FM Corporations/ businesses/ entitities

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:34:07AM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 09:36 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 09:45:40PM -0300, juan wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:43:12 +0300 Georgi Guninski
> >> <guninski at guninski.com> wrote:

> > THE QUESTION: The question I think always shall be, is how to
> > transition to an anarchic society, in consideration of existing
> > interests. I.e. how to peacefully transition existing entities/
> > structure/ interests into an anarchistic/ truly free market
> > reality.
> 
> How can one "peacefully" tear the dominant syndicates ruling an entire
> civilization to pieces?

By creating better alternatives which appeal to individuals, and grow
over time into alternative large and dominant syndicates.

The great challenge in doing this peacefully is not the existing
syndicates per se, but the anti-competitive, protectionist rackets
called "statute laws", which are lobbied for and abused by, these
existing mega syndicates.

In the democratic fascist model we see dominant today around the world,
the mega syndicates lobby 'governments' for special privileges - e.g.:
 - the right to tax humans driving on public roads (please, if anyone
   wants to debate this, start a separate thread)
 - the right to compel corporations and owner-operator individual
   'business persons' to sink inhuman amounts of fiat dollars into
   licensed superannuation funds
 - the right to use the courts to punish anyone trying to compete with
   your overpriced, poorly serviced telecomms network (wired or
   wireless)
 - etc etc

And so we see endless protectionist rackets, in every field of human
endeavour, all around the world, under the pretense of being
"democratic".

Oh, and by the way, when I use the term "right" above, I use it in the
sense of "predatorial right" (in case it weren't obvious).


> Those who own and administer those syndicates
> have devoted their lives to the acquisition and retention of power, at
> the expense of others and in competition against a broad spectrum of
> rivals and adversaries.  The modern Democratic State exists for the
> sole purpose of protecting and advancing the interests of dominant
> economic syndicates and their owners by any means necessary, with
> deadly force topping the go-to list.

indeed


> 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.)


> 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.


> Or it is a
> delusional belief system indoctrinated by propaganda.  Or it is
> violent opposition to social order of any kind.  Depends who you ask.

Sure. But not one of the definitions you've suggested is particularly
useful - add to that list "direct democracy" - perhaps not the best
definition, but one I saw once and got an "ahah" moment.

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'.


> 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.

And those syndications of units may syndicate ...

...

And, it certainly does not have to be a pyramid - whichever unit, at
whichever level (individual human, or a greater syndication of some
sort), can choose to be part of/ syndicate with, any other unit of their
choice, for whatever broad or limited purposes they choose...

...


Why limit the concept?


> 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 :)


> 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?

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.

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....


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.


> > I am implying evolution. Revolution - we see how well that went
> > after the fall of the Tzar, to the various CIA instigated
> > revolutionary coups from Lybia to Syria, Ukraine to Yugoslavia,
> > none of which resulted in nor were intended to result in an
> > actualisation of an anarchistic society.
> > 
> > The problem with revolution, is that it is ideological extremists
> > who give enough of a shit to pick up a gun and start shooting (for
> > example) police, citizens and government officials, and the outcome
> > is that the ideological extremists end up holding the seats of
> > power and institute something -other- than anarchism. Such
> > extremists as our world's history have seen, tend to sociopathy,
> > rather than the benevolent, side of dictatorship.
> 
> 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".


> My favorite definition of "revolution" equates it to "the world turned
> upside down."
> 
> We are taught that revolutions initiate radical changes in social and
> economic systems, but I maintain that revolutions are the end result
> of radical changes in social and economic behavior.  We are taught
> that Great Leaders with Great Ideas change the world, but I maintain
> that changes in technology, population and environmental conditions
> change the world:  Those Great Leaders with their Great Ideas show up
> /after/ irreversible changes in social and economic life have already
> taken place.  They represent new dominant syndicates, seeking to
> displace institutions of governance created by and for the exclusive
> benefit of earlier dominant syndicates.  Their role is to modify the
> institutions of State power to codify, control and exploit the new
> order, for the sole benefit of the new dominant syndicates.
> 
> 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".

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...


> > We must always remember it is never the arm chair pundit ("oh I
> > wish our democracy elected representatives actually represented
> > us") crowd who will change the world.
> > 
> > So historically, revolutions seem to be more a devolution than an 
> > evolution of the status quo. If you have counter examples, please 
> > highlight them now.
> 
> 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.

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



> > So it is that I hold far greater hope for a better/ anarchistic/
> > direct democracy type of future, via the pathway of evolution, and
> > not revolution.
> 
> No evolution, no revolution.  Unless by "revolution" one means
> overthrowing the State to replace it with a new State administering
> the same social and economic systems the old State evolved to control
> and exploit.  In this case, revolutionaries are those who seek power
> for its own sake through violent means; that is not likely to end well.
> 
> > And so it is also that we owe it to our future generations to
> > consider pathways to peaceful transition of existing interests,
> > into that better future.
> 
> The real future includes the collapse of industrial economies,
> accelerated looting of under-defended territories, and a major human
> population crash.  This is the picture presented by current and
> historical geophysical data.  Any plan or strategy that does not work
> in this context does not work.

Catering for likely contingencies is sensible.

I'm pretty sure the USD is gonna go down hard, and then the existing
oligarchs will go into looting overdrive - those who've positioned
themselves to be able to, of course.
Such is the sad state of human affairs we usually see.


> 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.


> 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 great.

Sounds grand.

Sounds like there are possibilities for action by individuals and small
syndicates that could arise from this viewpoint. I think this could be
useful.


> 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.

Sure, ACK. "We" the human race, need to, must do better.


> Preparation for and mitigation of the "end of the world as we know it"
> provides more than a lifetime of challenging, satisfying, useful work.

:)

>  Any real progress in these areas will produce a better future,
> sooner, for more people.
> 
> Ready?  Go!
> 
> :o)

ACK.

Great chatting :)