Ty, Peace Equality, for a response without all of the insults, unlike Shame Trolly. The Kibbutz was definitely an interesting read. According to what I read, they are becoming more capitalistic these days.

It does seem like a great place to live, but so do gated communities of the wealthy. But it seems like you would have a better chance of becoming Amish instead of being welcomed into a Kibbutz( voulenteers notwithstanding).

Definition of Dictator- a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force,

Would you call Franco a dictator? Hitler? Mussolini? What about Stalin? Was he not a "a ruler with total power over a country". Henry VIII?

Sure, they have different names for it- Fascism, Communism, Monarchy ,but the end result was the same, "a ruler with total power over a country." What's the difference between a gym and a fitness center?

Surely you can't be stupid enough to think that dictatorship has only lasted for 40 years. But hey at least you are not ******ed, you're just mentally handicapped.

Sure, those are all dictatorships.

But, not every place is a dictatorship all the time. Some places aren't dictatorships... like historical revolutionary Spain, and the contemporary cantons of Kurdistan.

Which brings us back to the topic of the OP... another world, a world without dictatorships, or even a world not organized into a hereditary oligarchy, is most definitely possible.

So... you've flip-flopped and agree with the OP now ??

A 3-way debate between an anarchist, a socialist and a right-wing libertarian. Who do you think won the debate, people?

The anarchist in the debate was involved (along with many others) in the organizing of the Common Ground Collective in post-Katrina Louisiana:

I watched most of the videos above. The guy above that generally won the debate was the capitalist. The anarchist is obviously wrong as who is going to stop the invading army? The guy on the right the socialist does not understand corporations are labor. As a choice people work at corporations as they can make the most money there.

Virtually all the injustices occur as people consider land as capital. A definition of capital is a man-made object of labor on matter, having a value to someone. That is why of the 3 places above, I would choose Christiana or the Marinaleda. Those 2 places separate land from capital. The foreman can't tell you to work harder as he does not own the land. Furthermore you pay no rent to anyone if you own your land.

Thus all land of a community should be equally divided and everyone given equal land for free - even newcomers. You should not elect a mayor but a police chief, transportation chief, and law chief separately. If the police become corrupt you can move or hire a new chief. If the roads have potholes, hire a new transportation chief.

You can still sell your property, but you can't be like Ted Turner where you decide you are going to own 1000s and 1000s of acres. Or the landlords of cities where they own building after building.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odrfx7WmNWQ

Thanks steelhouse for replying to my adhoc poll. Chomsky once suggested that a post-social revolutionary U.S., due to its huge territory/population and geographical isolation would probably be able to withstand external attacks unlike smaller European countries.

lumberajack, it's easy to embed YouTube videos on this forum by placing the string of characters after the = sign between these youtube & /youtube inside 2 [].

teh ladies have been talking

Here's a recent article titled "The Anarchist Spirit" by Marina Sitrin:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/arti...-horizontalism

It describes how horizontal style organizational practices are common in many of today's social movements thereby showing the relevancy of egalitarian principles in today's world. The article goes on to site everything from the Zapatistas to Occupy, and the PAH in Spain to the Recuperdad in Argentina and others as examples.

Just to show you how silly the article is, it mentions people come together to stop the foreclosure of homes. The banks gave someone with no money the privilege to buy a home, the people signed the contract, and 1000s would like to live in that home. So the bank gave them a contact that if they paid say $3000 a month for 30 years they would own the home. The home owner in San Francisco agreed. The banks and depositors did the homeowner a favor. The homeowner then decided not to pay the $3000 a great privilege where the bank depositors are almost sure to lose money due to inflation. So they decide not to pay back the mortgage or they lose their job or whatever. So then the same article they claim "the rebellion was a response to the government freezing people’s bank accounts in the context of an economic crisis". The people money in bank accounts is loaned out to homeowners. Thus, the same people who are blocking foreclosure are causing peoples bank accounts to be frozen. In the United States the government and federal reserve bail out the banks, but in reality they are forcing everyone via inflation to bail out people that did not pay their loans back and stole money by delaying foreclosure.

Then the article talks about Monsanto. If you drive in corn country you will come across a field of the sickliest looking corn you have ever seen. This is seed corn. They crossbreed inbred corn and the result is supercorn. I would not be surprised if 1/2 of the worlds population dies without inbred corn. Without Monsanto millions dies of starvation. OK I see you can still live in a natural world if you had stable population. But the same person who is against Monsanto, is the same person who wants illegal immigration in and unlimited refugee immigration from the middle east in. So you got someone on both ends causing starvation at the same time complaining about Trump and Monsanto that are trying to do something about it.

Same thing about copper mines, they are providing metals and taxes so people can live better lives. Yes it is unsustainable but what has your mayor done to promote 100% recycling of solid waste?

This article should make everyone sick, they offer no solutions. They seem like the problem. Now why not offer a real solution like free land, no property taxes, and no building permits, for anyone everywhere.

The point of this article is that horizontal organizing and decision making are widespread in contemporary social movements. Yet, you try to flip it into a polemic against popular activism against bank foreclosures and genetic manipulation of agriculture. As if those issues didn't need to be addressed. Did this article really roil you that much steelhouse or are you just trying to channel the trumpster?

Every example in that article is a failure.

1. Workers took back their workplaces in Argentina. Basically means they stole the capital. The machines were owned by someone. Wages were higher pre-2001 than today.

2. Zapatistas seems like thugs and some lives were lost.

Horizontal leadership does not work. If you have 10 people they will not all agree. The strongest will take leadership roles and in the end you got a dictatorship. Look at Cuba or Russia for example.

The United States has had most success with individual rights in a republic. Then the individuals vote the leader who makes the decisions. The leaders and the majority are constantly trying to take the rights away from the minority.

I propose giving the people even more individual rights in free land and equal land. Minority stockholders able to prevent private equity takeovers. I only believe in democracy in things that are mandatory, for example defense, courts, general welfare, and roads. Things like schools the government should not have any involvement in at all. People should choose to live in cities that have schools. Those that don't want schools or firefighters should not have to pay for them by living in cities without them.

you don't need violence to start a movement like you propose, there are corporations like REI. I don't shop there the prices are too high.

Mike Huckabee's America sounds more appealing to me than an OccupyLand organized around the power of finger-wiggling.

That is a complete misrepresentation of my viewpoint. I have NEVER EVER proposed violence and would oppose such. Hence the name ☮ "Peace Equality." ☮ Duh!!!

The point is that cooperative/horizontal organizing does seem to work. Not how do we get there. REI is one example of this and so is the Alvarado Street Bakery, Mondragon and from what I gathered even Green Bay.

http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html

"One of the more remarkable business stories in American history, the Green Bay Packers organization has been kept viable by its shareholders — its unselfish fans. Even more incredible, the Packers have survived and thrived during the current era, permeated by free agency and the NFL salary cap." (from the above link)

These sorts of things already exist and have existed in the USA and elsewhere for a long time. That was among the points being made. It's not some utopian fantasy. It is already a daily reality that people have organized successfully (and peacefully) for themselves.

You completely misrepresented my viewpoint with your comment, steelhouse.

Argentina workers taking over public corporations is violence.

The Green Bay really has no power the ones at the top make all the money. They don't pay a dividend? Where does all the money go? So they charge $100 a ticket. They are just bought and resold. The NFL does not allow a football team to become a corporation with real shareholders.
(http://www.packers.com/news-and-even...a-c0e9c4d494e8)

The stock market has allowed many minimum wage workers become millionaires. Suppose it takes $100,000,000 to build a factory. Who can build it? If you had 1 million shareholders paying $100 you can build the factory. So 1 million poor people got together and built all the great for profit companies you see today. The ones that pay dividends. The is no more horizontal organizing than the stock market. There is no structure that helps the poor more than Wall Street. That is why government and churches want to kill it. They do everything to hurt the common stockholder.

There is one large company Publix, which is private and all the shareholers are employees. But, why not allow all poor people to own it? Thus, you are slave to buy your food there, all the money goes to employee insiders.

They simply occupied their disused workplaces during time of economic crisis, which the Argentinean government legalized in 2011. That's not the definition of violence.


Nevertheless many examples of worker ownership abound the most celebrated of which is Mondragon.

Define "many" and weigh that number against those in poverty or now approaching poverty. Those millionaires are called the 1% for a reason.

Okay, so it would be great to get that many workers to invest in their own company. That's one way to form a co-op. Now we have this wonderful thing called crowd funding which a group of people are using in Germany to fund a basic income program. And we've seen how millions and millions of small donations have powered the Sanders campaign, the only major campaign that does not accept corporate sponsors. Can we say economic democracy?

1. Why didn't they build a factory from ground up. I do agree they should be given free land, but how do they have the right to take over capital from someone else. Should it be legal for someone to take your house and car?

2. Mondragon, coops, are examples where you can try different ownership. What I would like to see is a corporation where everyone is paid the same even executives, and you get 16 weeks of vacation/personal/sick time per year. Do you work harder day one than you do after 20 years of service?

3. Sanders campaign is even worse, those with small donations plan to use government to get them things like free health care and college education. Pay $100 now, to get $1000 in benefits. Sanders is really the ultimate ass.

I am pleasantly amazed that steelhouse has heard of Mondragon.

TYVM, but I'm pretty sure nobody cares ITF. Nobody did back in January. Also... this already is a semi-active RWA thread in Baja Politards. But sure, if anyone ever did wanna chat about RWA, I'd probably end up chatting along with them.

Yeah I was kinda obliquely referencing your offer when I posted that. I'm interested though and will ask whatever comes here, cheers.

] I'm sure you wouldn't turn these people away in your time of need:

Here's some news of the horizontal kind. The fight to end slavery never ended... it was just hidden behind prison walls. I wish all my incarcerated FWs the best. Fire the warden !!!1!

FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466 FREEwil318466 FREE will318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 FREE wil318466 ]FREE wil318466 ]FREEwil318466

According to this the #feelthebern hash tag was thrown together by these two:

https://indypendent.org/2016/05/19/t...hat-comes-next

"Winnie Wong calls herself a practical anarchist. She speaks in short intense bursts, an activist warrior slashing her way through the thicket of establishment politics toward a future that somehow has to be won. Charles Lenchner identifies as a “full-spectrum socialist” who will adopt the best strategy in a given moment to build the power of the working class. A former director of communications for the Working Families Party, his preferred voice is one of bemused irony that masks an underlying seriousness of purpose."

Winnie Wong is an anarchist that is a diehard Bernie Sanders supporter? She is a pure socialist. You can't have anarchy with taxes, and Bernie will never give up the tax. They both do not look at the real problem. Does government come and wash your dishes? Why not?