Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -
Refresh  

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   24 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Rising up against the Oligarchs does not equal socialism

By       Message Jon Rappoport     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 3   Valuable 3   Funny 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 9/30/17

Author 91595
Become a Fan
  (3 fans)

From Jon Rappoport Blog

From flickr.com: Socialism {MID-169707}
Socialism
(Image by charlesfettinger)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

There are "people's" groups all over the world who advocate the overthrow of the men at the top -- the Oligarchs -- who control nations.

These people's groups want to install socialism as the answer to Oligarchy.

That's preposterous.

- Advertisement -

The Oligarchs -- bankers, mega-corporate CEOs, financiers, government leaders, intelligence agencies--collude to cut out competition so they can stand alone at the summit of the mountain. And they call this arrangement SOCIALISM. They PROMOTE socialism. They've staked out OWNERSHIP of socialism worldwide.

In other words, the "people's" groups, who claim to be battling for a better world, are doing the Oligarchs' bidding. Unconsciously, or on purpose.

Useful idiots.

- Advertisement -

Socialism has never been about toppling power-hungry leaders. Its pretension of equality and share-and-care is a cover for totalitarianism by the few, for the few.

Karl Marx, while predicting a coming utopia on Earth, expressed the absolute need for a "transition" phase called the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Of course, that was a partial misnomer. The "dictatorship" part was correct, but the proletariat would never run it. They would labor for it. They would look up from ground level at the leaders who were supposedly their friends and guardians -- and soon realize they'd been taken in by a long con. There was no transition government. There was just the same old Oligarchy under another name, that's all.

From Gary Allen's 1971 classic, None Dare Call It Conspiracy:

"We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it. If we had a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the man in the street...he might say: 'You know, the one thing I can never figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Kennedys, the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are for socialism. Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don't they have the most to lose"?' In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the insiders [Oligarchs] tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves."

When a mega-corporate CEO, whose company is in deep financial trouble, magically secures a giant loan through a crony, and when that corporation continues to pollute the land and destroy lives, and while the government agency that should be hauling off the CEO to prison sits on its hands, that's socialism in practice. That's the real thing.

- Advertisement -

The government may not officially own such corporations, as in the classical definition of socialism, but at the top, the government and the biggest corporations are cooperating, as one. It's a distinction without a difference.

Why don't more people understand all this?

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 3   Valuable 3   Funny 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://nomorefakenews.com

Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years. He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

In (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Monsanto's Roundup: new deadly scam exposed

Truth about the Seralini rat-tumor-GMO study explodes

Goldman Sachs, the president of the US

Tiger Woods' life is on the line: where is his doctor?

Socialism: opiate of the masses

The world is not you

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

8 people are discussing this page, with 24 comments


PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content
Why don't more people understand all this?
I'm having trouble understanding this article. The plutocratic oligarchy is socialist? Who knew? Next we'll be learning that the Democratic Party is progressive. So, does rising up against socialism equal rising up against the Oligarchs? And what does rising up against the Oligarchs equal?

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:40:50 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

Rising up against the Oligarchs equals dismantling hierarchical power-structures. The choice between Capitalism and Socialism is like the choice between Republicans and Democrats. It is a choice of one hierarchical power structure over another. In Socialism the hierarchy is governmental and in Capitalism the hierarchy is economic. In the end they are both hierarchical tyranny.

I don't know if the author of this article understands this. He says he supports the individual human being against the herd. But if he equates this justice for the individual with Capitalism then he is ignoring the fact that Capitalism is anti-democratic and gives power only to the 'individuals' at the top of the economic hierarchy and actually forces the lower levels of the economy into a herd reality. There is no such thing as democratic Capitalism. Just as there is no such thing as democratic Socialism as long as Socialism has a governmental hierarchy.

The problem is hierarchical power-structure. Anarchy means no central authority, no hierarchy. If real anarchy is impossible then the human race is doomed to tyranny and eventual self-destruction.

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 30, 2017 at 8:24:28 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

I'm saying this seriously, not sarcastically: I don't understand how anarchy is supposed to work long-term, large-scale, and in the presence of other groups and nation-states that don't operate according to anarchist principles.

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 30, 2017 at 9:41:25 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13824 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

You are not the only one.

It doesn't work.

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 30, 2017 at 9:51:37 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content
If you really want to discuss this I am quite capable and willing to do so. Please let me know. But if you are like BFalcon below then it is a waste of time for both of us.

Submitted on Saturday, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:10:49 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

No, I'm open to hearing what you have to say. Fair warning, though: I'm moderately allergic to abstract political philosophy that's not grounded in actual human nature and buttressed by real-world experience. If you want to know where I'm coming from, I'm a small-s, small-d social-democrat, because social-democratic countries have provided the best quality of life to the greatest proportion of their citizens. (I'm also aware that neoliberalism is making inroads into those countries, using conglomerate media, the EU, and the WTO as Trojan horses.)

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 1, 2017 at 1:58:10 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content
Can we begin by you telling me what you mean by "actual human nature" and "real-world experience"?

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:28:09 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

Sorry for the delay in responding -- I've been very busy over the past 24 hours or so.

Actual Human Nature: My observation is that humans, across cultures and societies, are generally a mix of selfish and altruistic/communitarian impulses. I believe selfish impulses can be curbed and harnessed (e.g., through social pressure, regulation, and taxes), and altruistic/communitarian impulses fostered and encouraged (e.g., through education and social and political culture), but neither can be eradicated. You can easily find scammers and cheaters in communist and socialist societies, and John Nash was reportedly exasperated that the secretaries at Rand wouldn't screw each other over when playing out his game-theory scenarios. I also suspect there are a small percentage of people who are innately sociopathic. There may be a higher number of detectable, diagnosable sociopaths in countries where their financial success is worshiped, like the US and the UK, and sociopaths may do a better job of hiding their true nature and controlling themselves in countries where their behavior is socially unacceptable, like Japan, but I suspect that sociopaths, too, can be found across cultures and societies. To succeed, I think any theoretical political system has to take general human nature and the presence of sociopaths into account.

Real-World Experience: Where have anarchist communities flourished? How long did they last? Were they large heterogeneous societies or small homogenous ones? What caused them to fail? Did they fail for internal reasons, or did outside actors cause them to fail?

Submitted on Monday, Oct 2, 2017 at 2:21:33 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

PCM,

The delay caused me to think that you had decided not to respond. I didn't see your response until today.

First of all, keep in mind that this is an enormously difficult issue for creatures that live in a culture that conditions them to have very short attention span and a shallow depth of focus and observation. This conditioning keeps people from being able to actually see what is around them because this seeing takes time to absorb and be reflected on. So I am asking for some degree of patience and reflection.

I agree that humans are a mix of conflicting tendencies. In fact, humans are fundamentally composed of opposites and it takes considerable depth of consciousness to keep from being just flung back and forth from one tendency to another. The conditioning I referred to makes this even harder. And this low level of awareness makes it easier for people seeking power over other people to acquire this power. They know how to exploit this duality in human tendencies. The first step against this exploitation is consistent awareness. One has to be aware and observing even when one might rather not be.

When awareness is more consistent it begins to see how often one is actually allowing oneself to be controlled by power systems that don't necessarily have one's real benefit driving them. Let's begin with something relatively easy to observe: The relationship between you and your friends.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:22:30 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

Look at how you and your friends actually interact. The interaction can at times be quite complex and demanding, but if you are genuine friends and respect each other then there is no 'boss' in this relationship. If problems come up you just work them out on a basis of respect and communication and the recognized need to preserve something of real value. The little world of you and your friends is a world of anarchy. There is no hierarchy. Nobody gets to force their will on anybody else. And consider the fact that this little world may well be the aspect of your life that you value most. And if you really reflect on it you might see that you would love it if the other aspects of your life could be like this.

Now before I go on and before you conclude that I am being naive, I would ask you to really give yourself some time to reflect on this in combination with one other fact. This fact is that your brain has no functional center. There is no boss-point in your brain. Your brain is far more complex in its activities than any social system in the world and it has no functional center. It works purely on a basis of consistent communication between all of its different tasks.

I will get around to all of the more obvious questions concerning anarchy as a social ordering method. But for now, I am just asking you to reflect on what I have said up to this point. And what I have said is not offered as proof of the validity of social anarchy. I am only asking you to reflect on it as a beginning point in the discussion.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:25:07 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

Okay. The brain's operations are distributed and complex. Groups of friends are anarchistic. What I'm interested in are the bases for claiming that anarchy can be a viable social and political system in large, heterogeneous groups.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:15:54 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

Here is an example of a society that is neither capitalist nor socialist and that works: Rojava (in Syria).

Take a week (at least a week) to seriously research Rojava.

And what do you mean by work or viable?

Is something working or viable that barely avoids self-destruction for a certain length of time and is probably headed for self-destruction eventually? I am being put in a position of defending anarchy as something that works. But give me an example of a non-anarchical society presently in the world that works.

Rojava is the closest thing to a working and viable society in the world and it is built on anarchist principles. It is small and surrounded by hostile forces and it still works. It is the most progressive society in the world. A valid question is why is Rojajva not taken seriously by the rest of the world?

Submitted on Friday, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:55:39 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

I'll be shut out of posting anything more to this article in a matter of days, so I'll respond now. As appealing as many aspects of Rojava society sound at first blush, I don't think a political entity that has been around for only four years and that has been surrounded by and participating in civil war since its inception can be pointed to as an exemplar of successful, long-term anarchist government. And by the way, societies become more cohesive, not less, when surrounded by common enemies.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:54:31 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

So what you are saying is that if I can't provide you with an example of a long-term anarchist society in the world now or from the past then that means that there couldn't ever be one because nothing can work that hasn't been already attempted. If we don't see any evidence of why it would work by looking strictly at past societies then we can assume that it simply wouldn't work. But the world now doesn't work. It is merely stumbling toward destruction. So by all means let's keep absurdly banging our heads against the wall of what history has proven to not work. You want anarchism to prove itself in non-anarchist terms. You want working to prove itself in non-working terms. Utter BS.


Your vision of a working society is a society that barely gets by forever. Well, it won't happen. If there isn't a real improvement in non-hierarchical terms then no society presently in existence will survive. It will self-destruct be cause the population is made of people pitted against each other.


And you have not given me an example of a society that works. What you are really saying is that humanity is now and forever incapable of creating a society that works because humans can't be anything that they haven't already been.


So don't single out anarchism as something that doesn't work. I suspect that in fact you wouldn't want it to work. It doesn't suit you. And I suspect that by a working society you would mean a society in which you personally would not have to be too far down toward the bottom of the hierarchy. And this society will get by long enough for you personally to have a relatively pleasant life. Yeah, that works.


Conversation over.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 7, 2017 at 4:56:31 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

For what it's worth, it's my impression that there have been aboriginal societies that operated on more or less anarchist principles and that lasted for hundreds and hundreds of years ... until a better armed, more hierarchically organized, more coercive group moved in, dispossessed them, and largely wiped them out.

Societies that more or less "work"? They're far from perfect and they're showing signs of succumbing to neoliberalism, but maybe the Scandinavian social democracies are the least bad?

Populations pitted against each other in a race toward self-destruction? Where does this stem from and how do we stop it? Raise the social consciousness of everyone in the world, including sociopaths, convince them to stop being greedy, and teach them to be friendly and fair to one another? That's a worthwhile goal and process, but in light of human nature and history, is it realistic to rely on its imminent success as a survival strategy?

Singling out anarchy as something that doesn't work? Where did you get that? Do you think I'm a fan of plutocratic oligarchy or of theocratic or ideological dictatorship?

And I suspect that by a working society you would mean a society in which you personally would not have to be too far down toward the bottom of the hierarchy. And this society will get by long enough for you personally to have a relatively pleasant life.
??? What's your thinking here? I'm skeptical that anarchy is a viable form of government, therefore I must be selfish, callous, and short-sighted? Conversation over, indeed.

Submitted on Saturday, Oct 7, 2017 at 5:34:59 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

ThirdEyeOfTheStorm

Become a Fan
Author 70364

(Member since Aug 20, 2011), 14 fans, 4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1987 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

You're absolutely correct in your assessment to my way of thinking.

Here's my take. Hierarchy is the enemy of freedom. Even just joining a hierarchy of any kind, on any level, means you are giving up your freedom in service of another, whether it be a school principal, a drill sergeant, president, oligork, king, or any authority figure or authoritative system, is enslavement. For now we are stuck with hierarchical systems, and creating more and more.

We are actually addicted to hierarchies, find your place and get in it, and stay there, until the higher power authority says you can advance.

I like the concept of an open source network, where every node is equal as a given, from the inception, and forever.

That would seem to me to be akin to an anarchical system. We must have an image we can understand, because the very word 'anarchy' conjures up images that have been programmed to support hierarchies. Hierarchies are power, then more power, then more power, until the system finally collapses of its own weight.

Anarchies are open, free, and welcoming. For the simple reason of synchronicity, and the power of the tribe. We must have integrity for any system to endure and be sustainable. The present system (Empire) is self centered, corrupt, and craving power and more power. The only way to stop it is to refuse to serve it, as One. United States of Anarchy?

Submitted on Monday, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:00:48 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

ThirdEyeOfTheStorm

Become a Fan
Author 70364

(Member since Aug 20, 2011), 14 fans, 4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1987 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to ThirdEyeOfTheStorm:   New Content

The big lie that almost every one of us believes to be true, is;

TheEmpireSez: "I've got so much power to give you, all you have to do is beg". Since we desire power (money), we beg, grovel, and swear allegiance. The begging is insanity taken root btw. It is by joining, instead of Being, that defeats us and enslaves us.

It is on the level of believing that we are defeated. Change your beliefs, then the world will change. That's the only way I see (at the moment) of visualizing an anarchical system, and we need that picture in our minds of what it could be.

I see an open source network, that resembles the universe, infinite and unbounded, always expanding, never ending. Pure Being is letting it be, allowing your truest and highest self to find expression, and respecting every other Being in the Universe. Absolute speed, is BeingThereNow. All we have to do is stop begging.

We need to create within our self, a system that serves us, as individuals, and all of us collectively. A tough premise, and a big change, but sheesh, we'd be so much better off without all these 'managers', who don't manage, they just delegate, down the chain of command.

Until it get to the individual who takes direction, knowing full well, that he knows better than to do what he has been ordered to do. He knows, but has no power, he is stuck. Just like humanity is stuck right now. We live in a corrupted reality where we are all followers, and money is our matrix of being. Our military is a primary driver and example of a hierarchy, and it is as inefficient as it is insane.

TheTruthIs: Empire has no power to give you, it gets its power FROM you, when you beg, and support it.

Submitted on Monday, Oct 2, 2017 at 3:03:43 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

Arlan Ebel

Become a Fan
Author 504145

(Member since Dec 1, 2015), 18 fans, 35 articles, 1 quicklinks, 746 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to ThirdEyeOfTheStorm:   New Content

"United States of Anarchy?"

Instead of United States, we could have 50 some communities on equal footing with each other. The community of Arizona. The community of Colorado. The community of Alabama. Each one populated by anywhere from 1 to 5 million people. Each one a community that has no representative politics because the communication systems are so direct that everything can be agreed upon and arranged directly. There are no politicians or police. There are only shamans who can assist in arbitration of disputes beyond a certain size. And all disputes are settled by consensus and not majority because there are no factions or hierarchies in the communities. The goal of all the communities is to produce maximally conscious individuals and the binding relationship bewteen the communities is the wider commerce between these individuals. The Anarchical Family of Communities. The AFC. That's where I live. I don't live in the USA. I live in Arizona, AFC.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12:44 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 17 fans, 3 articles, 13824 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Arlan Ebel:   New Content

Why only 50?

California will fall apart into several '1 to 5 million people' communities.

Should AFC join with Mexico FC ?

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 10, 2017 at 10:34:12 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Mark Adams JD/MBA

Become a Fan
Author 7855

(Member since Sep 20, 2007), 159 fans, 25 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2760 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to PCM:   New Content

I'm not surprised. Most people don't understand how to differentiate between the different forms of government, and most don't know what a democracy is. Therefore, it is not surprising that it seems that almost everyone thinks that ceding power to the ruling elite is a good thing.

Submitted on Monday, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:42:42 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

PCM

Become a Fan
Author 55357

(Member since Nov 1, 2010), 11 fans, 3 quicklinks, 832 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Mark Adams JD/MBA:   New Content

Democracy is what they do in Appenzell Innerrhoden, right? And since 1991, they even allow women to vote, because after due reflection and an order from a Swiss federal court, they realized that women are people, too. ;-)

Submitted on Monday, Oct 2, 2017 at 7:56:05 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Em Sos

Become a Fan
Author 509442

(Member since Jul 23, 2017), 7 articles, 10 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

The mere mention of the one single word, from an average Americans' perspective, gets the cabbage in the cranium instantaneously to begin to decompose and liquefy, so that all of mind turns to mush.
This assessment does not refer to the corpus of Rappoports essay!

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:07:52 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Eric Arnow

Become a Fan
Author 503158

(Member since Jul 27, 2015), 4 fans, 393 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content
Russians who lived in the USSR are rather nostalgic. Both the USSR under Lenin and Stalin, and the PRC achieved massive reductions in poverty and increases in literacy. Not to mention defeating fascism, especially Stalin, who faced the corporate and banker backed Hitler and Mussolini.Much to their surprise and chagrin. That's why Stalin especially has been slandered and vilified. Libertarians blood curdles to read this, though.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 1, 2017 at 6:29:04 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

Adam Smith

Become a Fan
Author 40098

(Member since Oct 4, 2009), 3 fans, 9 articles, 274 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Very confusing article that doesn't seem to understand the terms it uses. Most oligarchic families are not for socialism and your home is not the means of production that is supposed to be nationalized.

This talk of corporations being free to pollute because of socialism seems weird considering most of the EU is far more socialist than the US and has far stricter and better enforced pollution regulations.

I don't believe an actually socialist system meshes with human nature but this article's critique of it seems incomprehensible.

And Stalin has been very fairly vilified Eric. That man was a monster even if he was fighting monsters.

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 1, 2017 at 9:55:12 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment