portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements global

imperialism & war

A 'real' anti-imperalist movement

to be anti imperialist means you are against the foundations of imperialism- capitalism. Saying you are anti-WTO or globilization is amazingly short sighted; what do you plan to replace this emerging global organization with? there is a reason why the old rules do not apply anymore. The post-war international agreements, i.e. Bretton Woods, G.A.A.T, etc, were based imperialism as well, which had at its basis, lower tariffs and erasing trade restrictions in general. These agreements have become outdated. Why? There were still existing boundries to profit, and the old systems ran up against them. This is why every imperialistic nation is endorsing free-trade with few exceptions; this is why Jimmy Carter appointed a free-trade minded individual to head the federal reserve in the seventies. The 'go back' to how things were, is not only also imperialistic, but utopian as well. We might as well suggest that we "break the machines"! The only feasible anti-imperialistc struggle is an international breach with capitalism, where our machines could be put to use for our benefit, and not profit.
to be anti imperialist means you are against the foundations of imperialism- capitalism. Saying you are anti-WTO or globilization is amazingly short sighted; what do you plan to replace this emerging global organization with? there is a reason why the old rules do not apply anymore. The post-war international agreements, i.e. Bretton Woods, G.A.A.T, etc, were based imperialism as well, which had at its basis, lower tariffs and erasing trade restrictions in general. These agreements have become outdated. Why? There were still existing boundries to profit, and the old systems ran up against them. This is why every imperialistic nation is endorsing free-trade with few exceptions; this is why Jimmy Carter appointed a free-trade minded individual to head the federal reserve in the seventies. The 'go back' to how things were, is not only also imperialistic, but utopian as well. We might as well suggest that we "break the machines"! The only feasible anti-imperialistc struggle is an international breach with capitalism, where our machines could be put to use for our benefit, and not profit.
no need to replace the wto 04.Dec.2005 17:44

z

well we don't have to replace the wto with anything actually.

what do you suggest it get replaced with?

New World Order by another name... 04.Dec.2005 19:53

Doubtful

Just replacing the WTO with some other world controlling power won't work. The power greedy will rise to the top.

they're just tools 04.Dec.2005 21:18

Sheepdog

The WTO IMF etc. will no longer be needed when and if the final plan to produce a feudal society, come to fruition. When the transfer of wealth and power becomes complete and we are once again ruled by royalty with divine authorization.

What to replace the W.T.O. with! 04.Dec.2005 21:23

g.d. dem

It's always interesting when the radicals on the left join in agreement with corporate apologists on the right! I get this from both sides: leftist elitists and rightist apologists both seem to think that the discussion is over when they ask 'What would you replace the WTO with?'

The left joins the right in supposing that no alternative to the WTO has ever been presented, for sure not by progressives. But the truth is that AN ALTERNATIVE HAS BEEN PROPOSED. Since 2001, since before Seattle in fact, there has been a detailed proposal -- ignored by corporate media of course. It's called "the Global Sustainable Development Resolution".

Google on "Global Sustainable Development Resolution" and you'll find an excellent description of it and a list of its many supporters --

 http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n12gsdr_body.html

Remember? Between the extremes of denial and indulgence, there is something that the Buddha calls "the Middle Path".
______________

This is from a page at the house.gov website of Peter DeFazio (4th Dist., Oregon) --

"On the World Trade Organization (WTO)"

February 10, 2000

[Note: DeFazio was at the demonstrations in November, 1999.]

You may have heard about the massive protests in Seattle late last year during the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings and wondered what all the fuss was about. I had the opportunity to attend both official meetings as well as some of the protests and marches and would like to share my observations about what happened and why.

From 1947 through 1994, the main body for settling international trade disputes was operated under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). But GATT came under criticism from nations and exporters who said it was too cumbersome and its settlement process was too open-ended. This criticism ultimately led to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to oversee international agreements covering topics like agriculture, intellectual property rights, textiles, subsidies, and tariff and non-tariff barriers. Legislation implementing the WTO was forced through a lame duck session of Congress. I voted no.

Unlike its predecessor the GATT, WTO rules and decisions are binding on member countries. If a WTO panel, which is not subject to conflict of interest statues or public disclosure requirements, rules against your country, you either have to change your laws or face huge monetary penalties. The body covers 90 percent of world trade.

So how does the WTO impact labor, human rights, or environmental standards? First, WTO rules prohibit making distinctions between a product and the process in which it is made. In other words, a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes as far as the WTO is concerned regardless of whether it is made by forced child labor in Asia, prison labor in China, or unionized labor in the United States. A can of tuna is a can of tuna regardless of whether the tuna is caught in a way that preserves dolphin populations or whether it is recklessly caught in a way that depletes dolphin populations. These must be treated as "like" products. Clearly this inability to make a distinction between process and product works against efforts to establish sustainable production practices. This means that corporate profits take absolute precedent over community values such as clean air, clean water, the right to unionize and work in a safe, humane environment.

Second, WTO member countries must extend Normal Trading Relations (formerly Most Favored Nation status) to all other member countries. This means the U.S. must provide the exact same trading benefits to long-time ally England that we provide to Burma, a notoriously brutal military regime.

Third, the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement prohibits non-commercial considerations when governments buy products. Therefore, governments at all levels in the U.S. are prohibited from banning the purchasing of goods made in violation of international labor standards or U.N. human rights conventions. For example, Massachusetts passed a law that prohibits the awarding of state contracts to companies doing business in Burma. This law is being challenged at the WTO by the European Union and Japan. You might recognize that this "selective purchasing" tactic is exactly what was used to help topple the apartheid regime in South Africa. If the WTO had been in existence at the time, such economic pressure may never have been allowed and this disgraceful system might still be in existence.

Fourth, WTO rules prohibit member countries from limiting the import or export of resources or products. This means that the U.S. ban on raw log exports or a prohibition in the trade of endangered species could fall victim to this WTO rule.

The WTO impacts member countries in more subtle ways as well. Because the WTO requires environmental, labor, and public health rules to be the "least trade restrictive", a hazy definition subject to arbitrary interpretation by faceless tribunals, member countries often don't bother passing such consumer protection laws in the first place for fear of them being overturned by the WTO.

The preemptive "chilling effect" felt by legislative bodies is well founded. To date, in every single case brought before the WTO, the WTO has ruled against a nation's environmental protection laws when challenged by another WTO member. In fact, the U.S. has been forced to weaken the Clean Air Act and is currently seeking ways to change the Endangered Species Act to comply with WTO rules.

Of course, occasionally the U.S. does win a case before the WTO. For example, the WTO recently decided the European Union must accept hormone-laced beef from the United States and may make a similar ruling in the future regarding genetically modified foods. A "win" for corporate agribusiness to be sure, but a loss for our right to protect the public's health from incomplete science.

Essentially what this means is the American people and their elected officials do not have final say on the laws we make. I know, it sounds incredible, even unbelievable. Surely our laws are not subject to the whim of some sort of science-fiction "Big Brother" that prioritizes profits over people and corporate values over community values. Unfortunately, it's true and Big Brother's name is the WTO.

It is critical to speak out against those who claim that the current trend toward corporate controlled globalization is inevitable. Our current trade policies allow multinational corporations to receive all the benefits of expanded trade with no corresponding obligations. We must not accept the claim of corporate apologists that the choice is between unfettered "free" trade or no trade at all. Rather than allowing these policies to continue unchallenged, it is important to offer an alternative vision of sustainable trade.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor of just such an alternative proposal, the Global Sustainable Development resolution. This bill was put together through an international dialogue among elected officials, advocacy organizations, and academics. There are many important ideas incorporated in this legislation. For example, the bill calls for incorporating labor, social, economic, and human rights as fundamental principles in trade agreements and international financial institution charters. The bill also contains provisions to channel global investment funds into sustainable development that strengthens the economies of local communities.

I believe this alternative vision will allow the global economy to work for all of us who are forced to deal with the fallout from globalization but did not have a seat at the table when the rules were established. We can do better in leading the world to a just and sustainable trade policy.

 http://www.house.gov/defazio/iss-wto.shtml

break the machines! 04.Dec.2005 21:39

jb

yes. we won't need them. Imperialism will end when we can return to the local autonomous collectives of a peaceful agrarian society where the good of the commons comes before all else and profits are recognized as sin.

The human race is supposed to advance... 04.Dec.2005 23:39

Marik marik@aracnet.com

I do not think we should dwell on trying to duplicate the past (by the way, when did this 'local autonomous collectives of a peaceful agrarian society' exist?). The machines can be our salvation.

We have the production capabilities necessary to feed the hungry. We can house the homeless. This is all *possible* as we speak. However, because we live in a society wholly based on private property, this possibility is prevented. Capital drives our world.


In part, the machines are responsible for this situation. Industrial production has turned human labor, the commodity which creates surplus, into the ultimate profit maker. A dozen workers can operate a factory which creates goods for thousands of people. However, all of this capability is wholly owned and patented by the various financiers, banking firms, multinational corpations, etc, etc - in short, the bourgeoisie. It is they who have turned life into a financial equation; it is they who are responsible.

Herein lies our salvation; profit and ownership are no longer needed. That's the big conspiracy. We must take the machines for ourselves - we must make them social property. The only thing preventing us from doing it is this false notion that humans are incapable of doing it. That life cannot go on without capital driving our society. However, we volunteer our labor every day. Take indymedia for example. Are any of you getting paid for this?


Anti-Imperialism 05.Dec.2005 03:46

Hillbilly Anarchist

"to be anti imperialist means you are against the foundations of imperialism- capitalism."

Capitalism is not the foundation of imperialism. Imperialism is currently the foundation of capitalism. Imperialism has been around a lot longer than capitalism.

As wikipedia states, "Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire."

From the Roman Empire to the Aztec Empire to the Soviet Union, empires have been around for quite some time. Indeed, the Babylonian empire was around at least by the reign of Sargon of Akkad (24th century BCE).

"what do you plan to replace this emerging global organization with?"

What do you want to replace cancer with?

cancer and capitalism 05.Dec.2005 08:55

James Cooke

like cancer, capitalism cannot simply be done away with. However, both can be prevented; eat a nutritious diet, and take the toxins away from your body- and poof, no cancer. Likewise, TAKE the private property from the few, organize from the bottom according to socialist principles, and poof, no capitalism. However, we have been brainwashed to have horrible diets and lifestyles, for many avoiding cancer seems impossible. The same is true for capitalism; we have been trained for so long to view alternatives as impossibe.

The WTO and like organizations are going to exist until there is an international workers movement that dismantles them, and organizes society for the good of everyone. If this last sentence seems utopian to you, it is because you have been too good of a student at the university. Modern coporations are already very close to a global network of socialised production, though they are owned by a few- this can be easily changed. Modern technology such as the internet, cell phones, computerized accounting, etc, has made a global system of planned production and distribution entirely feasible- the transnational corporation is doing it already, though in the context of an erratic world market.

If you are a machine breaker, i.e, you propose we return to an agrarian society, hunter gathers, or a post WWII economy, beware of the consequences; each of these modes of production are outdated, meaning that humanity will inevitably suffer while our populations are adjusted to deal with the loss of productivity.......to some, this is perfectly acceptable.

meanwhile, a question 05.Dec.2005 11:59

g.d. dem

"The only feasible anti-imperialistc struggle is an international breach with capitalism."

"The WTO and like organizations are going to exist until there is an international workers movement that dismantles them, and organizes society for the good of everyone."

Where is the international workers movement? Does it, realistically speaking, exist? NO, it doesn't! It has been lost in a densely populated world divided along religious, national and (ironically) class lines. (Any realistic class analysis must go far beyond a gross division into bosses and workers.)

So, meanwhile, what do you suggest people do to resist the Empire, to progress toward an international workers movement?

Did not working classes very much want us (the U.S. public) to oust Bush in 2004, even if only for the symbolic value of such an event? Did not Arundhati Roy, early in 2004, essentially proclaim that as a goal of an international movement opposed to Empire?

If nothing matters until an international workers movement reaches some point at which you, and other elitists, would give the masses a green light to go forward, then voting doesn't matter. But what does matter? What do you suggest people do to resist the Empire? Wait until conditions are correct?

industrial agriculture replaced by collective farm diversity 05.Dec.2005 23:01

luna moth

A few points about industrial agriculture;

James states that replacing machines with pre-civ or agrarian farming will result in a massive die-off of the human population. This is a common myth often heard amongst socialists/communists who remain convinced that industrial mechanized agriculture is the only way to support the current population of humans. There is recent research that indicates collective organic farms and crop diversity is equal if not better yields with result of increased nutritional diversity. The system of industrial agriculture is alos based on a high input of petrochemical products, fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide that may not be easily accessible following the peak oil collapse. Not to mention the loss of topsoil and biodiversity from continued monocrop industrial agriculture..

"Proponents of industrial agriculture state that synthetic biocides, soluble fertilisers and genetic engineering are necessary to feed the worlds growing population. Several authorities further state organic agriculture is not capable of this task.

This paper looks at numerous and diverse data sets from around the world, showing that given the right conditions, organic agriculture can deliver sustainable high yields. Organic agriculture programs initiated by several organisations have substantially increased yields for many third world communities. This has been done with very low input and infrastructure costs to these communities and has substantially increased their standard of living. Data from the advanced agricultural economies of North America, Australia and Europe show that best practice organics can deliver equal and to significantly better yields than current conventional agricultural practices."

 http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/110705.cfm

Also include the fact that a great deal of land space is currently used for production of domestic animal feed, the unnatural excess of meat consumption by wealthier western nations like US taking valuable land out of production of direct vegetable consumption. The trophic pyramid indicates a 10:1 ratio of net energy loss on each level, from primary producers (plants convert sunlight to energy) to primary consumers (herbivores and vegan/vegetarian) to secondary consumers (carnivore meat eater). If humans choose to occupy the niche of carnivore seven days of the week, then the result will be a much larger land space needed to support the meat eating humans. If we choose to remain at a high population (8 billion?), then many people will need to convert to vegan/vegetarian lifestyle to prevent the ecocide of land lost to industrial agriculture for meat production. Also consider that indigenous ungulates (bison, antelope) were able to survive on the native plants (grasses, sagebrush, etc.) without having to grow extra food for them. Converting drought tolerant sagebrush into irrigation dependent alfalfa for cattle in the dry habitat of the great basin results in loss of antelope, sagebrush and endangered fish like the cui-cui..

 http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/r250.htm

 http://www.stoller-eser.com/sagebrush_steppe.htm

Count on the US government (BLM) to discriminate against indigenous (Shoshone) cattle ranchers while other corporate cattle ranchers who take the lion's share of the water are not disturbed..

"On Friday morning May 24th, 2002 before sunrise armed BLM agents assisted by several Nevada State officials raided the tribal grazing allotment of the South Fork Reservation and seized 136 head of cows belonging to Western Shoshone ranchers, including Raymond Yowell, Chief of the Western Shoshone National Council. We are asking for your immediate assistance in expressing the public's outrage at this clear violation of Western Shoshone rights and the 1863 Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed at Ruby Valley! Other Western Shoshone livestock under the care of Mary and Carrie Dann remain at large grazing upon Shoshone land in the Crescent Valley area. These will most likely be the next target of BLM confiscation."

 http://www.angelfire.com/nv2/wells/nativenews3.html


The idea of reclaiming land currently held by the wealthy minority of ranchers and other land barons is also being discussed by many indigenous peoples in south america. (google landless peasants movement). Here the theft of campesino landspace and conversion to export plantation monocultura cash crops and/or cattle grazing for McDonalds hamburgers is the direct cause of poverty induced migrations to el norte and slums in sur america. Free-trade globalization programs like NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, FTAA, PPP, etc. are increasing the poverty of workers and landless farmers/campesinos and also increasing the wealth of the priviliged few. In this case i also advocate an overthrow of these industrial landowning elite by the unified workers, campesinos, etc. Call it a temporary communist overthrow if u will, either way the economic imbalance needs to be corrected and local/indigenous autonomy restored..

The question is what will come afterwards, here is where most disagreement between anarchists, socialists and communists will occur. Once the wealthy landowners are removed from their illegally gotten thrones of power, put to trial and jailed, the people will need to work out a system of food, technology (or lack thereof) and whatever group social structure they call "civilization" (or lack therof). The Zapatistas said it best, " A world in which many worlds are possible and exist" to that extent means that a large organized communist state is not desireable (nor neccesary) to many who wish to live in a loose knit indigenous based society. For those who wish to continue in the production of technology, the anarchist-syndicalist organization of the IWW may appeal to most people without the heirarchy and totalitarianism of mega-statist communism. For hunter-gatherer, foraging, seasonal gardeners the green anarchy movement will satisfy their lifestyle. Indigenous peoples can continue their tribal culture where they left off before the invasion of colonialist imperialism. Many world are possible in the future, we don't all need to be identical..

The struggle against imperialism 06.Dec.2005 00:15

Marik marik@aracnet.com

Have you all noticed how this keeps coming up in comment boxes lately? I have seen it over and over again, in different shades. This is a good thing. We need discussion and debate between opposing idea's so we can sort out the way forward.

To me, it seems mostly what is being argued is the fight bewteen the reformists and the anti-imperialists. Unfortunately, the articles which these debates are taking place are scrolled off the main-pages prematurely. I think we need a better medium for important debates like this. Without sounding like a commerical I will just say this; if you also think that, you may find the Media Weapon community I link too of interest.

G.D. Dem said
"Where is the international workers movement? Does it, realistically speaking, exist? NO, it doesn't! It has been lost in a densely populated world divided along religious, national and (ironically) class lines. (Any realistic class analysis must go far beyond a gross division into bosses and workers.)"

The international workers movement does exist, albeit in an extremely weakened state. For example, the U.S. workers movement is weakened as to be completely useless. This is a direct result of union bureucrats and their reformist agenda. Drive the workers into the Democrats instead of the class-organization of workers. Then there are places like Venezeula, where the class consciousness of the workers (and thusly, a stronger workers movement!) is much higher when compared to the U.S. Unfortunately, there is seemingly little coordination between different national workers groups. This too is part of the problem

Realistic class anaylsis must be done at the production level. Class is not designated by your annual salary. If you sell your labor to someone, then your a member of the working class. If you buy peoples labor for the purpose of profit, your bourgeois.Things like religious divisions, racial divisions, national boundaries, are illusions propigated to divide the working class apart - instead of working together. That would be dangerous and therefore, is worked against.

Reformists will often say things like G.D. does above; over and over they rail that the working class cannot handle the truth, and must be lead by the only logical source - the Democratic party. This is in order to 'curb the immediate fascist threat' from the right wing.

Take for example this:
"Did not working classes very much want us (the U.S. public) to oust Bush in 2004, even if only for the symbolic value of such an event? Did not Arundhati Roy, early in 2004, essentially proclaim that as a goal of an international movement opposed to Empire?"

You propose to waste massive amounts of time and energy for something which is ultimately, only useful as a symbol. Furthermore, this symbol is attained at much cost to the working class - nothing in it's attainment brings about class consciousness. In fact it promotes a dependency on bourgeois politicians instead of promoting the development of our own organizations. It should be obvious that telling working class individuals to latch onto imperialist mouthpieces, *instead* of forming their own class organizations is a step in the wrong direction.

I feel this is a major problem. There is way too much emphasis on the short-term goals. As someone above said, we are near-sighted. And this is why the overall workers movement is extremely weak; the movements are in the hands of the liberal reformist strata. They cannot look beyond their own political careers.

"If nothing matters until an international workers movement reaches some point at which you, and other elitists, would give the masses a green light to go forward, then voting doesn't matter. But what does matter? What do you suggest people do to resist the Empire? Wait until conditions are correct?"

We 'elitists' work to create those conditions - through the consciousness of the working class. I would say step one to resisting the empire is ditching it's political pawns in favor of a working class political organization. This means grassroots connections, the forming of various commitee's and other groupings. From here we will truly be able to resist the empire.


The vanguard is not here 06.Dec.2005 02:49

.

In other parts of the world, people are work to reclaim the land "held by the wealthy minority of ranchers and other land barons". People in US don't seem to be aware that most of the land is held by a few, mostly agribusinesses and banks (who own each other).

Reply to Luna moth 06.Dec.2005 18:27

Marik marik@aracnet.com

I think your notion of communism is misinformed. No communists I know of fights for an all knowing socialist state of gigantic proportions. We fight to take the current establishment into the hands of the workers (socialism) so that it can be dismantled. A society of workers rule, where there is no class distinctions. This means that in such a society, you would be quite free to do exactly waht you dream of.

However, I think your notions are highly idealistic. The agrarian society that so many seem to dream of cannot exist in a class divided society. So, that means, in order for you to achieve it, we must abolish the class divide. This means, according to communists, abolishing private property in favor of social property. Nor will it spontaneously come to fruition (obviously). Neither will communism of course.

I think our first and foremost fight is against imperialism. This is why I consider myself a marxist. Because Marx developed the theories necessary to understand capitalism (and consequently, Imperialism) it is from this understanding that I work. If we are too truly make a change, we must understand the society we live in. Frankly, I think it's quite silly to ignore the works of socialists because you call yourself an anarchist, or your against 'organization'. We must look at history's success to understand what tactics work best. Honestly, the socialists have done the most for laborers, world wide. They have had the strongest movements, toppled corrupt governments. A lot of what we take for granted as workers now is in thanks to the socialist movements of the last 100 some odd years. Of course, there have been some oustanding failures too. I'm not about to tell you it's all been peaches and cream, because it certainly hasn't. But we must understand WHY we failed, not just 'give up' on it.

I'm sure a lot of opponents of this will spout off about the failings of the soviet union. They will ignore it's greatest success; actually convincing the downtrodden and exploited to usurp it's rulers. Apparently, this matters very little. No, what's more important is that eventually Stalin blew it all for everyone. And that organization is inherently evil. We only try to organize people so we can betray them and put ourselves as emperors of the known world, muahahaha. What a bunch of bullshit.

Nevermind that Trotsky fought tooth and nail against Stalin (which eventually lead to his assasination). No, merely a minor detail to be brushed aside. Marxsim is flawed because of Stalin, that's all that matters right? I would also like to point out that the central authority of socialism theory was developed by Stalin, not Marx. Doesn't anyone study history anymore? I know communists certainly try.

I don't dream of a highly mechanized world with everyone required to work in some highly pollutant factory.. Nor do I dream of mega agricultural farms destroying the earth. One of the many reasons I became a marxist was because of how quickly we are destroying the world. I do think you are right, to a degree when you speak of your farming ideas. Much of what is produced in today's society is simply surplus for the purpose of profit. Superflous products that are quite unnecessary and only exist to create profit. For example, having millions of workers who work in finance departments of global corporations for 40 hours a week. Or having 50 different toothpastes for example. Or, like you said, using dangerous petrochemicals and fertilizers to boost production (in the name of capital mind you!). This is all done based on PROFIT not NEED. This is something we must understand. Because the future society will not be based on profit, it will be based on the NEEDs of all. Nor do I dream of an all-knowing socialist state that dictates who works where and when.

I have read some theory by Ben Seattle which I thought was pretty convincing and much better fitted for humanity than everyone being a farmer. You know, that was the Khmer Rouge plan by the way....everyone is a farmer. We're all equal that way. Anyhow, his theory is that the future economy will be self-regulated, moneyless and based on volunteer labor. That means no all knowing socialist state directing everything. That means people directing themselves (the self organization you anarchists dream of as I understand it). If your interested in viewing it, it can be read here:  http://leninism.org/some/

One quick word on organization before I stop and let loose the soon to be coming flames; we must organize the working class. I know immediately anarchists are turned off, but let me explain why. The imperialists who run the world (that is, the monopoly capitalists) are highly conscious of who they are, and completely organized. All of society constantly trumpets their ideology; that only capital can drive humanity to strive 'forward' that we are too stupid to figure it out without them. Humanity is constantly bombarded with this onslaught of ideology. It comes from the conservatives, the liberals, the church, and most importantly, the bourgeois media machine. The only way we will be able to win against this monstrous force set against us is by organizing the working-class into the hammer to destroy bourgeois rule. We must do this because the enemy has already organized themselves into a force against *us* and they've been doing it for a hundred and fifty years. Or we can cling to this idea that organization is inherently evil (because man is a stupid, evil creature capable of only thinking for itself and not capable of SOCIAL relationships). I think that notion serves the ruling class very well.

You do not have to sell your individuality to be a part of an organization. I havn't. I'm constantly at different points of view with other members of the media weapon community. I think this is healthy and needed to stimulate the intellectual life of any community/organization. It is not a crime to try to persuade someone. It is not a crime to try and tell someone what you think.


Thanks to Marik for the link 06.Dec.2005 21:13

g.d. dem

That's a great link -- "self-organizing moneyless economy".

Don't forget the demos this Saturday and J-12!

Marik 07.Dec.2005 17:02

James Cooke

I think you should re-post and/or revise your last comment into an article, as I can see it becomming a good discussion, since this conversation is about to slip off the reel.

where to begin 07.Dec.2005 23:55

kirsten anderberg

Right, we do not need to "replace" the WTO, we need to permanently destroy it. What to do? Invest in BARTER systems and cut off the capitalists at the throat. We need to FIGHT free trade for the slave labor system it is! And we need to consume less from the industrial market and create and barter more.