalitarian democracy is not even remotely what you think it'd be. And sure, it might just work out in some areas with like-minded people, not to mention things like grocery stores. But you're not even trying to consider what might actually happen, to transform everything into another extreme, so whatever.

And you try to defend this by saying that anything else would be dictatorship? Talk about naive. You've not once acknowledged that I'm talking about finding balance. All you can do is keep saying the same thing over and over without any kind of illustrative example. But this is why you want comment voting, and that makes perfect sense.

I think we've had our say, no worries.

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

I think total democracy would be oppressive, because yeah, you couldn't do exactly what you wanted. Like spend funding on research that the sky was falling. Or that you couldn't be an artist because everyone that worked for you would be asserting their personality upon it, et cetera.

Nobody should be able to do what they want if it hurts other people, that's the other extreme. That's way I'm saying there has to be some kind of balance between democracy and structure, or lets say between democracy and liberty.

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

You're chopping up the statements and not answering the real questions. I knew you'd jump on Hitler, but the point was that groups of people are a completely different animal (and not always rational).

We definitely need democracy in a lot of places, but we also need to establish liberty. I looked up Morgenstierne and nothing jumped out. Would you care to explain? And why so sure of their opinion?

An individual would have control over their own life, if they were isolated. We all live together, and people conflict. Everything would get carried away by groupthink. Please understand that groups of people never sit still. Groups will step on the toes of other groups, without some kind of hierarchy you're going to have war. Isn't that what the Constitution is, the highest rule?

There has to be a balance of ying and yang. If you don't believe me then take it from nature. And what about the military? It helps protect us from natural disasters, not to mention the unknown. And the military, like an artist, needs chain of command.

[-] -1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

Ok, here, "Direct democracy is practiced by careful balance between town meetings and voting; and education and training, so that there'll be more "strong" votes. Power-oriented "clicks" will then be suppressed."

I've been to town meetings, that's where you go if you want to see power-oriented clicks. Normal people don't care about this stuff. Maybe that works in farm communities. Not everyone everywhere is so enlightened. In a perfect world everyone would get along, but that isn't going to happen because everyone is different. We don't have to get along, but we do have to live together.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

This is pretty damn good. I've been trying to drive at something like this with democratic regulation of world resources and independent communities. Language is tough. The way you put something doesn't always translate the same in everyone's mind.

Means of production seems like a bit more then just sharing the planet, I'm not even sure the extent of what that means. But after looking through a few Wikipedia links it all seems pretty good. Please, don't let this topic sink.

I think we can start by challenging the private ownership of these world resources that should be democratically regulated. After all isn't that what we're really fighting? Get money out of politics sure, but does that really solve the problem compared to this?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by cheViva (21) 2 months ago

Can you see this? An alternative to capitalism needn't involve a thing about governance, although money and power are way too tied up in washington.

https://github.com/EM-Che/Appropriate-building-technology/wiki let's build these concepts here

Basically not using money. One relevant thing to ask is where will you be, a house, apartment, car, streets, forest, rural area, city, etc? Hmmmmm http://freeworldcharter.org/

Good idea, akapak knew a guy in Redwood city, CA who he and his wife had a tiny house . Be sweet to see one of those roll up to the occupy lol.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

The freeworldcharter intro video is as far as i got, so maybe point out anything else about it. Who's going to fix those machines? Who's going to do a great many things? Some people would do things out of boredom, curiosity or adventure, but certainly not everything, especially the things that aren't fun. Our society would quickly be defined by laziness and indulgence. Just look at us now, and things aren't even that available.

But I agree. Money being energy is horrifying to me. It's artificial energy, worse than GMO McDonalds, and you can see plainly how it derails life from the path of reality. Money creates money for example. We have a pretty good equation, almost: individual rights enshrined and placed outside the reach of democratic politics (but if only we had actual democracy for the economic vitalities). But yeah, eliminating money from the equation could solve the equation.

You need a better job, for better money, for a better living situation? How about a better job for a better living situation? And how about population control? Especially if the world was more functional, we have to deal with population control sooner then later already. If people had some kind of allowance to how many kids they should have, it could be enhanced by your contribution, providing an additional level of motivation. That's a hard one to talk about, but you get the idea.

What if everyone had a type of visa depending on their work? You know what, this would actually be a society based entirely on class (not a hierarchy class but a modular one). Sort of interesting to think about. Sort of ruins the flavor of it, but how can you create motivation without giving people a reward system to strive for?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Freedomfeen (9) 3 weeks ago

Just to be clear, you are not advocating for using force or violence right? So if someone owns a factory or small business now, how will you implement workplace democracy? Will you take the factory by force? What if the owner doesn't want you to take it? Will you use violence?

Also you are advocating that all this be done voluntarily right? Without using the state violence to acheive your ends?

[-] 2 points by JGriff99mph (479) 3 weeks ago

Perhaps the best way to get to the solution of the factory situation is to simply start organizing and see where it takes you. Crazy things happen when momentum is built.

Until the populace realizes that they can buy shirts of the same quality and help their neighbors by purchasing from them instead of walmart, then not much is going to change.

Couples needs to make $200 a day to get by. How many tshirts is that after expenses? 20 a day perhaps. 600 a month. Thats a lot of tshirts.

I would be interested in knowing how many tshirts our local Sears sells. Or Walmart or Target, in a month.

Probably the best way to achieve this would be to bring back real marketplaces- need to convince the populace its in their best interest to stay away from the malls.

After reading through this, we need a major culture change.

[-] 1 points by Freedomfeen (9) 3 weeks ago

If people opened businesses without permission and resisted state aggression against their peaceful market operations things would be very different. If a true free market arose we would be much better off.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

"Just to be clear, you are not advocating for using force or violence right?"

Yes I am! The rich and powerful are not going to give away all their privileges voluntarily.They have to be taken from them. I have absolutely no problem with taking property away from people who control and dominate others. The multinational corporations and the financial elite have an overwhelming control over the economy and our lives. They have to be stripped from their power so that individuals can be free to control their own lives. This "voluntarism" that ancaps and others are talking about is just an illusion, given the maldistribution of wealth and power.

Real individual freedom and voluntary association are only achieved in a free and classless society.

"So if someone owns a factory or small business now, how will you implement workplace democracy?"

Thru organization in the local community and elsewhere, support for a participatory democracy can be acieved. When support has grown big enough, workers and communities can take over the economic institutions and run them democratically. A libertarian socialist society can only come when the people want it.

"Also you are advocating that all this be done voluntarily right? Without using the state violence to acheive your ends?"

As a libertarian socialist I think capitalism and the state must be destroyed together. However, if there are politicians and parties concerned with weakening the power of the corporations and strengthening the rights of the workers and communities, they could play a role. The important work, however, is what's being done in between elections.

[-] 0 points by Freedomfeen (9) 3 weeks ago

In a practical sense, lets consider what you are suggesting. You vote (which is immoral but i will leave that alone for brevity's sake) to elect someone who agrees with you. They get elected. Do you get to write and enforce the laws they will enact? Lobbyists will write the law, don't think so? Then your dreaming. Well now its written, it goes to the floor to be debated. It gets knocked around and changed here and there and now resembles nothing close to what you intended. So now the law goes into effect. Guess what? It's enforced by people who do not share your opinions and have nothing in common with you. Sounds like a great way to go about things doesn't it? If you think politicians will ever represent you, I've got a bridge me and my cousin built-we'll give you a real good price.

The way to take power away from the rich and powerful is to use force? The rich and powerful control the state not you, you and people like you will never control the state. If you did control the state it would corrupt and destroy you like it does everyone else. Using the state to stop powerful interests is like using gasoline to put out a fire.

Do you not realize that the state is what the elite used to gain power? If you use the "ring of power" yourself and you achieve your ends, then what? What happens when you lose power? The power of the state will be used against you and your interests. The idea of hijacking the power to initiate force and using it to your advantage is akin to using the "ring of power" from lord of the rings. It will not work and you will have changed nothing.

Capitalism is not the problem. Voluntary exchange of goods and services has provided us the highest standard of living humanity has ever seen. The computer your typing on is the result of the market, so is your phone, your shirt and your food. Crapitalism is the problem, the marriage of corporate and state power. Resetting from zero in a purely free market, corporations would never develop because the market would be opened to all comers. The corporations state granted patents would be rendered powerless to stop copy cats, their competitors no longer needing to conform to the regulators (which have been captured by the corpoations-see regulatory capture), entrants to the market would no longer have artificial barriers to entry-corporations would see their power diminish back to the level of small companies and businesses over the long term. The last thing corporations want is a free market. Regulations exist to increase the power of the corporations not protect the consumer, hence the term regulatory capture.

Any change you achieve by using a monopoly of violence is false change and will not last. The only peace that lasts is one gained slowly over time as people change and become educated about the world, not by forcing something to happen.

Calling something an "illusion" is not an argument and is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and saying : "la la la la la your stupid"

The way to truly take their power away is through technologies like Bitcoin, Namecoin and 3D Printing. New decentralized and distributed technologies that cannot be stopped will render their power useless, beginning with the power to create and control money.

I don't see how them having a great deal of wealth and power can stop the creation of decentralized technologies that render them obsolete.

Individuals will never be free to control their own lives as long as a monopoly organization exists which has the ability to create arbitrary law and initiate force at will. Until you address that elephant in the room, you have changed nothing. No one should have the ability to use force except in defense.

Voluntary association is achieve by removing the gun from the situation. The gun is force. Every law is a gun. Society will never be classless because there will always be some people who are more gifted or lucky than others. People will never and should never be equal, that is a pipe dream.

So workers will take over the factory? What if the owner doesn't want them to? Will you use violence? Will you kill the owner? Why not start your own factories that conform to your ideals instead of using violence?

If you are advocating for a statist system, you are no better than the elites. Find a way to offer your solutions voluntarily without stooping to their level and enslaving your fellow man so that you can have what you want.

If you advocate for a state than want me locked up in a cage or killed for disagreeing with you. What If I don't want to go along with your plans? Will you force me to? What if I resist?

Please see my post here for more info about why your wrong to advocate violence: http://occupywallst.org/forum/your-not-an-anarchist-if-you-initiate-force-and-ut/#comment-1026204

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

Yes, states and corporations are tightly linked. That's why I think that they should be destroyed together.

Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism does not mean voluntary exchange. Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production. There can be markets without capitalism (cf market socialism). It is private ownership of the means of production that must be abolished. This kind of organization creates hierarchy and domination. Capitalism should be replaced by democracy -- including workplace democracy.

Oh, and by the way: computers, the internet and so on, were mainly developed in the state sector.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHsN44UzvII

In a so-called free capitalist market corporations would -- after being handed even more wealth and power than they have today thru tax cuts and further privatization -- be free to buy up competitors, merge, create huge conglomerates, buy up huge areas and resources and accumulate enormous wealth and power. It would be total corporate tyranny.

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

I'm also for gradual change, for example by creating cooperatives and workplaces owned and run democratically by the communities and the workforce, but existing institutions must also be dealt with. The whole economy must be democratized.

suppose we were back when kings and their associates owned most of the wealth. Should we have just left the king alone and tried to create something "on the side", or should we also overthrow the tyrannical monarchs as well?

The financial elite have not been democratically elected by the people, yet they still have a lot of power over our economy and our lives. This is unacceptable.

The ancap version of voluntarism -- the starving single mother "agreeing" to work for a huge powerful corporation for $6 an hour in order to barely survive -- has nothing to do with voluntarism. You have to take into account the distribution of wealth and power. Only in a classless society are people really free.

Bitcoin is not the solution. The solution is democracy -- creating a society in which workplaces, neighborhoods, communities and so on are run democratically by the ones who work and live there.

People are different, and that's good, but I'm talking about economic equality. The resources that a modern and wealthy society provides us should be shared more equally. That way everyone can be free to contribute based on their own creativity and ideas.

If owners and others refused to accept the laws decided thru democratic process, they'd be stopped, of course.

"What If I don't want to go along with your plans?"

You're free to have that opinion, of course.

"Will you force me to?"

In order to avoid consequences, you'd have to follow the rules decided by the people.

"What if I resist?"

You mean breaking the law? Then you'd be stopped

[-] -1 points by zzx375 (3) 3 weeks ago

"...There is another proposal. It's about creating a society where the means of production are controlled not by powerful capitalists, nor by a powerful state, but instead by the workers and communities...."

Interesting. Remove the word "collective" and substitute the word "communities" and you have made the definition of Soviet style communism no less palatable. Would substituting the word "training camp" for the word "gulag" make the latter more palatable?

And for some global perspective, if you make $30,000/yr or more YOU are in the global 1%. And the practical global perspective exercise for this is to practice the "rolling famine" for at least a week. For the "family of four", Janine eats on Monday, A-aron eats on Tuesday, Mom eats on Wednesday, Dad eats on Thursday, then repeat.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

I'm sorry, that made no sense.

[-] 1 points by zzx375 (3) 3 weeks ago

What made no sense? What do you mean? Are you part of the global 1% and that bothers you?

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

So help me understand this. So a lot of us in the West are pretty well off compared to the majority of the world's population. And what's your point? Are people who are able to live decent lives not allowed to have principles, or think that wealth should be distributed more equally? What are you saying?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20424) 3 weeks ago

I would argue that most people in the West are living on debt and so their wealth is not real. Most people in the West live way over their means and therefore, their standard of living is a sham.

The 1% and corporations have hoarded all the wealth because capitalism allows them to do this. It is a failed economic system. And, then the rich and corporations "allow" the masses to live in debt which in a way covers up the economic tyranny that they are under.

Thanks for this great and informative post.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

Sure, but I said that compared to the majority of the world's population, many of us in the west are pretty well off. Compared to the hundreds of millions of people in 3rd world countries living in often extreme poverty, a teacher with a mortgage is much better off.

Yep, corporations are in control. First they made sure that wages stagnated or declined, then they lent the working class the money instead. In other words, they didn't have to pay more in wages + they earned enormous sums on the interest. Brilliant!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20424) 3 weeks ago

Compared, for sure. But people must remember the debt! The economic tyranny and chains they have put us all in! Just because we're not as bad off as third world countries doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that it is sustainable and that we won't one day end up as bad off as a third world country. What a scam they have pulled off!

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 3 weeks ago

Agreed.

[-] -3 points by IndigoRed (20) 1 month ago

What if I told you capitalism is a reward system for those few and exceptional who make the sacrifice of living out their lives in joy in order to become experts in a field or build solutions to problems they feel they can fix, and that the rest of you plebians are supposed to shut up, stay ignorant, continue to bend to the system and buy our products. What if.

[-] 5 points by flip (5060) 4 weeks ago

what if you lived in the real world? Chomsky on capitalism -

""Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy."

"...capitalism is basically a system where everything is for sale, and the more money you have, the more you can get. And, in particular, that's true of freedom. Freedom is one of the commodities that is for sale, and if you are affluent, you can have a lot of it. It shows up in all sorts of ways. It shows up if you get in trouble with the law, let's say, or in any aspect of life it shows up. And for that reason it makes a lot of sense, if you accept capitalist system, to try to accumulate property, not just because you want material welfare, but because that guarantees your freedom, it makes it possible for you to amass that commodity. [...] what you're going to find is that the defense of free institutions will largely be in the hands of those who benefit from them, namely the wealthy, and the powerful. They can purchase that commodity and, therefore, they want those institutions to exist, like free press, and all that."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

How would you define those major institutions? Public ownership of world resources? Resources and necessities that affect everyone? Is there a clear definition the designates this from other kinds of business which have every right to be private?

[-] 4 points by flip (5060) 4 weeks ago

first a question for you - can you have political democracy when you do not have economic democracy? I thought it was obvious what institutions he is talking about. you might start thinking about this in the follow the money mode. who has the trillions of dollars we all hear about that are sitting in offshore accounts, corporate accounts and private pockets. and how is the decision made to invest that money - who does that - that would be a start in finding those central institutions.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

I suppose the key word is economic then. You're right, what are politics compared to owning the world itself. That's probably why so much appears to be a puppet show, as hard as some people try, there's an unmovable force.

So we're looking for public ownership of the economy? Is there a better, more accurate way to say that?

Anything food related seems to work extremely well with democracy. I'm guessing the same would be true for energy, but what could that really change? Incentives for solar panels? What could really transform the motivation into clean energy, while there's still so much fossil fuel to be had? Clean energy would have to be worth more?

My t-shirt shop is part of the economy, right? How would you say the vital nessesities of economics?

[-] 5 points by flip (5060) 3 weeks ago

the whole mess used to be called political economy since they were so obviously related. the ruling class separated the fields to keep us confused. it worked! yes public ownership of the means of production - not your t shirt shop or my tennis teaching business - or your house or car. certainly as a society - if we had any intelligence - we could allocate resources to move quickly towards conservation of energy and solar etc. would be easy and smart - read Buckminster fuller's "spaceship earth" from 1969 - he saw it then - very brilliant man. oil is getting harder and harder to get - miles below the ocean and tars sands - we need to move now!

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

I've been reading a lot of arguments for and against public ownership recently. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I'm starting to think the best solution is private ownership with the exception of government/democratic regulation. From what I understand we lost regulation, as well as democracy. Maybe we should focus on that?

We want things to meet the needs of society, not profit. So it makes sense not to have total private ownership or even total public ownership. For example public sector ultility companies haven't traditionally been successful because they also end up seeing an opportunity for profit. Having an alternative form regulating the other might just be nessessary.

I would personally like to see civilization educate itself away from the brainwashing of advertisement and commercialism. Maybe that's just a problem of capitalism and money in general. As long as we're using money I guess the only solution is education.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

What if I told you that capitalism was the freedom to rape and dominate the world while manipulating everyone else into a slave class that cultivated a singular view of reality. What if there were countless other reasons to be exceptional and contribute to something worth being.

[-] -2 points by IndigoRed (20) 1 month ago

What if there's only a handful of reasons to be exceptional in a world with countless troglodites who only think of making money only because they've realized they can't eat, fuck and have fun otherwise and that's it. Why are only a handful of humans capable of building these computers you are complaining on the internet with, neither of which you could begin to comprehend the inner workings of and how are these people able to begin building quantum computers? Canada has such a great social system and yet America is building these things.

[-] 3 points by flip (5060) 4 weeks ago

what if you read and understood history? one more from noam - CHOMSKY: It goes back to the writing of the Constitution. They were pretty explicit. Madison saw a "danger" in democracy that was quite real and he responded to it. In fact, the "problem" was noticed a long time earlier. It's clear in Aristotle's Politics, the sort of founding book of political theory -- which is a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the notion of democracy. Aristotle recognizes that, for him, that democracy had to be a welfare state; it had to use public revenues to insure lasting prosperity for all and to insure equality. That goes right through the Enlightenment. Madison recognized that, if the overwhelming majority is poor, and if the democracy is a functioning one, then they'll use their electoral power to serve their own interest rather than the common good of all. Aristotle's solution was, "OK, eliminate poverty." Madison faced the same problem but his solution was the opposite: "Eliminate democracy."

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 1 month ago

Water finds its way through cracks. People have been innovative long before capitalism, and in fact, capitalism is causing advanced technology to be undermined for the sake of elitist profiteers. That's a fact. Just because we've been using capitalism doesn't mean you should attribute the few things we've done entirely to it.

[-] -1 points by IndigoRed (20) 1 month ago

it is not a fact unless you give me evidence. Give me proof that the elite profiteer from patented technology. Show me how the world works in this simplistic view that you have of it

[-] 4 points by flip (5060) 4 weeks ago

one last point that is obvious to anyone who can think - capitalism is not the really responsible for the rising wealth of the world - fossil fuels are. In particular oil - the most perfect of all fuels. here is the cato inst on that idea - Then mankind began to develop technologies to augment or displace living nature’s uncertain bounty. Gradually food supplies and nutrition improved and population, living standards, and human well-being advanced haltingly. The Industrial Revolution accelerated these trends. Mankind broke its Malthusian bonds. Growth became the norm. Population exploded, along with living standards and well-being.

Technologies dependent on cheap fossil fuels enabled these improving trends. Nothing can be made, transported, or used without energy, and fossil fuels provide 80 percent of mankind’s energy and 60 percent of its food and clothing. Thus, absent fossil fuels, global cropland would have to increase by 150 percent to meet current food demand, but conversion of habitat to cropland is already the greatest threat to biodiversity. By lowering humanity’s reliance on living nature, fossil fuels not only saved humanity from nature’s whims, but nature from humanity’s demands.

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

You're saying that fossil fuels took us to a level that we naturally shouldn't be at, and now our population is dependent on it? Where did you get those numbers from? That totally sounds right, I'm just curious. Is cropland really the greatest threat to biodiversity? How about hydroponics for local semi-mass production?

I heard about clean technology for cars over 20 years ago, and the first thing I heard was that it was being fought by big money. Solar power could take people off the grid but of course that isn't being made popular.

It makes total sense that fossil fuel interests would suppress anything better. Sort of like GMOs. If there's a good reason for it then they could be honest about it, but they can't because the only real reason is for them to maximize the profit.

One thing I don't understand is well-being. I sleep outside, bike everywhere, hang in the sun, eat very modestly, and feel healthy and good constantly (the only exception being when I sit in front of the computer too long).

Where is this well-being that wealth has provided? Shopping? That abundance of things which don't matter? How does big money advance well-being? My teeth were in bad shape but I started brushing them with spring water and sometimes baking soda, and now they've regenerated - no need for permanent damage under the dentist's drill - what a scam.

Such as big money does with technology, it seems to only hinder well being, and in some cases create exaggerated impressions of comfort which become increasingly addictive, like drugs do.

I'm just ranting. But I'm also trying to say that in this society of ours, we have a seriously false impression of well being.

[-] 6 points by flip (5060) 4 weeks ago

you are right that we seem to have lots of wealth but are not fundamentally healthy. now just imagine that our supply of oil is cut drastically overnight. we would see a crash in well being - no food I the stores and real disruptions in society. our whole standard of living - as messed up as some of it is - is based on cheap and plentiful oil

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

Aye, so then about dealing with that addiction. How about local hydroponic farms to help releave that dependancy? Stimulations to incite more transition, like for cleaner transportation as well? Stimulations to incite more use of solar power? All those things that oil interests are sweeping under the rug. What abou that carbon tax idea? Couldn't something like that help to transform the motivation?

[-] 6 points by flip (5060) 3 weeks ago

local farming is a great idea but for many areas it may not be possible right now - nj used to be the "garden state" - feeding nyc. now it cannot feed itself - the suburban sprawl has destroyed the farms. cleaner more efficient transportation is a must - railroads are 10x more efficient than trucks. in 1920 we had a rail system that was the envy of the world - would be simple to ramp that back up again - no need in my opinion for high speed rail - too costly. bring back mass transit - in 1896 12,000 trains went through the small town of corning ny - in central ny state! bring back the rails! lots of ways to move towards solar carbon tax is one - there is already something like that in many states google srec. my wife and I started a solar construction company and srecs are making it go to some extent. my choice would be a nation wide - ww2 style manhatten project to rebuild the country for the coming resource scarcity.

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

So the lack of local farming is more about space than fertile ground? Are we so confined to how we've already set things up? We need jobs, and change, perfect. Or get serious about population control?

Nation wide sounds good. I've been trying to pin down some thoughts on a government program to promote independant farming communities for the sake of lessening mass distribution. It's just that putting the idea out there for people to consider is one thing, but the government could really make things like that happen, ww2 style manhatten etc.

Except that it's not in the interest of the government, considering the abduction of government.

[-] 4 points by flip (5060) 3 weeks ago

I think that is the point of all of this. until we get our government under democratic control none of the great ideas will get going fast enough. there are lots of good ideas out there - we need the ability to implement them

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

How do you think democracy could really be implemented? Something like citizens being able to vote on every action? What if the best thing to do is something nobody wants to do? Abuse of power comes at no surpise but there's also something good about having people in charge of certain things.

I suppose that was the whole idea behind voting on the people in charge, to have both.

What if citizens just had more power to hire and fire? We are technically the boss of the government. In this kind of situation that things are so bad and the needs of society are clearly not met, we could just roll heads, right? Having a boss like that is usualy enough reason to take your responsibility seriously.

That wouldn't solve the big money monopoly issue though, or could it?

[-] 4 points by flip (5060) 3 weeks ago

first step is to get money out of the electoral system - big step

[-] 0 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

A non fundable, standardized campaign process that gave candidates equal exposure?

[-] 1 points by flip (5060) 3 weeks ago

sounds like a plan and is very doable - tea party types and all sorts would agree to it. now get to work organizing the campaign - or should we just talk about it?

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 3 weeks ago

I'm not doing anything except staying right where I am with my middle finger extended (long story).

I think it would be neat if candidates had to disclose foreseeable actions they'd take, and then not be able to back out without some very good, publicly expressed reason (like roosevelt's fireside chats, something accountable that the public can test). I'd like to vote and have the person actually do what they said they would, because they wont let you take back your vote. Not fair. I'll give you $50 if you eat a bannana slug.

Along these same lines would be legislature without riders, or passing things when nobody's looking. How hard is it to make corrupt politics illegal? I mean who could actually say that stuff isn't totally evil, and yet it continues?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bullfrogma (448) 4 weeks ago

To be completely honest i've never seen proof either. It's somehow been common knowledge for as long as I can remember. I'm sure some people around here can point you in the right direction. And maybe i'll pull something up when it's not my bed time. Mainstream media most likely is never going to highlight anything like that though.

Simplistic view my butt. There's total democracy and no democracy. But the answer is between those extremes, like everything else in the universe. Ying and Yang require a balance that doesn't break the equation. Maybe the conversation shouldn't be about capitalism so much as rediscovering a level of democracy. I agree people can use a reason to be motivated. More than one thing could create that.

[+] -4 points by chilidip (-34) 2 weeks ago

You fucking morons can't even balance a checkbook, and you expect to run billion dollar corporations.

Take another toke Cheech. Laughable fucking loosers. Post asshole ideas by day here how to take over the world...then play World of Warcraft at night.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 2 weeks ago

Please stop acting like a brat and instead present reasonable counter arguments in a respectful manner.

[+] -4 points by Durvasa (-4) from Davie, FL 1 month ago

<clapping> We all believe in evolution right? Not just for cars, fashion and phones but for religion, currency and politics as well, right? Evolution is a good thing right? Doesn't it make stuff better? Our children should understand their own stochastic system, not someone elses static system.

Am i talking to a bunch of fucking retards here or what? I mean i'm a cognitive neuropsychologist so i know the answer to that. But anyone , really , seriously ...... anybody?

[+] -4 points by akapak (-8) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

Didn't you post about libertarian socialism already? I like the idea. I do support it. I think we should stop talking about it and put is in practice already. Occupy should prove that it's possible. If it works well, others would follow. Start a few businesses using this model. Perhaps a small publishing company for Occupy material.

The fact that you always post the same thing leads me to believe you might be a bot programmed to advertise libertarian socialism on this site. Mind you, I have no problem with that. Whatever way we use to promote anarchist ideas is fine by me.

What do you do? Are you taking parts in projects to promote libertarian socialism through practice, or are you only a theorist. (Nothing wrong with theorists, very useful, I'm just curious.)

I started a project with people in my area to build tiny houses. The way it works is that we wait to have many people willing to build this type of house for themselves. When we have twenty, then we get together and see what each of us wants to make. Then we make a plan to help each other out. We form small teams. We might work together to build the house of someone else, we get together to buy material in bulk to get it cheaper, we share knowledge, etc... It's a project I care about a lot. Putting power back into the hands of the community.

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 2 months ago

Are you this "trashy" guy?

[-] -3 points by akapak (-8) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

No, why? My name is akapak. Are you a reposter bot?

[-] 5 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6195) 2 months ago

Yeah, I think you're him. I'm not talking to you, remember? Bye.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-deal-with-thrasymaque/

[Removed]

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

LIAR - epa1nter was not U and I had no problem with him either.

But it is likely true that when I was moderating - that I booted "Ur" butt out of here quite regularly.

When U get booted again - Ur new name on return should be = prevaricator.

[+] -4 points by akapak (-8) from Jersey City, NJ 2 months ago

I was epa1nter, I supported Thrasymaque, and someone did ban me.

I still stand by my original words on Thrassy.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thrasymaque-is-out-of-control-again-are-the-modera/#comment-674256