Skip to main content

View Diary: "Prosecutorial Gaps": The People Vs. The Justice Department (240 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fuck that (4+ / 0-)

    Have you seen what the majority of people like and dislike? I am not putting my fate into the hands of the majority. The people have shown themselves to be stupid more than they are not stupid. Too risky.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:24:55 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbou

      History tells us that a majority decision by people is an excellent way in which justice can be served -  Black men, 1930's Mississippi

      Look, I tried to be reasonable...

      by campionrules on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:36:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So calling on the people to take the lead... (8+ / 0-)

        in demanding accountability for the actions of these banksters and our government's failure to prosecute them for their misdeeds is analogous to what happened in Mississippi during the 1930's?




        Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

        by DeadHead on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:29:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's fine (4+ / 0-)

          but Ray is pushing for a revolt and a citizen grand jury. After the bankers go in front of the jury and are dealt with who's next? and how soon do we turn on each other with citizen indictments?

          I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

          by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:35:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl, happymisanthropy, gerrilea

            If we're going to talk about revolution, the existing system would be replaced by another. Which direction that would go and what shape it should take is worth discussing, but... many just don't want to go there.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:44:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  because... (4+ / 0-)

              many of us have read history and history tells us that wholesale changes in how societies are governed come with an ugly side. You know what they say about good intentions and I get that you all have good intentions but hell's pathway is paved with those good intentions.

              I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

              by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:51:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Our own country was founded (6+ / 0-)

                by revolution. A very violent revolution, waged by people willing to break the law, and be very disobedient to authority. They did far more than convene a citizens grand jury! And we live with the effects of that today.

                Not all revolutions end up ugly. A democratic republic is (probably, depending on circumstances) better than a monarchy.

                Sure, a lot of revolutions have ended up with authoritarians in control. Marxist-Leninism definitely had an authoritarian streak, and that was its undoing in many of the attempts.

                One of the best revolutions, the Spanish Revolution of 1936, was a good one, and was successful, up until fascist, capitalist, and authoritarian communist forces crushed it. Many of the best attempts have been crushed by the wealthy classes, and by authoritarians.

                For a start, read Homage to Catalonia for an understanding of the underhanded politics in that war.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:01:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  He is? (9+ / 0-)

            From the diary:

            [...]

            And, if it is so found, I call on all citizens to demand a proper investigation, indictment, prosecution and lengthy prison sentences to those officials having been found guilty of wrongdoing, of abuses of power.

            Once the preliminary investigation is concluded, a public indictment should be produced and made available to the general public...

            Furthermore, I call on activists to start a 100-week protest campaign starting on Monday, January 27th in front of the Justice Department building in Washington, D.C., and other Justice Department offices around the country, from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

            I see calls demanding action be taken, and for a protest.

            "Revolt" and putting the banksters themselves in front of the citizen jury itself, for their "sentencing," which I assume to be what you're thinking Ray meant, not so much.

            Did I miss something elsewhere in the diary?  




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

            by DeadHead on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:17:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those are mischaracterizations being repeated (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead, happymisanthropy, gerrilea

              over and over to paint a certain picture...

              •  It is? (3+ / 0-)
                I call on legal experts (lawyers, judges, university professors), writers, researchers, students, and average citizens to form this crowd-sourced citizens' "Grand Jury" panel tasked with producing a "People's Indictment" if it is indeed found that these government functionaries violated both, the law, and their oath of office.
                •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador, gerrilea

                  There's no "revolt" and no demands for mob conviction/sentencing being called for.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:44:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You would be wrong (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

                    This is what you said:

                    "Revolt" and putting the banksters themselves in front of the citizen jury itself, for their "sentencing," which I assume to be what you're thinking Ray meant, not so much.
                    No one claimed Ray was calling for a revolt. And he indeed hasn't. However, he has called for citizen grand juries to deliver indictments. Its clear as day in his diary.
                    •  No, the fact is that are the one that's wrong. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, DeadHead
                      •  Facts are facts Ray (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too, erush1345

                        I'll quote the conclusion of your diary:

                        I call on legal experts (lawyers, judges, university professors), writers, researchers, students, and average citizens to form this crowd-sourced citizens' "Grand Jury" panel tasked with producing a "People's Indictment" if it is indeed found that these government functionaries violated both, the law, and their oath of office.
                        Reign of Terror: The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known simply as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution". The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris),[2] and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.[3]

                        Through the Revolutionary Tribunal, the Terror's leaders exercised broad dictatorial powers and used them to instigate mass executions and political purges. The repression accelerated in June and July 1794, a period called la Grande Terreur (the Great Terror), and ended in the coup of 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794), leading to the Thermidorian Reaction, in which several instigators of the Reign of Terror were executed, including Saint-Just and Robespierre.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                        Revolutionary Tribunals: It was composed of a jury, a public prosecutor, and two substitutes, all nominated by the Convention; and from its judgments there was no appeal. With M.J.A. Herman as president and Fouquier-Tinville as public prosecutor, the tribunal terrorized the royalists, the refractory priests and all the actors in the counter-revolution.
                        Soon, too, it came to be used for personal ends, particularly by Robespierre, who employed it for the condemnation of his adversaries. The excesses of the Revolutionary Tribunal increased with the growth of Robespierre's ascendancy in the Committee of Public Safety; and on June 10, 1794 was promulgated, at his instigation, the infamous Law of 22 Prairial, which forbade prisoners to employ counsel for their defence, suppressed the hearing of witnesses and made death the sole penalty. Before 22 Prairial the Revolutionary Tribunal had pronounced 1,220 death-sentences in thirteen months; during the forty-nine days between the passing of the law and the fall of Robespierre 1,376 persons were condemned (an average of 28 per day), including many innocent victims.
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                        •  I agree: Facts are facts and they are not on your (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea, DeadHead

                          side...

                          BTW, what is your opinion about the fact that in an unprecedented fashion when compared with previous periods of rampant criminality by Wall Street, no top executives have been to prison?

                          After all, that's the topic of this diary, not guillotines or the French Revolution.

                          •  Seriously (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            You deny you've called for crowd-sourced citizen grand juries to indict people. Yet the words are there as plain as day:

                            I call on legal experts (lawyers, judges, university professors), writers, researchers, students, and average citizens to form this crowd-sourced citizens' "Grand Jury" panel tasked with producing a "People's Indictment" if it is indeed found that these government functionaries violated both, the law, and their oath of office.
                            When you can accept that you actually said that, I'd be willing to offer the opinion you requested. But, as of right now, we don't even have a basic foundation for discussing anything when you deny your own words.
                          •  I've also indicated in this thread that I see that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, DeadHead

                            exercise as symbolic, a sort of pressure tactic against those engaged in rampant corruption and criminality within the power structure. I stand by that call.

                            What I haven't done is to allude to violence of any kind, nor to guillotines or the French Revolution. That is something injected into the discussion, that has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of the diary.

                          •  A few points (4+ / 0-)

                            Your diary was excellent until you reached the central conclusion that you did - a call for crowd sourced citizen grand juries to deliver indictments. It was the central conclusion to your diary along with a call for protests. If you want to walk that back, fine.

                            And I agree, you have NOT called for violence of any kind, or guillotines or a revolution.

                            I was pointing out how your call for citizen grand juries was very much like what Robispierre implemented after the French Revolution with his tribunals. The parallels are striking.

                          •  Do you think you can call for a revolution or a (7+ / 0-)

                            "Peoples' Court" or any other type of mass movement without considering the consequences of your tactics?  There is no question that history shows that mob actions can result in more harm to the very people the action was intended to benefit.  So why do you consistently refuse to discuss your tactics and whether or not they will be effective and/or harmful?

                            To forestall your constant refrain of, "What do you think about the point I'm making in the diary about rampant abuse and failure to prosecute bankers" lets put it to rest with a simple, "I agree with you about that".  As do probably every commenter here who is questioning your tactics.  Seriously, what is the point of the diary if not to come up with some way to fix the problem you are talking about.  And what is the problem with people pointing out that your "fix" has some real potential downside.  It would be a pretty simplistic and ineffective leader who didn't look at history and the prior actions of revolutionary groups to test his own hypothesis against.  Instead of pretending that there isn't a bad history associated with exactly the kind of people's tribunals you suggest why not defend your proposed action and tell us how you have reasoned that it will be different.  Why not show us you have thought about it deeply and studied this sort of action and explain to us why culturally and physically it could happen in a beneficial way?  Or maybe you are just throwing it out there because you don't really know what to do about the problem.  So you offer simplistic, not very well thought out solutions or tactics.  The problem Ray, is not that people don't know there is a problem.  That's why your writings can be popular within a certain group.  There are lots of people who like to be told they are right.  The real problem though is what to do about it.  That is why the problem can't be easily fixed.  If you want to be a real "leader" of this movement then start giving real, carefully thought out ways to fix it.  Otherwise accept that your target audience is people who already agree with you and who have no interest in really addressing the problem in a meaningful way.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:47:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He's been told before (4+ / 0-)
                            * [new]  Perhaps the answer lies in the fact... (9+ / 0-)
                            ...that people aren't just talking to you when they write a comment; they are talking to whoever is here: lurkers; new visitors; people who haven't visited your diaries before.

                            It so happens that I don't disagree with everything in your diaries. In fact, I agree with a lot of what's in them. But I don't see much of anything new in those diaries. And other than a general call to activism—which large numbers of Kossacks are already engaged in across a broad range of issues—which you present in a know-it-all tone that often has an implicit undercurrent of I-can-see-it-why-can't-you-all, I don't see much in the way of specifics in that call.

                            I don't know about your other raders, but I want something concrete, some substantial, something that says this (or that) should be the target of our actions. The list of possibilities is long, from police brutality to the cessation of fossil fuel extraction and burning, from populist economic restructuring to an end of imperial foreign policy. Which of those matter most in your view, and what kind of actions will most likely bear fruit?  

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:59:05 AM EST

                          •  I am coming to the conclusion, that despite (4+ / 0-)

                            protestations to the contrary, true progressives aren't the ones who have to write diaries about authoritarianism and be praised for being insightful.  True progressives are the ones out there trying to make a difference.  Just creating noise isn't making a difference--whether it's ineffectual protests or blog writing.

                            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                            by stellaluna on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:30:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Is that an appeal to authority? I think that we (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            all recognize MB's contribution to the site, but when it comes to the comment threads he's just another commenter, right?
                             

                          •  Evening (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            No.

                          •  Actually, as a veteran of decades of radical (0+ / 0-)

                            activism, including a stint as a member of the Weatherman faction of SDS, MB has a wealth of practical experience and knowledge that extends well beyond rhetorical posturing.

                            He's a valuable resource for anyone who is seriously interested in avoiding the pitfalls that have derailed progressive and radical politics in the past.

                            So no, he is not "just another commenter".

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:11:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  FTR, I was NEVER a member of the Weather faction.. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, WB Reeves, fcvaguy

                            ...I was a member of SDS from 1965-1969 and argued with the Weather faction. I was opposed to Weather's bombing campaign. Weather was one of the pitfalls, as at least one of its key leaders—Mark Rudd—has since made clear.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:28:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My apologies. This is an egregious error on my (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too, Meteor Blades, fcvaguy

                            part. Evidently, I either misunderstood or had a false recollection of a previous comment of yours that I read. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that you had any part in the violent actions later taken by the Weather Underground, as opposed to the earlier faction fights within SDS.

                            FTR, this misrepresentation is entirely my fault and my responsibility. If I could delete it I would. Perhaps it should be hidden.

                            Again, my profound apologies.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:02:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My apologies. This is an egregious error on my (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fcvaguy

                            part. Evidently I misunderstood or had faulty recall of a comment of yours on this topic that I had read previously. I certainly had no intention of suggesting that you had any part in the Weather Underground's violent actions, rather than the earlier faction fights in SDS.

                            If I could delete the comment I would. Perhaps it should be hidden.

                            Again, my profound apologies.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:10:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What's your problem? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador

                            Seriously.

                            You just got done giving me shit for supposedly "bullying" and "harassing" you for posting like, two comments that mentioned Tortmaster's hide-rating abuse, and yet here you are, in this thread, doing something that looks a lot more like badgering and "bullying" than anything anyone's been doing to you.




                            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                            by DeadHead on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:21:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did? (0+ / 0-)

                            Got any comments on Meteor Blades constructive feedback to Ray?

                          •  It's interesting to see the repetition. Either (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            way...  Check this out:

                            Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements by Bill Moyer

                            Social movements involve a long-term struggle between the movement and the powerholders for the hearts, minds, and support of the majority of the population.  Before social movements begin, most people are either unaware that a problem exists or don't believe that they can do anything about it.  They believe the powerholder's societal myths and support the high-sounding official policies and practices, all of which seem to be consistent with the culture's deeply held held values and beliefs...

                            ~snip~

                            The strategy of social movements, therefore, is to alert, educate, and win over an ever increasing majority of the public.  First the public needs to be convinced that a critical social problem exists.  Then it must be convinced that policies need to be changed.  And then a majority of people must be mobilized into a force that eventually brings about an acceptable solution.

                            [The emphasis is mine]

                            On resistance movement non-violent tactics:
                            A great source of information about non-violent direct action is in the work of Gene Sharp.  Here's a biographical article about him published by The New York Times in 2011: "Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution"
                            Few Americans have heard of Mr. Sharp. But for decades, his practical writings on nonviolent revolution — most notably “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” a 93-page guide to toppling autocrats, available for download in 24 languages — have inspired dissidents around the world, including in Burma, Bosnia, Estonia and Zimbabwe, and now Tunisia and Egypt.

                            ~Snip~

                            When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to “protest disrobing” to “disclosing identities of secret agents.”

                            On why there is a need to rise up in protest:
                            The Last Gasp of American Democracy by Chris Hedges

                            This is our last gasp as a democracy. The state’s wholesale intrusion into our lives and obliteration of privacy are now facts. And the challenge to us—one of the final ones, I suspect—is to rise up in outrage and halt this seizure of our rights to liberty and free expression. If we do not do so we will see ourselves become a nation of captives.

                            ~snip~

                            The object of efficient totalitarian states, as George Orwell understood, is to create a climate in which people do not think of rebelling, a climate in which government killing and torture are used against only a handful of unmanageable renegades. The totalitarian state achieves this control, Arendt wrote, by systematically crushing human spontaneity, and by extension human freedom. It ceaselessly peddles fear to keep a population traumatized and immobilized. It turns the courts, along with legislative bodies, into mechanisms to legalize the crimes of state.

                            On why it is going to happen (and it is happening), I'll leave you with this:

                          •  nailed it (0+ / 0-)

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:43:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, status quo arguments win the day. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador

                            Ugh.

                            Something needs to be done.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:52:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Regarding the 3 to 5 percent needed for a movement (0+ / 0-)
                            "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict"
                            For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals. By attracting impressive support from citizens, whose activism takes the form of protests, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these efforts help separate regimes from their main sources of power and produce remarkable results, even in Iran, Burma, the Philippines, and the Palestinian Territories.

                            Combining statistical analysis with case studies of specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed and, sometimes, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents’ erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment.

                            I do find it amazing that the things that actual studies and research show to be effective are the very things a handful of people here in this thread are trying to discourage the most (with several posts each).
                            Indeed, Mark Lichbach, a professor of government and politics, has written in The Rebel’s Dilemma, that when more than 5 percent of the population engages in sustained, coordinated civil disobedience, few governments can remain in power whether they are a dictatorship or a democracy. The path to reaching this 5 percent begins when people who are already active in resistance build solidarity and draw more people to the movement. As more people see the movement growing and that there is a strategy to win, they will have the confidence to join it. Achieving the 5 percent tipping point with a diverse cross-section of society then becomes well within reach.
                          •  ad hominem derail (3+ / 0-)
                            Regarding the 3 to 5 percent needed for a movement...

                            I do find it amazing that the things that actual studies and research show to be effective are the very things a handful of people here in this thread are trying to discourage the most (with several posts each).

                            What, specifically, are those "things," and how is a handful of people trying to discourage them? You have described your discussion of the citizens' grand jury as the "central call to action" of the diary; are you now asserting that "actual studies and research" support that proposal? If so, how?

                            Are you asserting that Chenoweth and Stepan support your point about 3-5%? If so, can you support that assertion?

                            Can you support the assertion that Lichbach said what he here is purported to have said? Do you think that "X says that Y says that Z" is a strong argument for Z?

                            The deflections from substance are hard to overlook.

                            "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                            by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:35:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Final point... Would you not agree that there (0+ / 0-)

                            seems to be a pattern where if I engage with a handful of users (I estimate 5 to 6 in each diary), that the debate seems to go into some sort of circular argument that goes on forever?

                            Let's set aside the issue of who is to blame for that.  I'm not going to argue that it is the fault of the tiny group of users who post several dozens messages each in all my diaries consistently, or whether it is my fault.

                            Let's just focus on the circular argument trend.

                            So what I'm going to do, in order to avoid these endless circular argument debates is not to engage this tiny group of persistent users, ever (if I can help it, of course).

                            That way I won't contribute to the derailment of the diaries.

                            Anyways, this diary is old news by now.  On to the next one...

                          •  failure to engage noted (4+ / 0-)

                            If people ask questions, and you refuse to answer them, and people repeat the questions, and you still refuse to answer them, that isn't a "circular argument." It isn't even an argument. (A circular argument is one in which the conclusion simply restates a premise.)

                            Certainly there is a pattern of your making unsupported allegations about, in this case, "a tiny group of users who post several dozens messages each in all my diaries consistently." We can add that to the pile of your unsupported assertions, except that it is more easily fact-checked. Arguably you "consistently" post several dozen messages each in all your diaries; arguably not. Nobody else does.

                            I accept your concession of the points I've raised in this thread. I won't mind if you ignore my posts, since you rarely seem to have a substantive response anyway, and the non-substantive responses are getting pretty tedious.

                            "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                            by HudsonValleyMark on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:11:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ray, its more than a tiny group (3+ / 0-)

                            For instance, in your September 2013 diary on the Rec Police, over 50 folks commented critically.  The common theme was they agreed with a lot of what you diaried, but the vitriol in your responses to comments was driving folks away.

                            “The answer must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense them. The least we can do is try to be there.” ― Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

                            by 6412093 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:14:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As an aside, note that 50 is 10 more than 40 (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            6412093, serendipityisabitch

                            which is the number of tweet followers that "Ray" claims proves that his "Open Letter" diary was "well received by members of the movement."

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:26:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Agreed, let them know if they won't hold people (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador

                            accountable, WE CAN.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:51:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, you are, indeed, the one who's wrong... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador

                      My words, blockquoted by you, came from a comment of mine made reply to this comment:

                      that's fine

                      but Ray is pushing for a revolt and a citizen grand jury. After the bankers go in front of the jury and are dealt with who's next? and how soon do we turn on each other with citizen indictments?

                      by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:35:52 PM PST

                      Consider reading the subthread more closely next time.




                      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

                      by DeadHead on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 07:14:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stellaluna, Hey338Too

            And this is exactly what happened in France in the 1790s. Girondins vs Jacobins, both proponents of the Revolution. But, one group wasn't far left enough and they were subjected to people's juries; the Reign of Terror. Over 16,000 sent to the guillotine.

          •  The fact that we have this on the table tells me (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            our system is beyond repair.

            Either We The People do our duty or we lose what little we have left.

            The "citizen indictments" occur everyday.  I can sue you for whatever wrong I believe you did to me.

            You have no faith in your fellow Americans, I do.

            We could strip the sycophants that infiltrated our government of their "immunity". And then hold the DOJ accountable for failure to prosecute.

            You fail to do your job, be prosecuted, once convicted, pay us back any and all wages and benefits and never be allowed to work in government or for companies that's primary business is with said.

            Citizen Review Panels with the power to indict...sounds like change I could believe in.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 08:47:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The people in this country- (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador, gerrilea

              demanded child labor legislation---and got it----demanded civil rights legislation--and got it--shut down a war in Southeast Asia---and got it---forced a president to resign--and got it.....

              We've forgotten how to accomplish social and political goals in this country.

              And we do NOT accomplish by being violent---we do not accomplish by engaging in fistfights---we accomplish by doing--by pushing---by putting our collective shoulder to the wheel.

              We have forgotten how to do this in this country.

              "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

              by lyvwyr101 on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:35:45 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed, I just saw where the French took the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lyvwyr101, Ray Pensador

                Managers of Goodyear hostage...

                http://www.businessweek.com/...

                French unions have taken executives hostage in the past to force negotiations. In 2009, bosses at French units of Caterpillar Inc., 3M Co. and Sony Corp. were among executives held hostage by workers unhappy with job cuts and severance pay.
                I wonder if this is why Bremer outlawed Unions in Iraq.

                They fear the people everywhere but here!

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:27:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  That wasn't majority rule (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, poligirl

        That was the United States Republic, with minority rule that allowed this.

        In other words, that was allowed by the very system you support.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:43:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        serendipityisabitch, Hey338Too

        Reign of Terror, 1790's, France

        Leftist Authoritarianism on steroids, over 30,000 people convicted by "people's juries", without trial or evidence.

    •  I guess... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbou, poligirl, happymisanthropy, gerrilea

      I can put you down as a 'No' then.

      :)




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

      by DeadHead on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:13:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So many flaws in this (6+ / 0-)

      We now have our fate in the hands of a minority of wealthy elites, who have become our masters.

      So, introducing more democracy would help to break up the oligarchy.

      In fact, the people who historically raised this issue of tyranny of the majority are wealthy people who wanted (and still want) to protect a rich minority from the poor majority, because they feared poor people would want a more economically fair and egalitarian social organization.

      So, people who raise this argument, if not rich themselves, are buying into the memes of the rich 1%.

      Not that tyranny of the majority isn't a concern. With participatory direct democracy, with a bottom up organization, decisions are put in the hands of the people they most effect, rather than in a central, insular authority that is distant to the people they govern. People thus get to decide what shape their own lives would have, rather than a central, remote, upper echelon of out-of-touch wealthy class.

      With direct democracy, on local levels, majority rule is much harder, since people can more easily revisit decisions and change them, and people will be in constant discussion about how to accomplish tasks, rather than have solutions written into immutable, rather permanent decrees. Local communities can make agreements, and if these agreements don't work, they can be changed, thus giving much more power to minorities to continue to debate and make their case.

      Any kind of democracy has to guard against tyranny of the majority, but the alternative, having no democracy, or very little democracy, with the inevitable rule by the wealthy class, isn't the way to prevent this. Direct, local participatory communities which federate is a far better answer.

      For a more complete discussion, see this page:

      http://www.infoshop.org/...

      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

      by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:37:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy

        Just from my interactions with people on a local level I don't have much faith in the majority coming up with viable rules and regulations to govern society. I mean we put things like school budget increases up against raising taxes to fund the budget on the ballot, and in town after town we see the majority shooting down small tax increases that would help improve education, and then these same idiots are on Facebook bitching about how stupid kids are today.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:47:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's partly because... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ray Pensador, gerrilea

          Members of society are shaped by the capitalistic manipulations of attitude.

          This gets into a complicated, deeper discussion of how systems shape the behavior of people.

          If people self-managed using small groups, where each group was deciding issues that directly affected them, experiencing a more immediate feedback of results they could visibly see for themselves, behavior would change, because success and failure would be at their own doorstep, rather than on some detached, distant "government".  

          Party politics exist in part due to the way it all becomes abstract to people who aren't directly involved, and also due to campaigning, campaign finance which promotes lying, and many other similar factors. Eliminate campaigns altogether (there is a way to do this and still have direct democracy) and the whole party abstraction falls apart. Put people directly in charge (by free association), and suddenly it becomes more about solving practical everyday problems rather than loyalty to party ideology.

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:13:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you can't do that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            Our country was literally founded by the anti-tax crowd and you want to tell me that it's the capitalist system that creates these people that vote against educating kids? We can have a very very very long discussion about nature vs nurture and if people are just one way or the other and it doesn't matter if you get the "truth" out there some people are just going to think what they think.

            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

            by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:56:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you seriously trying to misrepresent the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ray Pensador

              reasons we went to war with the British monarchy?

              Here's a refresher:

              The Declaration of Independence

              He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
              He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
              He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
              He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
              He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
              He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
              He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
              He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
              He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
              He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
              He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
              He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
              He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
              For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
              For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
              For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
              For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
              For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
              For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
              For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
              For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
              For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
              He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
              He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
              He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
              He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
              He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
              It clearly wasn't about taxes!!

              What was the final straw???

              When the British tried to disarm us!

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:03:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The declaration of independence (0+ / 0-)

                Is a sweet piece of propaganda but as we know the independence didn't apply to anyone but white guys who owned land and people.

                I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:32:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You could have fooled me. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Ray Pensador

                  Today, I'm wholly owned by our creation and the corporations that run it.

                  Conditioned from birth to grave to serve their needs and desires and be forever in perpetual poverty.

                  I'm brainwashed into becoming "the worker of tomorrow" so that I can pay more taxes than they do.  Deluded into believing I'm actually free. While millions of my fellow minorities are jailed and manipulated into being slave laborers for corporate Amerika.

                  The jails are still full, the cops are still racist, the courts are still an instrument of class rule, the wars are still endless. But Peoples Power is still decisive and we will celebrate every step forward. On to a New Year of struggle and resistance. Free ALL Political Prisoners!!

                  Message from Ralph & Lynne: Release of LYNNE STEWART!
                    (Jan 5, 2014 10:22 AM)

                  How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful with Glenn Greenwald (Conversations with History)
                  Greenwald traces his intellectual odyssey; analyzes the relationship between principle, power, and law; and describes the erosion of the rule of law in the United States. Highlighting the degree to which the legal system frees the powerful from accountability while harshly treating the powerless.
                  WE CAN DO BETTER.

                  And when someone actually makes a legitimate suggestion, as Ray has done here, you'd rather attack him and bring up ghosts from Christmas Past.

                  Citizen Grand Juries are one of many things we can do.

                  I've called for Citizen Panels to review and indict if necessary, the crimes of our Police.  They can no longer be trusted with "self-investigation".

                  Neither can our government be trusted with this authority any longer.

                  We've become their servants.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:28:07 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you're making my point (0+ / 0-)

                    The United States was founded by rich white guys and it is still being run, for the most part, by rich white guys. The revolution didn't matter to most people, because most of the people didn't matter and they still don't. We are all just numbers on sheet and somewhere there's a guy claiming he can make those numbers buy what he is selling be it an app, or a political issue.

                    Now do I have a deal for you...

                    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                    by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:41:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So, do we actually take control in a constructive (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Ray Pensador

                      way as Ray has suggested or do we just wallow in self pity?

                      Our Democrats are no better than Republicans when it comes to many issues, such as holding the criminals accountable.

                      If they won't who will?

                      “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

                      ~Fredrick Douglass

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:21:52 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  power fears violence (0+ / 0-)

                        the rest of the time power just rolls along like water over rocks. How'd humans bend water to their will? Through force. One example. The revolution that happened in Russia helped us here in the US more than it ever helped the people of Russia. Why? Because the fear the elites felt from what was happening in Russia helped the people in this country get things like Social Security.

                        Non violent revolution is a fairy tale. If you want a revolution you need the threat of violence.

                        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                        by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:39:40 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I really don't want revolution, violent or (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Ray Pensador

                          otherwise.  

                          The restoration of the Constitution and true "rule of law" would do just fine for me.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:56:17 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  fine (0+ / 0-)

                            then back folks are now back to being 3/5's a person.

                            There is no true rule of law. laws have evolved over time and it's silly to think there's one true law or way of thinking about things.

                             Like I said how about we do one thing that makes a ding in the armor of Wall Street. Lets use our collective power and resources to get congress and the President to raise taxes on capital gains.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:10:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And what stops the wealthy class (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, gerrilea

                            from undoing this, even if it could be achieved? Consider what has happened to other attempts at regulation and reforms, and how we advance slightly forward, in one achievement, only to lose ground in another, all due to the grip the wealthy class have built into the electoral structure. Look at all forms of so-called representative democracy and you will see a gradual shift of power over time to the wealthy class.

                            Reforms like this just tie up energy, money, and time of the working class, which was the whole idea of the electoral process, to put a damper on democracy, to slow it down to a crawl, so as to conserve the status quo of the rich.

                            They make you think you're just about to win, only to take it all away from you in the next cycle. Its a charade. And success becomes measured by tiny achievements here, with a loss of progress there, distracting us and locking up our focus into a perpetual battle that never ends.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:13:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm a cynic... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            serendipityisabitch

                            so you're just feeding me my life blood with comments like this. There's no hope for change if we can't make the small steps stick. I love it. Feed me more.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:30:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't care if you feed off this (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, gerrilea

                            jbou, that's your choice. But you're not looking at the pattern.

                            There's no hope for change if we can't make the small steps stick.
                            The irony is that this statement you've made is correct, if you mean we can't make larger changes by working within a system designed to thwart the influence of the working class to the benefit of the small minority of wealthy owning class.

                            We need to stop defending this system which works against our own interests. Defending the status quo is much like the working class conservatives who support an ideology which enslaves them.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:35:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the devil I know is better than... (0+ / 0-)

                            the devil I don't. Problem with you is you think you can replace the devil with a collective group of Angels that all work together to achieve harmony.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:39:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, that's a strawman (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            What I want to do is remove the opportunity for authority so that the minority of sociopathic power seekers, who inevitably arrange for themselves to be at the helm, simply can't get their paws on it. To do this the helm must become the province of the people. This system we have was designed to preserve that power structure, and thus it is hopelessly flawed in its present form. In our system, the person at the helm controls the authority that keeps him or her in the position of authority, thereby insuring the continuation of this horror. The constitutional provisions make it virtually impossible to change the basic exploitative mechanisms. What idiot designed this insane approach? No idiot at all, but rather a very clever owning class.

                            You're basically telling me you're afraid of change, that the unknown keeps you bound to a corrupt system.

                            I don't always answer people for their benefit, but rather because the discussion is revealing to other readers. I figure there are people who can learn from the debates of the community. While I can't keep answering forever, these answers are illustrative of the status quo supporting attitudes which are prevalent, and how these attitudes stand in the way of moving forward.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:48:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't even know what... (0+ / 0-)

                            most of that means and I don't say that to be dismissive. If you want to endorse wholesale change then you have to take into account what we know about humans but you dismiss what we know about humans because these humans have been in a system that has corrupted them. So now we have a chicken or the egg situation. Are humans greedy and tribal by nature or has society created the greed and tribalism?

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:08:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, gerrilea

                            There are a lot of works one can read that delve into your question of human nature. The history is that certain right wing writers have distorted Darwin's research to make us into individuals who struggle in mutual competition, as if without the ability to sociably organize into reciprocal, mutually cooperative societies.  Kropotkin, who was a biologist and a geologist, wrote a book about the dispute over evolution, which is worth reading, called Mutual Aid.

                            But look at the logic: If we are a species that is out to self-destruct due to greed and selfishness, it is all the more imperative we learn a different way.

                            But there is a lot of evidence this isn't what we are. We have developed survival traits of working together to more efficiently use our energy to survive. Egalitarian tribes have been found to live together in reciprocal relationships based on equality. Many animals exhibit such traits. Humans have these traits as shown through countless voluntary associations that help humanity, such as aid organizations, and other similar groups. Humans constantly are coming together without coercion in a vast number of existing organization to help each other survive, or to accomplish some common interest of goal. This is obviously a human trait.

                            But capitalism teaches us to be economic adversaries, literally pitting neighbor against neighbor, employee against employee, business against business, father against son, mothers against daughters. The history goes back to monarchism, feudalism, and beyond, to slave/master relationships, and we have been replacing systems based on one form of unequal relationship with another, rather than move to a more socially just way of living. No one argues for those older forms, but is capitalism really so much of an improvement? We still have master/slave relationships, and feudal lords in the form of bosses, the owning class, the wealthy class which dominates our electoral system. Hillary is now worth some 50 million dollars. This is the nature of our system, and it doesn't embody all that is the evolution of the human species. Certainly we struggle as individuals, and as tribes, but we have an ability as well to mutually reciprocate and cooperate.

                            We're capable of more. But I'd urge you to read up on this, because it is beyond the scope of this blog site.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:49:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  this is like a religion for you (0+ / 0-)

                            Humans have been greedy, selfish and tribal before capitalism. Not everyone is going to agree with you no matter how hard you try and in your new society those folks are going to exist. How do you deal with them?

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:08:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not religion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Science... Do some reading.

                            Even Darwin doesn't support your view. Actually, the view that humans are exclusively greedy, or that greed is the predominate, primary trait, is the religion of Ayn Rand and the right wing. It is not supported by science. We are more complex animals than that, and have complex traits.

                            The whole premise of the left is that people can work together in mutual cooperation, leaning to various degrees in this direction, from mixed capitalism with some socialization, to more socialist forms of organization. It is Ayn Rand, Adam Smith, and capitalist theory that spread this religion you follow.

                            The only people I would expect to not prefer this egalitarian form of society (especially once they experienced it) are people who want to exploit others through acquisition of a monopoly over the means of production. In this form of society, wage slavery would not be allowed, since master/slave relationships would be abolished. But if people wanted to not participate, and wanted to work alone or with family, without renting other humans' labor, that would likely be permitted. But if they didn't want to contribute to the collectives, they would have to pay for services which would otherwise be free to others. They would also be free to go to another community that organized differently, according to their preference. But they would not have a right to force exploitation on others. That is seen, in anarchist thought, as a form of violence, and it would be defended against.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:35:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  science? (0+ / 0-)

                            what has science seen from humans that someone who looks back over time and sees greed for as far as the eye can't see?

                             Rome, Greece, Egypt, and all over Europe and Asia greed ruled the day no matter what year it was. We live in a society now that gets along for the most part, but that doesn't mean greed isn't a big issue. and I'm not saying that humans are just greedy, I understand they are complex and most folks have differing scales of the traits that make up being human, but the patterns do tend to make themselves known and greed is a pattern we have seen consistently throughout history.

                            And your new society is going to be easy pickings for sociopaths of the world. Better find a way to deal with bad people who will just stick a gun in your face and take what they want. I know, I know, in your new world there are no guns, but I don't know how there's going to be no guns. Or in your new world the sociopaths are going to see just how groovy it is and not want to ruin things?

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:48:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're perceiving history as written by elites (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Even amidst the worst form of authoritarian control, there are countless everyday acts of reciprocity, empathy and kindness between neighbors, even strangers. History books don't record this, since they tend to string together events from dot to dot, leaving out everything in between. Thus, war and discord is much more discussed, the peaceful periods not leaving much to write about.  

                            As to guns, and weaponry, you're once again making assumptions and erecting strawman. Anarchists believe in self defense. Even Gandhi, heavily influenced by Tolstoy (an anarcho-pacifist) and Thoreau (an individualist anarchist) refused to condemn people who committed acts of violence for the sake of the revolt, even though he didn't support their acts.

                            Anarchists would have militias, and each community would likely have members of the militia, perhaps by rotation or some sort of way of regulating this. They would likely have an armory. It would not be a national military, but probably would be federated in a network involving each community, using a system of direct democracy and bottom up organization, directly answerable to each community, rather than under central control. Spain had a similar system, and they kicked ass against the fascists while the Republic sat on its hands without fighting back, in confusion and inaction, when their centrally controlled, undemocratic, top-down military command structure was taken over by General Franco, in the first days and weeks of the coup.

                            The anarchist federation of militias would not have a top-down central command structure. Sure, it would have delegates as "officers" but this would all be at the consent of the respective participatory communities, and all delegated officers in the militias would be subject to removal or recall immediately. Pretty hard for thugs to get control when you have an entire network of people who would not allow it to happen, since the army would be based on voluntary participation rather than coercion. And yes, this was proven to work in Spain, and also in other examples, such as with the anarchist Makhnovists in the Ukraine against the Bolsheviks who fought against them.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:35:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and where are we now? (0+ / 0-)

                            Capitalism has won and you're talking about nonsense that  lost to capitalism but you keep dreaming, the world needs dreamers.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:57:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, might makes right? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Capitalism may have "won" but this isn't over, and the history of two hundred-plus years is just the blink of an eye. The feudal system was in place for 700 years, and various monarchs and empires go back many thousands of years. Most of these are now behind us. Capitalism will one day collapse, and will be a thing of the past.

                            That is, if we manage to survive capitalism.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:18:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the one thing we all are is doomed (0+ / 0-)

                            So fighting the small battles that can help make things easier for the majority of people offers the best value to a human with limited time and resources.

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:28:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think fighting the reformist battles (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            insures our demise. It co-ops our attention, time, and money, while capitalism rages on and rapes the earth and uses the atmosphere as a sewer. But I understand your view.

                            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:36:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, we've rescinded the 13th & 14th Amendments? (0+ / 0-)

                            And calling for constitutional law is now akin to racism?

                            Disgusting "debate" tactic you're using.

                            Don't like what others recommend, you attempt to twist what was said into something else.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 05:28:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the true rule of law... (0+ / 0-)

                            needed to be amended?

                            I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                            by jbou on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:05:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Semantics. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ray Pensador, Kasoru

                            Those amendments are part of "the true rule of law".

                            Our creation must follow those rules, not make ones of their own that abrogates them.

                            Since I never suggested anything else, it gets us no where constructive when you claim otherwise.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:49:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  My friend had an idea, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, poligirl, TracieLynn

        I kinda find it an interesting one.
        Triple or more the size of the house of reps making politics more retail, and it passes constitutional muster.

        This space for lease

        by Drewid on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:48:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Fuck putting in the hands of our corrupted (10+ / 0-)

      politicians.  I'd rather have majority rule.  I have more faith in the people than the ruling class.

      "It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle then it is to be an honest politician."

      by BigAlinWashSt on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:14:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site