FM Corporations/ businesses/ entitities

[Steve Kinney]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/03/2016 05:29 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:34:07AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:

>> A whole art and science of nonviolent strategic conflict
>> addresses methods of applying coercive social and economic
>> measures to modify the behavior of dominant syndicates including
>> their State sponsor/clients.  But an existential threat to these
>> syndicates will ultimately result in their application of deadly
>> force, and a response in kind.
> 
> at some levels, or in some cases, yes
> 
> BUT, not in all cases!
> 
> That is a part of the brainwashing - oh "they" are all so
> powerful, there's nothing "we" can do without being shot.
> 
> BOLLOCKS.
> 
> (I know that's not exactly what you said - point is, we have to
> bust our programming if we are to have any hope of making
> collective progress in useful directions.)

In what I call a "real" revolution, way more than 99% of the real work
is nonviolent by nature.  Organic changes in the actual process of
social and economic life precede and drive the pressure to change
political and economic institutions rendered obsolete by changes in
the way people actually live.  Efforts expressly targeting obsolete
governing institutions for radical change are also inherently
nonviolent at their inception; only violent counter-attack by
established institutions threatened by organic change motivates public
support for armed resistance.  In turn, homegrown armed insurgencies
depend on the committed support of large networks of non-combatants
for their survival and success.

But there is a limit to the power of strictly nonviolent force;
generally speaking, policy adjustments in commercial and State
institutions can be accomplished by non-violent means, while
successful efforts to affect the abolition or radical restructuring of
commercial and State institutions usually includes armed conflict
during the endgame.  Conversion of a Liberal Fascist State and its
dominant industries to some kind of "level playing field" would be a
very radical change affecting the entire power structure that defines
commercial and State roles and activities; this is MOST unlikely to be
accomplished without prying some people's "cold, dead fingers" off the
levers of power.

>> Anarchy is not a proposed form of government or social order;
> 
> I disagree..
> 
>> it is an informed critique of governments and social orders.
> 
> ..political anarchy is much more than a critique - it suggests 
> principles for principled ways for us to interact with one
> another, regardless of domain of activity.

Semantics:  Applying "principles for principled ways for us to
interact" is exactly what I meant by "an informed critique of
governments and social orders."  :o)

> Perhaps "opt-in direct democracy" would be a better way to define 
> "political anarchy" so that lay-persons can grok the concept,
> rather than get caught up in the common meaning of 'anarchy ==
> chaos'.

Direct Democracy a.k.a. Mob Rule is one of my favorite political
concepts; I spread its gospel, and promote it by actually doing it
every chance I get.  But resistance to onerous economic and political
governance is not, in itself, a form of governance; it is a feedback
process which, when successful, governs the governors by
counterbalancing the economic and political power of dominant
syndicates.  My version of Anarchy is the study and practice of Direct
Democracy.

>> If you want an anarchistic society, you will need to keep units
>> of sovereign governance small enough that everyone can observe
>> and play an active role in their governance.
> 
> And those units, however they each choose to operate, may syndicate
> as a syndicate of units.
> 
[...]

>> You need to govern that State in a manner that never delegates
>> decision making power; decision making by consensus assures that
>> very few non-emergency decisions will be made at all; thus, State
>> interference in private affairs will be very limited.
> 
> I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here. It sounds like
> you are speaking from a "we need a traditional 'democratic state'"
> concept, just without realising it...
> 
> I could agree that our tendency to not only speak, but to think in
> our 'traditional western schooled concepts' is a hard habit to
> break :)

I'll say, and how!  What I was describing is governance as practiced
by many so-called "primitive" people.

>> In short, you need to model your State as Bands, Tribes and
>> Nations governed by open Councils acting on consensus only.
> 
> Watch my lips carefully, as I'm only going to do this once:
> 
> 
> I don't need to model or otherwise do shit !
> 
> Got it?

Perhaps I should have said, "If you want to go from high level
abstractions to methods that can be implemented in the real world, you
might benefit from considering historical examples."

> It's a simple concept. In fact, it is foundational to political
> anarchy theory, from my very limited understanding.
> 
>> And you need to site it on a world where no other kind of State
>> exists or can arise, because hierarchal governance in a caste
>> system includes efficiencies that will enable other States to
>> take yours over shortly after they see advantages in doing so.
>> At best your Anarchistic State may survive by imitating the
>> organizational methods of antagonistic States - - but then, you
>> will no longer have an Anarchistic State.
> 
> Ok, statement of a potential problem clarifies your point. It is
> good to clarify potential problems.

Consider the example of Iceland, a model democracy where 1/3 million
people have recently demonstrated that self governance is possible
/even/ in a hierarchal system, if it is small enough to permit the
electorate to observe its State and Corporate institutions in action.

Iceland is fortunate in that, at present, the United States sees no
major benefit in interfering with Iceland's internal affairs:  Because
Iceland is a de facto U.S. protectorate, functionally if not
politically part of NATO.  Geographical isolation is Iceland's saving
grace, but alas, it's not one that most of the human race can duplicate.

> But, step 1 is to: - clear our heads of our existing schooling/
> concepts/ think - refrain (!!) from putting words in the mouths of
> another - regrain from telling others what they 'need' to do
> 
> Yes, we Westerners are so very very schooled, from childhood by
> our parents, and onwards, and so breaking these old communication
> patterns won't be easy.
> 
> But we have to start....

One thing I appreciate about Anarchists is that they can fight like
cats and dogs over political bullshit, without losing an inch of
respect and solidarity.  Liberals, for instance, often don't make that
cut - which I think is very unfortunate, since "their hearts are in
the right place."

> There are too many assumptions in your above stated problem, and so
> at the moment I suggest tidying up our languaging (I'm no exception
> either) so that when we state a perceived problem, we at least do
> so using terms concepts and assumptions we can agree on.

To do that we "have to" explicitly define our terms, distinguish
historical data from abstract constructs, and clearly state material
objectives to assure that our language and data are relevant to the
work at hand.

>> The problem with "revolution" is semantic:  We are taught that a 
>> revolution is an armed conflict that replaces one gang of rulers
>> with another gang of rulers, who may or may not bring plans for a
>> new social and economic structure with them.
> 
> It is much more than semantic - history shows us many examples of 
> "bloody revolution", with vast millions of humans ending up dead in
> the process of "transition".

I am careful to distinguish between a "revolution" that installs a
regime that is responsive to the social and economic demands of the
people as a whole, vs. a "revolution" that installs a regime that
forcibly dictates a social and economic order to the people.  Both are
called "revolutions" but most of the resemblance ends there.
Blatantly repressive Fascist dictatorships call their rise to power
"revolutions" and their autocratic rule "democracy."

>> My favorite definition of "revolution" equates it to "the world
>> turned upside down."

[...]

>> According to this model, the "shooting war" phase of a real
>> revolution serves the sole purpose of removing dead-end
>> resistance to rule by new dominant syndicates that have already
>> eclipsed the power of previously dominant syndicates.
> 
> A new syndicate does not start out "dominant". I guess you mean
> "new, soon to be dominant syndicate".

A syndicate that has become a dominant force through commercial
competition, by fair means and foul, is already waging economic war
against whatever syndicates its rise to power may inconvenience, and
vice versa.  When an emergent syndicate's growing economic power
threatens to displace syndicates who control political institutions,
overt political conflicts follow.  When the structural roots of the
conflict are sufficiently broad, deep and irreconcilable, a
"revolution" that changes the form of government to accommodate new
industrial, economic and (therefore) political and social realities
may follow.

Although such revolutions often include "shooting wars" the presence
of politically motivated gunfire is not in itself a revolution, nor a
necessary indicator of one.

> And that's why the banks (the oligarchs) have funded all sides of
> every war in history - very profitable business, war.
> 
> So before going to war, ask yourself if you are selling your soul
> to the existing syndicates...

War takes many forms.  Publicly funded mass murder for private profit
is only one of them.  Shutting down an industry through boycotts,
strikes and blockades is an act of economic warfare.  Destroying the
perceived legitimacy of State institutions through propaganda is an
example of political warfare.

>> The French and American Revolutions removed the institutions of 
>> Monarchy to make way for a New World Order where insurgent
>> Mercantile and Industrialist factions share power with the older
>> "landed" Aristocracy.  That New World Order developed under
>> Monarchy; its revolutions only restructured political power to
>> reflect a new arrangement of economic powers already in place,
>> and establish the new dominant syndicates as its "legitimate"
>> rulers.
> 
> I am consistently reacting to what I am hearing from you as a
> fatalism, that "new syndicates" are already dominant before they
> even topple the existing syndicate, does not make sense.

My version of anarchist theory is a study of the dynamics of power in
human social behavior.  The State acts as a referee and enforcer in
conflicts between individuals and between syndicates, in support of
the stability of the dominant syndicates in the territory governed by
the State.  (Example:  The U.S. Federal government defines the
National Interest as the growth of the GNP and profitability of U.S.
based corporate industries.  In many policy contexts and documents,
the National Interest has replaced National Defense as the stated
beneficiary of military actions.)

As changes in technology, population and environmental variables drive
the rise and fall of dominant syndicates, stagnant or declining
syndicates may use their established relationships with the State to
cheat and take advantage, in an effort to retain their dominant
positions.  (A routine example:  Eternal Copyright and DMCA etc. for
media syndicates, conteracting the collapse to near zero of the cost
of reproducing and distributing "creative works.")  Rising syndicates
must acquire enough economic and social power to successfully
challenge both the market dominance of declining syndicates /and/ the
power of the State as it is exercised on behalf of the declining
syndicates.

When changes in real large scale power relationships happen, and the
State fails to adapt itself to these changes due to institutional
commitments to declining syndicates, revolution follows.

This model is exactly contrary to our cradle to grave indoctrination
in the Great Men and Great Ideas model of historical progress, where
revolutions /cause/ radical changes in the world of human affairs.  In
that context, the model I describe makes no sense at all.  But in the
context of the history of technology, it makes almost TOO much sense:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-burke-connections/

I view anarchist theory and practice as a discipline enabling the
peasant classes of society to form ad hoc syndicates that develop and
exercise social and economic power of their own.  Our rulers seem to
agree with me on this; anarchy has been suppressed by all means
available to ruling class interests since its first appearance in the
Enlightenment era.

Representative Democracy, the "authorized version" of Enlightenment
political organization, attempts to deliver power to the governed via
the electoral process.  I think we can agree that, at best, this
method does not scale well.  But as the old IWW slogan says, "Direct
action gets the goods."

> And I don't think in history it has generally been black and white
> (new vs old syndicate) either - the banks (old syndicates) funding
> both sides is the kind of 'armed revolution' we usually see in
> history...
> 
> My reaction is because you seem to deny (by assumption in the words
> you choose) these possibilities, for just some examples: - a new
> syndicate can start small, probably --should-- start small! - a new
> syndicate can be organically built. - a new syndicate might be just
> two women starting a computer repair "shop" - a new small
> syndicate, if it genuinely represents an improvement over the
> status quo (Uber), ought naturally grow into a large syndicate

Maybe I'm not expressing myself very well:  All these examples of
things I seem to "deny" are central to my view of how the world
actually works.  Cognitive dissonance may also be at work here:  I
look back at my personal struggles with political concepts and
constantly ask, "Why the hell did it take so long to figure this shit
out?"

[...]

>> Absent a paradigm shift that replaces "progress" with "disaster 
>> mitigation, management and recovery," application of political
>> theory and practice can only produce worse outcomes, not better
>> ones.
> 
> It is all very well to start at the end goal, but not at a
> fatalistic "guaranteed" bad outcome - if that's all you envision,
> either get another vision, or start at the other end of the scale
> (how we can usefully form small syndicates, from 2 humans upwards,
> to work towards a possible better future).
> 
> I will -not- accept your fatalism and your presumed horrific
> outcomes.
> 
> I will -not- accept that there are no pathways to productively and 
> usefully evolve towards political anarchy in broad action.

In the world of human imagination, anything is possible because
wishing makes all things so.  In the physical world, inflexible laws
are self-enforced and can not be wished away.  In the geophysical
world, global warming is just one driver of industrial civilization's
pending collapse:

https://tinyurl.com/geophysics-ftw

The slowing but still exponential growth of the human population is
another; the flattening curve of food production capacity and rising
curve of food demand are crossing now.  Topsoil, water, phosphates,
fuel and other essential inputs to agriculture are now approaching
peak extraction / exploitation rates.  This is in addition to, not
because of, the problems inherent in global warming.

Under these conditions the collapse of State and corporate power,
relative to their present massive extent, seems inevitable.
Opportunities for anarchists will be /very/ abundant, and Nature
itself will decide which courses of action are "right."

>> My proposed solution is radical decentralization of industry and 
>> agriculture; adaptation of "low technology" not dependent on 
>> centralized heavy industry to replace "high technology" where and
>> as it has real survival value; moving as many people as far away
>> from population centers as possible; and distributing field
>> tested strategies and technologies for the above as widely as
>> possible while the networks and economies to do so are still up
>> and running.
> 
> Sounds like there are possibilities for action by individuals and
> small syndicates that could arise from this viewpoint. I think this
> could be useful.

Back in the 1970s there was a bit of an "appropriate technology"
movement in the same geographic/cultural locus that eventually
produced those strange Cypherpunk critters.  That same gaggle of crazy
misfits got me started tracking geophysical issues way back then.

Today, alas:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcREKdqfOVQ

But also, this and more like it:

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set

>> Large scale industrial processes that systematically destroy the 
>> essential survival resources of future generations have to be
>> halted as soon as possible.  Hydraulic fracturing to harvest
>> petrochemicals permanently destroys water tables.  It is now
>> decades too late to "stop" global warming, but not too late to
>> limit the rate of onset, severity, and duration of large scale
>> climactic disruptions on the way to a "new normal."  Genetically
>> engineered 'food' crops destroy topsoil ecologies, poison water
>> supplies and threaten the genetic integrity of plant species
>> necessary to large scale human survival. The longer these and
>> other grossly destructive industrial activities continue, the
>> lower the resulting long term carrying capacity for human
>> population in affected regions.

[...]

>> Ready?  Go!
>> 
>> :o)
> 
> ACK.
> 
> Great chatting :)

Yup.  This here's the kind of bullshit that makes the flowers grow.

:o)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXoqlDAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqvP8H/iHXKayxD+Xatoeo62/Acqej
lRIPUbETgpWIMGfrDPRLgKDKMyMXeAy5bNG3XeFQ88JdhlNPfVUMoUq4KLiQKguI
XSn/00/Sn0zlEJOR+z5XfLCaGlrisWB0kRwKbITCyb71pBtYZBLolp9Jlj0CBN+j
d4Yne5hYixsQ/P6QrGa5JKX8zoZB5m8X71uo0NLWVLowvZFqm/wx08wgDdHvOgD0
KucZ3s1OamBM3m92J4EbKXPTytvu5mdMzweCawN5vRUjl3FS5SwCsfgETF6tSTUO
AMLwbQ28q/TxBADtMVXdArbNdJS7tK3M6I3P3j+Km3+1a1PDQQ8ExGciLFNe850=
=495X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----