There is an Alternative to Capitalism | Page 6 | INFJ Forum

There is an Alternative to Capitalism

Advertising, propoganda and mind control is exactly what capitalism uses to convince people that they need things that they don't....it confuses wants with needs (see 'Affluenza' -Oliver for more on this perspective

And what convinces you to believe what you believe, to buy what you buy, etc?

I'm not willing to buy from them and don't. I buy from local growers but due to the monopoly of the corporations this is not economically viable for a lot of people

Capitalism isn't the same thing as monopoly.

A lot of peoples behaviour stems from their level of awareness and this can be suppressed by a missleading educational system and media which denies people healthy perceptions on things.

What is a 'healthy perception'?

Well lets talk about 'blame'......the corporate press will tell yuo that the people to blame are benfit cheats and immigrants.....but who are the biggest recipiants if taxpayer money? The bankers of course! They have received vast 'bank bailouts' which have driven the real economy into a depression

The cost of benefit cheats are a drop in the ocean and they are simply following the example set by the elites. Even the British politicians have been shown to be exploiting the expenses system and everyone knows that US politicians are bought and sold by lobbyists and special interest groups

So if you want to talk blame then get lets get things into perspective

This doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

I think a lot of the problem comes from the idea that we need constant 'growth'. Even if we all turn into obsessive recyclers and we make systems more efficient all that will happen is that we will consume ata greater rate. We really need to change the culture and what we prioritse.

Priorities are largely determined by corporations which despite large protests by the public (whether anti-war, anti-cuts or anti-corruption etc) basiclaly dictate policy and the direction of our economy

What is a 'large' protest? 10,000 people out of 300,000,000? This constitutes a majority?

There is still alot of ignorance about the impact of various things but as awareness has grown we have seen chnages in behaviour. For example boycotts of nestle, or dolphin unfriendly tuna or increases in recycling or people moving their money out of banks and putting them in credit unions but the agenda is largely dictated by the elites who create the consumer culture through the media

....so yes awareness needs to increase so that people can see the value of alternatives, trust that they will work and embrace them with a view to changing patterns

What if people actually ARE aware but you're just not aware of them being aware?

I haven't claimed these are 'undeniable truths'....once again you are trying to put words into my mouth instead of listening to what i am saying. These things aren't exact sciences and i am aware of the dangers of sweeping changes for example sweeping agricultural shifts by Stalin or Mao

What i am saying is that there are alternatives to the current systema nd that these can be phased in if people adopt them but in order to adopt them people must look outside the perception bubble created by a pervasive corporate media and that perhaps they must lose faith in that perception bubble by acknowledging how it is failing

Please read history to see how countless examples of popular dissent are violently suppressed by elites. I haven't used the word 'evil' that was you using that and trying to put it into my mouth

Of course there are alternatives, but unless they're better, then there's not much point in discussing them as if they're actually viable. Your whole schtick seems to be that capitalism produces mindless slaves being trampled by the domineering elites, which is about as black/white good/evil as it gets. But fair enough, you didn't actually use the word 'evil', you just created a portrait of it and called it capitalism.

Bare in mind that these people are the product of a cynical capitalist culture....there is a better world and a better life out there for people

How do you know?

I'm not talking about brainwashing, i'm talking about considering alternatives in the same way that you might pick up a different tool when doing a job because you know that the tool you have just picked up will be more effective than the last one

The grass is always greener.

Delegates can be voted in by consensus democracy who are instantly revocable if they do not carry out the mandate given to them by their group/community

These delegates in turn can vote regional delegates from their number to represent them at a higher level. Disputes are less likely to occur in a non profit orientated system.

I can't impose my view of exactly how disputes would be resolved as these matters would need to be decided by the community when the system arises

Delegates who obviously would never even dream of abusing their power, and are completely immune to corruption, and would never ever tell a lie.

And it doesn't have to be about 'profit'-- we're talking about the basics like building materials, repairs, food, etc. If you're talking about going back to some primitive form of trade, it just might be the case that someone won't have anything that anybody else wants. So what do you do then? Force other people to take it? Sounds wonderful. How are you going to make sure that whatever one of these pockets of civilization produces is going to be of value to the other pockets?

It sounds like you're arguing in favor of a system that will replace an overall decent standard of living with some sort of primitive third world one. If that's your ultimate goal, you might want to think about detonating a series of nuclear weapons across the United States… you'll definitely be able to achieve your goal.

The unanimty created by neoliberalism is created at the point of a gun.....its like in the godfather films: ''i made them an offer they couldn't refuse''

See 'confessions of an economic hitman' to see how the US coerces political opponents into doing what the US wants them to do

How is your system going to be any different from this?

No these are not 'communist' countries they are state capitalist, centrally controlled systems where the means of production are not controlled by the workers but rather by elites

Exactly.

Whats the rush? See the 'degrowth' movement for arguments against the obsession for 'growth'

Technology such as the internet allows us the perfect means to coordinate things

You can't physically move things over the Internet, and you also can't create demand that isn't there without resorting to the whole 'manufacturing consent' thing that you're so upset about.

I think its important that you recognise that all these ills are the product of capitalism....they're what we need to move away from

Yes, that great capitalist empire the USSR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
Well Muir, we're gonna have to just agree to disagree on this one. First off, I don't believe half of your causality connections... there is no way to empirically prove many of them. It's like listening to republicans tell democrats that it's their fault it's all this bad, and democrats saying back to republicans that if it wasn't for what they did, it would be that much worse. These sound plausable from both ends...but there's no way to directly link causality, so without reason, I (and MANY others) tend to ignore this stuff.

My view on that particular exchange is that it is a charade....its all theatre....its stage managed to make the people think that there is actually a democratic process at work where people have choices between principled parties

The reality is that it is the money men behind the politicians who dictate policy

And you know what? Your right... I DON'T care like you do. And I am more selfish than you, no doubt. I'm not an NF...though I love some of them dearly, and I think your way too in your head about this stuff.

I have had certain experinces that have shaped my views and i observe whats going on around me so its not 'in my head'

We're not going to agree any more on this than we already do...which is to some degree, but you want to associate an idology with evil.

I haven't used the word 'evil' that's you trying to put that word in my mouth....you used that word not me

Well, I think ideas are ideas, and how they are used determines good or evil.

Some things work really badly, some work ok and some work really well.....we are discussing alternatives as possibilities of things that might work better than the current system (that is currently causing massed unemployement and economic hardship that is only going to deepen)

Your gonna say that this is inherently evil, and i'm going to say it's not. You see exploitation, I see opportunity to better oneself. You see equal distribution, peace, and equality...

Why don't you listen to what i'm actually saying instead of trying to tell me what i'm going to say?

and I see something that only works if you exterminate the TJ's, and many of the TP's of the MBTI... in other words, I see elements that are diametrically opposed to some of the attributes that, for better or worse, define mankind as is.

I think you should let people speak for themselves instead of acting as a spokesman for all TJ's and TP's

You see it as selfish, I see it as natural. You see community, I see prison. You see greed, I see the ability to provide for who I want, as I want, as I see fit, to the degree I want. I see a thrilling challenge of strategy and tactics.... you see strategy and tactics having no place in our world.

No this isn't what i am saying, you are trying to tell me what i'm saying instead of listening to what is being said

You see "fundamental truths"... and quite frankly... I see "fundamental nonsense".

I think there are things we can all agree on. For example if i pick up a gun and walk upto you and force you at gunpoint to polish my shoes and then i keep you in a box, feed you bread and water and bring you out once a day to polish my shoes....i think that you might not like that too much and i think most people would perceive that as unpleasant behaviour.....so there we have an agreed 'truth' and on that agreement we can try and create a society where people are not coerced at gunpoint

So, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue obvoiusly. But, I do have news for you. I'm not alone. There are many like me, and we are not going away. And see, for your concepts that your presenting here to be successful, we'd all have to jump on board....or at least a good deal more than currently are. And if your not able to win hearts and minds...it ain't ever going to happen. Cuz so far... I'm only leaving this conversation with a more entrenched, adversarial view of some of the larger issues you've been discussing (the small stuff i think we generally agree...) but when it comes to vision, I don't think we could be any more different.

Yes but have you looked into the things i have recommneded for you to look at or are you projecting a dystopian view onto me in order to maintain your own current perceptions because that allows you to carry on in a comfortable bubble which does not take into account the welfare of others.....because that kind of bubble is going to popped as the economic situation worsens

When food becomes a certain percentage of earnings there is usually an uprising...which is probably why the US government has created 'food stamps'

And whereas before, I was happy to entertain what you and anyone else had to say about the evils of capitalism. But i'm not sold. In fact, I'm turned off.

Point is... if your vision is ever going to become a reality, your gonna need to find a way to communicate this so that I WANT to do it. Your morals and ethics are fine, but they arn't mine, and they aren't the neighbors, or the MAJORITY of the population. I'm not saying everyone wants to see their fellow man be crushed underfoot. We all want peace on earth and good will towards men... but we also want whats ours... and we want it in a way that we feel good about (the peace, and whats ours), and that's actually NOT universal, but unique to each person! your own quote for your signature is in part "only if he can use his freedom to create something meaninful is it relevant that he should be free". Well buddy, I DO feel that I HAVE done this in many ways to some extent... I've built a little engine around myself and my family that makes our lives better, and because what we do we are competitive at, it helps others use our services for a lower rate than many alternatives. I know the "flaws" here of course, but i prefer THOSE flaws, to the flaws I see in what you've presented. I've also been able to make a distinct difference in the lives of some extended family and close friends. I'm not bragging here, I'm just saying these are things that I am extremely proud of, because they improved those peoples lives in that way, and I made me feel wonderful to do that for them. As for my inner meaning... it would be something alone the lines of "being a catalyst for progress and improvement within myself, my family, and my community". You don't see it as progress I'm sure... but I DO... and since you need people to believe in what you say... the fact that I DON"T agree should be something you work very, very, very hard on considering how to change. I'm proud of the contribution i've made in the lives of those I care for and the ways i've made it. Good luck in convincing me that it's somehow inherently evil.

I haven't used the word 'evil' you have

I think that what you are describing here sounds like a comfortable buble that you've built around yourself....or an 'engine' as you've called it.

The problem with that is that it is not an island....it is part of the wider capitalist system. So what we get if we have a bunch of people building their own little engines is that many people are frozen out of the engines and the benefits of the engines and we see a gap open up between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'

This gap is sometimes bridged by violence when the engines are overthrown and stamped under the feet of the starving

Maybe this "liberal cause" is what moves you closer to your inner meaning, I don't know. But it has moved me further from it.

And if your gonna have any chance in making some of these changes a real, significant part of the world structure (more than it is now of course).... your gonna have to find a way to get people like me to LIKE what your saying. And beating folks over the head with your morals and ethics isn't gonna do it.

ANd if you fail to convince a critical mass of guys and gals like me... then I get the system and structure I currently work within and enjoy. And you don't get yours. Now that, right there is the absolute truth.

No the 'truth' as i see it is that we are in a transitional stage at the moment, where the system is changing into a more corporate dominated and centrally controlled system.

Businesses like yours might not be welcome in that kind of system

So its not simply a case of choosing change....change is a'comin! We can however try to steer that change towards something that benefits the many rather than the few which means considering alternatives

Welcome to "business 101 - sales". Because no body cares why you think it's good. we all only care about what's in it for us. And it's LITTLE things like this... this type of skillset, that I bet you find offensive for some reason... well... wow. you can inform me and others until the cows come home about all the ideas you have... but it still won't make those OUR ideas.

Well that's the point about what i'm saying.....the ideas will come from us and not from elites

I'm not sold. But I did get to work on my terms, as I wanted, today... but tomorrow is another day. Maybe if you figure out how to win hearts and minds of your audience, you'll get something closer to what you believe.

I just plant a seed. What the person does with it is up to them

What i will say though is that there is a change occuring right now and i would say that democracy is in a stated of 'emergency' at the moment. Of course the corporate media won't say that!

But i think now is the time to discuss alternatives because the elite are going to try and impose their alternative on us

Good talking to you though... at least we carried this out as far as I think is reasonable without losing the point. I think we can both pat ourselves on the back for that one...it's more than i've seen some do here. I personally think this all has a very long way to go, on all fronts other than your motivations... I like Apone's post #97... I think he, like myself, represents a good "sample" of how radically different our entire value system is than yours.... and he pokes some holes that although you may feel are not holes...like sure look like that to us. And remember, your opinion doesn't matter. Your already a card carrying memeber of the team. It's OUR opinions that will matter to your goals.

Bottom line, more evidence (EMPIRICAL... not , more empathy for your audience (as opposed to your cause), more tangible examples that bring things out of the abstract and into personal examples (first article link in this post was good for that), and less "conspiracy theory" talk man! i mean..really!!? If you must believe that stuff, do you have ANY idea how many others will NOT take you seriously? I don't care if God himself tattooed that malarky on your forehead... if you start getting all illuminati and "world consolidated powers", I really have absolutlely NOTHING to worry about! you sound a bit schizotypal to be honest. And no one wants buys what the crazy guy is selling...right?

Anyway, nuff said. I'm out of here. good luck to you and yours. I might drop in again, but i might not. I feel it may be time to find a different venue or outlet for my own thoughts... but it's been real anyway.

-E

Well if i'm 'schitzotypal' then i'm a highly functioning schitzotypal! But thanks for the insult lol

Please look up the definition of the word 'conspiracy' to see that they actually occur all the time. One that is currently in the press is the conspiracy between the banks to rig the LIBOR rates....this isn;t 'theory' its 'fact'

I have provided historical examples, i have provided sources for you to look into, i have used keywords that can act as a doorway to further exploration...there's not much more 'empiracal' things i can do

On the other hand you seem to be providing a lot of opinions but not much substance
 
Last edited:
And what convinces you to believe what you believe, to buy what you buy, etc?

I buy what i need

Capitalism isn't the same thing as monopoly.

Well think about what capitalism is. Its about accumlating capital. What inevitably happens is that those that become wealthy are then able to buy more things and influence the policy makers so it ends up with coercive monopolies or 'too big to fails' that hold people to ransom

Regulations were in place as well laws such a RICO to break up monopolies and to keep commercial banks and investment banks seperate (glass-steagal) but these have been repealled allowing corporate power to consolidate

What is a 'healthy perception'?

Do you remember the example i gave you of me walking upto you with a gun and blowing your head off with no provocation? An example of a healthy perspective would be that such an act is a bad thing to do

This doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Yes it does

You said that people should consider blaming themselves instead of rich people and politicians. I responded by saying that if we are going to play the blame game then it could be argued that the blame does lie with elites as their actions cause more harm than the actions of the people that their media blames for example 'benefit cheats' and 'immigrants'.

What is a 'large' protest? 10,000 people out of 300,000,000? This constitutes a majority?

The anti war marches saw millions in the street across the world

Then there are also all those who also disagree with certain things but are tied into their capitalist jobs and therefore can't protest by marching. There is clearly widespread dissatisfaction with the behaviour of the bankers hence the occupy movments across the world and the tea party movement and the anti-cut protests for example the industrial strike action in Britain that was the biggest in decades and saw millions striking

What if people actually ARE aware but you're just not aware of them being aware?

There's different levels of awareness and there is also a difference between knowing something and truely understanding something

Of course there are alternatives, but unless they're better, then there's not much point in discussing them as if they're actually viable. Your whole schtick seems to be that capitalism produces mindless slaves being trampled by the domineering elites, which is about as black/white good/evil as it gets. But fair enough, you didn't actually use the word 'evil', you just created a portrait of it and called it capitalism.

You used the term 'evil' not me, you have just repeatedly tried to associate it with my posts for some reason

What i am talking about is things that we all agree is unreasonable. Orwell discribed this as a sense of a jackboot on the neck of humanity

So we get back to the gun analogy. If i picked up a gun and forced you at gunpoint to lick my boots clean and i kept you in a box and brought you out once a day to lick my boots clean...i think that you might not like that? I also think that most people would agree that it is unreasonable behaviour......so there we are....we already have a good foundation for a society: it is unreasonable to force someone at gun point to do something that they don't want to do

How do you know?
Because i am living it and so are others

The grass is always greener.

No there is a difference between me forcing you to lick my boots at gun point and you agreeing to clean my boots in return for me washing your clothes

One would probably be seen by most as unreasonable and the other might be considered by many to be reasonable (as long as both parties were happy with the arrangement)

Delegates who obviously would never even dream of abusing their power, and are completely immune to corruption, and would never ever tell a lie.

That's why they must be 'instantly revocable' instead of the capitalist two party system that allows us a vote every 5 years for parties which clearly represent the interests of the bankers

And it doesn't have to be about 'profit'-- we're talking about the basics like building materials, repairs, food, etc. If you're talking about going back to some primitive form of trade, it just might be the case that someone won't have anything that anybody else wants. So what do you do then? Force other people to take it? Sounds wonderful. How are you going to make sure that whatever one of these pockets of civilization produces is going to be of value to the other pockets?

I'm talking about a gift economy not a barter economy

Communication is the key and this has never been easier than now with the internet

It sounds like you're arguing in favor of a system that will replace an overall decent standard of living with some sort of primitive third world one. If that's your ultimate goal, you might want to think about detonating a series of nuclear weapons across the United States… you'll definitely be able to achieve your goal.

I think that the US is sliding towards 'majority world' status. Standards of living vary widely and are likely to dip as unemployment increases and public services are cut. Keep your eye on the economic situation and you will see what i mean

How is your system going to be any different from this?

This is not my system. There is much debate over how things should best be done and that is a good thing. what's important is that there is room for discussion on how to improve things...but the corporatocracy do not want this and they will tell you that there system is the 'end of history' as if we can't progress from here!

This system would be different because it is non-coercive


Ok don't call them 'communist' then

You can't physically move things over the Internet, and you also can't create demand that isn't there without resorting to the whole 'manufacturing consent' thing that you're so upset about.

Why 'create demand'?

The focus would be on taking care of people's needs not on creating wants and then supplying those wants

Things can be physically moved using technology.

Yes, that great capitalist empire the USSR.
It was a centrally controlled market economy. The workers did not control the means of production therefore it was a state capitalist economy

Do you remember how your president told you that Iraq was involved in 9/11? well he was lying wasn't he? The elites have also lied about the nature of 'socialism' as well as many other things

Have a look at various CIA operations for example Operation MKUltra and COINTELPRO to get an idea of the lengths that the elites will go to
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Apone
I like some of your ideas and if they would actually work, then that would be nice… but I don't understand how a community with nothing to offer could ever hope to survive in your society.

My point about Soviet communism not being true communism is that it doesn't matter what your intentions are or what you 'call' something when it's almost inevitable that it will become something more oppressive than what we already have, especially if it involves great ideas-- look at what happened to Trotsky. The real issue isn't with any kind of ism, it's with the corruptive nature of power… but power is also a necessity when trying to organize a productive and mutually beneficial society.

A group of scattered tribes might have a difficult time of co-ordinating themselves in order to cater to the wants and needs of an entire nation… especially when you factor in the kind of racial/economic/political divisions that are already extremely pronounced within the US (North/South/black/hispanic/white/left/right/etc), Canada (left/right/Quebec), New Zealand (Pakeha/Maori/others I don't know), etc. How stable do you think such a society would be if they were all suddenly isolated from each other? Prisons are made up of isolated gangs with their own 'specialties'.

And if you're suggesting that we simplify everything and reduce everything to needs-only, then you're going to be meeting up with a lot of opposition, and a lot of potential black markets-- like thousands… and like the USSR, the mafia could easily become more powerful than any of your decentralized governments, or even all of them put together. In fact, it's the kind of thing that could easily lead to an armed uprising/guerrillas/counter-revolution… spearheaded by a charismatic despot with mafia ties and free assault rifles for everyone. Without a centralized military, how are you going to deal with such a thing?

I didn't answer what I meant when I was talking about not believing in 'truth' before-- okay, yes, it would probably be wrong of you to shoot me in the head for no reason/keep me in a box (kinky!)… but at the same time there could easily be a missing piece to the story, such as I had done the same thing to someone you cared about, or maybe I was planning on blowing up a building with thousands of people in it and there was only one way to stop me. Do you see what I mean? Until you know all of the particulars (which is impossible, because none of us are 'there'), then you really have no business assuming the worst. You can leak scattered pieces of info without context and they can appear absolutely horrifying, but that's only because the context is missing.

It's not like the US is suddenly a 'new' place just because someone else is sitting in the White House… I can only imagine the endless amounts of shit to swim through-- probably things that go back decades. Terrorist organizations, good and bad intel, defections, betrayals, vendettas, crooked politicians setting up dodgy operations, the fallout of a number of bad calls… so yeah, I don't think it's some carefully laid out plan where every single step of it is perfectly leading towards a precise conclusion… I don't think anything is ever like that. It's probably more like a shitty mess that is impossible to clean up but people have to try to do it anyways.

So yeah, back to your metaphor-- even if you were killing me to prevent the deaths of thousands of people, you have to ask-- why did I want to blow up the building? Who was in the building? What were those people planning on doing? Am I just insane? Why did I kill your loved one? It's like the classic movie plot device-- start in the middle, grab people's attention, then fill in the details later… only some people 'forget' to fill in the details, and just have a lot of opening scenes that you're supposed to fill in for yourself. The motivations and such go unexplored/are assumed… connections are drawn through shady descriptions, scary connections and vilification… it's almost cartoonishly manipulative. Both sides do it… it's not like your side is 'immune' to propaganda.

So yeah, there is no 'truth'... not really. At least, not in the black and white sense that you seem to think there is truth. There are laws, though.

I don't see how capitalism is in any way similar to 'forcing someone to lick your boots at gunpoint'… there are still opportunities, still niches to fill… the problem is that people have grown complacent and are too dependent on the wrong people to just give them everything that they need. The west was built on entrepreneurs forging ahead with their own ideas. That's what makes civilizations great!

About the CEOs-- do they act in the best interest of their companies? Yes. Do they sometimes make unethical choices? Yes. Are they above the law? I think that in some cases they probably are… and this does have to change. If the US had a stronger/different leader, then that would have already happened. But you don't need to tear absolutely everything down-- because in most cases that will only make it worse, or at the very least create all kinds of new problems that you probably didn't anticipate.

I'm all for organically changing into a more progressive and all-inclusive society, but I definitely don't think that we're necessarily at a crisis point yet and I certainly don't think that a revolution is in order anywhere in the western world.
 
Last edited:
I like some of your ideas and if they would actually work, then that would be nice… but I don't understand how a community with nothing to offer could ever hope to survive in your society.

They have worked and continue to work in some parts of the world

The problem is that when ever there is a grass roots movement by the people to take control of their own communities they come under attack from the authorities so many movements are snuffed out before they even get off the ground

My point about Soviet communism not being true communism is that it doesn't matter what your intentions are or what you 'call' something when it's almost inevitable that it will become something more oppressive than what we already have, especially if it involves great ideas-- look at what happened to Trotsky. The real issue isn't with any kind of ism, it's with the corruptive nature of power… but power is also a necessity when trying to organize a productive and mutually beneficial society.

I think the problem is with centralised power. Power from the people is not a problem, it is when a small elite seek to control the people that it becomes oppressive

So the USSR did not achieve a state of communism because an elite took control and it centralised its power leading to corruption and exploitation

So at the moment in the US and UK what we are seeing is corporate power (including the bankers and global investors) basically taking over government by funding politicians, lobbying them and then giving them jobs in their corporations when the politicians leave politics

So we are seeing libertarians on the right like Ron Paul saying that the bankers have usurped power and that government is becoming domineering and you have libertarians on the left like Chomsky saying the same thing because both sides are wary of government.

A group of scattered tribes might have a difficult time of co-ordinating themselves in order to cater to the wants and needs of an entire nation… especially when you factor in the kind of racial/economic/political divisions that are already extremely pronounced within the US (North/South/black/hispanic/white/left/right/etc), Canada (left/right/Quebec), New Zealand (Pakeha/Maori/others I don't know), etc. How stable do you think such a society would be if they were all suddenly isolated from each other? Prisons are made up of isolated gangs with their own 'specialties'.

Capitalism creates that hostile divided culture which is why we need changes to the media, to culture and to education so that people are not brought up hating the 'other' but instead think in terms of humanity

And if you're suggesting that we simplify everything and reduce everything to needs-only, then you're going to be meeting up with a lot of opposition, and a lot of potential black markets-- like thousands… and like the USSR, the mafia could easily become more powerful than any of your decentralized governments, or even all of them put together. In fact, it's the kind of thing that could easily lead to an armed uprising/guerrillas/counter-revolution… spearheaded by a charismatic despot with mafia ties and free assault rifles for everyone. Without a centralized military, how are you going to deal with such a thing?

That would depend on the situation and would need to be decided by the community. Sorry if that is a bit vague but if i answered this then i would only be saying what i would suggest in a peoples assembly but that might not be what is ultimately decided by consensus democracy so it's a pointless exercise

You could as an exercise think up your own suggestions to put forward in a peoples assembly for example if your community was imminantly being threatened with violence you could deny the attackers resources ('scorched earth') or you could raise a militia?

I didn't answer what I meant when I was talking about not believing in 'truth' before-- okay, yes, it would probably be wrong of you to shoot me in the head for no reason/keep me in a box (kinky!)…

lol

It was an extreme example designed to make a strong point; you could see that as a commentary on the capitalist system. For example you could interprete the 'box' as a capitalist workplace and you could interpret the gun as the economic pressures that capitalism puts on people.....although capitalism often does actually coerce people at gunpoint

but at the same time there could easily be a missing piece to the story, such as I had done the same thing to someone you cared about, or maybe I was planning on blowing up a building with thousands of people in it and there was only one way to stop me. Do you see what I mean? Until you know all of the particulars (which is impossible, because none of us are 'there'), then you really have no business assuming the worst. You can leak scattered pieces of info without context and they can appear absolutely horrifying, but that's only because the context is missing.

I'm not sure exactly what example you are referring to here?

It's not like the US is suddenly a 'new' place just because someone else is sitting in the White House… I can only imagine the endless amounts of shit to swim through-- probably things that go back decades. Terrorist organizations, good and bad intel, defections, betrayals, vendettas, crooked politicians setting up dodgy operations, the fallout of a number of bad calls… so yeah, I don't think it's some carefully laid out plan where every single step of it is perfectly leading towards a precise conclusion… I don't think anything is ever like that. It's probably more like a shitty mess that is impossible to clean up but people have to try to do it anyways.

Ok think about it like this:

We have politicians who come into 'power' for a while then they go....yes? They come and they go and they're never there for long.....they're like bit part actors in the great drama!

So what is always there? Well certain institutions are always there. These institutions are often inititially set up with a purpose in mind and they often maintain a culture within them and they exercise power in various ways

So you might hear me mentioning certain organisations a lot for example: the CIA, the Vatican, the city of london (banking district), wall street, the council on foreign relations, chatham house, the trilateral commission, the bilderburg club, bohemian grove, skull and bones club etc

These groups are always there regardless of which politcians are passing through the rotating doors of the white house. As people come and go in politicis people stay in these organisations for long periods of time influencing whatever politicians come into 'power'....for example Kissinger....that guys been around for decades telling politicians what to do and how to think

The public however often don't look past the surface. They get distracted by the coporate media that creates a circus around politics....they say 'this politician is doing this and that one is doing that, and sometimes the media stories are actually about the personal lives of the politicians and not even about the ISSUES of the day!

Politics has been described as 'showbusiness for ugly people'. Think about hollywood. We all see the actors....we all know their faces, but who has the real power in hollywood? Not the actors, they are just hired and fired by the money men, by the producers and the studio heads.

Politicians are just the front men or as Marx said: ''the government are the committee of the bourgeousie''

That's all politicians are....representatives of powerful interests who are pushed forward into the limelight to distract the public from the real machinary of power. Politicians are just middle managament, they're a joke, with no real power who can be hired, fired, threatened, bribed or assassinated as it pleases the money men

So yeah, back to your metaphor-- even if you were killing me to prevent the deaths of thousands of people, you have to ask-- why did I want to blow up the building? Who was in the building? What were those people planning on doing? Am I just insane? Why did I kill your loved one? It's like the classic movie plot device-- start in the middle, grab people's attention, then fill in the details later… only some people 'forget' to fill in the details, and just have a lot of opening scenes that you're supposed to fill in for yourself. The motivations and such go unexplored/are assumed… connections are drawn through shady descriptions, scary connections and vilification… it's almost cartoonishly manipulative. Both sides do it… it's not like your side is 'immune' to propaganda.

I'm not sure i have a 'side'

What i am advocating is that people should get an opportunity to have a say in the running of the community. Well not everyone in that community is going to agree on everything or even with me.....that's ok.....i'm just saying we should get an opportunity to thrash stuff out and take a vote......but in our societies these powers are handed over to politicians who are basically the suited front men/women of corporate power

So yeah, there is no 'truth'... not really. At least, not in the black and white sense that you seem to think there is truth. There are laws, though.

You're dancing around this. I told you in the analogy....i had no provocation. I just pick up a gun and blow your head off.....or i coerce you to do something for me.....you are a total stranger

The 'truth' here is that we all know innately that such behaviour is wrong. We can all empathise with the oppressed person and realise that we would not want it done to ourselves so it really shouldn't be done to anyone else either......therefore we know the 'truth' of it

'Laws' in a capitalist society exist to protect private property. Because most the property is held by a few people, the laws exist, largely, to protect the interests of a few agianst the many

That's why groups like the levellers and diggers started digging up land they thought should be held by all in the common good and planted them with crops to feed the community. the injustice comes when a private land owner may get the government to crush those people and then leave the land unused or he might use the land to play bowls on whilst the community die of famine....now that's the insanity of capitalism and that is essentially what is going on all around the world right now in a multitude of different ways

I don't see how capitalism is in any way similar to 'forcing someone to lick your boots at gunpoint'… there are still opportunities, still niches to fill… the problem is that people have grown complacent and are too dependent on the wrong people to just give them everything that they need. The west was built on entrepreneurs forging ahead with their own ideas. That's what makes civilizations great!

No the west was built by imperial armies who enslaved vast numbers of people, murdered vast numbers of people, raped vast numbers of people and caused further deaths through famine (from overtaxation or taking crops that couldn't be spared) or through disease (the settlers in the americas gave the natives blankets infected with small pox)

The US was settled by pioneers seeking to escape the authoritarian governments of Europe. The British government tried to overtax the colonys in order to pay back the bankers who had given the government loans to fight imperial wars, so the colonists threw the british out and wrote a constitution designed to protect them from predatory central banks. unfortunately overtime the European bankers colonized american business and banking through their agents.

They also murdered or tried to murder any presidents who tried to lessen the power of bankers for example Abraham Lincoln who created a government currency (the 'greenback') which was interest free. (any money printed by the privately owned central banks comes with interest attached!)

Powerful dynasties grew up from oil, bootlegging, weapons manufacturing, railways etc, but the initial investment for these projects often came from powerful global bankers. Look at the recent film 'there will be blood'....this film is about how US dynasties were formed out of bloodshed, dishonesty and theivery

Now you can say that the west is 'great' but really what have we got to show for all this? The economy is shot, we've lost millions to wars, we have widespread poverty and malaise amongst the population....this is not an acheivement. We seem to hold certain things up as accomplishments for example in the UK the press is making a big deal about the new skyscraper that has been built in London called 'the shard' (its basically an elongated pyramid) which is now the tallest building in Europe.

That's the kind of thing capitalism thinks is a 'success'...making tall buildings that are basically giant corporate, phallic, cock extensions

To me what would be a mark of success for a society would be things like having a happy and healthy populace. If all the wealth was funnelled into creating a fairer society where everyones needs where taken care of i would call that a great legacy even if there weren't any giant buildings to show for it

About the CEOs-- do they act in the best interest of their companies? Yes. Do they sometimes make unethical choices? Yes. Are they above the law? I think that in some cases they probably are… and this does have to change. If the US had a stronger/different leader, then that would have already happened. But you don't need to tear absolutely everything down-- because in most cases that will only make it worse, or at the very least create all kinds of new problems that you probably didn't anticipate.

No the leader is not the issue...the leader is just a figure head. The real power is through various networks of people, families and organisations; presidents are nothing! If the military industrial complex don't like what a president is doing they can just put a bullet in his head....easy

The textbook idea of checks and balances between CEO's and shareholders is not giving the full story. The full story is that global investors who are often intermarried with each others families own many of the corporations and the CEO's do their bidding. If the corporation breaks the rules and it becomes public then the corporation will pay a corporate tax which will be a small amount and less than the company has made through its illegal dealings....that's not accountability

For example Barclays bank has been fined 200 million pounds for its part in the recent LIBOR rigging conspiracy but that's a tiny amount in the big picture and that money will probably just be deposited back into barclays.....but it looks to the public like something has been done...in effect its not even a slap on the wrist....its a joke

I'm all for organically changing into a more progressive and all-inclusive society, but I definitely don't think that we're necessarily at a crisis point yet and I certainly don't think that a revolution is in order anywhere in the western world.

We are at a crisis point. Unemployement is rampant, public services are being cut, homes repossessed and businesses closed. The economy is flatlining, we're in a deflationary spiral and the central bank/government nexus are pumping money into the system to try and keep it alive but this isn't going to work

Can you remember all the talk in the media about 'greenshoots' of hope appearing in the economy? Well i said at the time, on this forum that it was a load of BS and it has been proven to be a load of BS. We ain't gonna come out of this in a few years. Japan has been in a deflationary spiral for i think nearly two decades now.
 
Last edited:
Can co-operatives crowd out capitalism?

excerpt from New Internationalist article Can co-operatives crowd out capitalism?
In the eyes of the mainstream media and the high priests of the free market, Argentina just doesn’t get it. This past May, the country was savaged by the international business press for nationalizing the Spanish-owned oil company, YPF. Scarcely mentioned was the fact that Argentina’s oil and gas industry was only ‘privatized’ in the late-1990s under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other hardline enforcers of then fashionable neoliberal economic policies. Like many countries around the world, Argentina’s oil industry used to be state-owned.

Back in 2001, the knives were out again. After years of enforced austerity and ‘structural adjustment’ the resource-rich South American country was awash in debt, crippling inflation, staggering unemployment and negative economic growth. (Notice any parallels with present day Greece and Spain?) The IMF’s prescription for setting the economy right — ‘flexible’ labour conditions, deregulation, loosening of capital controls, privatization of state-owned assets, devaluation of the national currency — only made things worse.

With inflation raging and tens of thousands of workers on the streets, the government finally called it quits, defaulting on its debt and devaluing its currency. Predictably, the kingpins of global finance went ballistic, warning that Argentina would sink into penury and chaos.

It didn’t happen. Over the next decade the country’s GDP grew by nearly 90 per cent, the fastest in Latin America. Poverty fell and employment rose steadily while government spending on social services slowly increased.

Many factors contributed to this astounding turnaround, including the determination of Argentineans to strike an independent economic course not reliant on the whims of foreign capital.

But a significant part of its success is rooted in Argentina’s rich history of co-operatives. Waves of Jewish and Italian immigrants brought the co-operative vision with them during the early 20th century. Co-ops were well established, especially in agriculture, prior to the financial and political meltdown in 2001. According to the International Co-operative Association (ICA), nearly a quarter of the South American country’s 40 million people are linked directly or indirectly to co-operatives and mutual societies.

So when the national economy collapsed and the country’s business class started to bail out, abandoning factories and stripping assets, the workers had a better idea. They decided to form worker co-ops and run the factories themselves. The movement became known as las empresas recuperadas (recovered companies). You can see the background to the Argentine crisis and the story of one such takeover in Avi Lewis’ and Naomi Klein’s inspiring documentary, The Take.

It was by no means an easy road. One estimate put the number of factories around Buenos Aires abandoned by their owners at close to 4,000. Argentina was a country steeped in decades of corrupt, clientalist politics and ‘I’m-all-right-Jack’ trade unionism. Democratic ownership, the workers taking control, running their own factories as co-operatives, was a stretch. How to re-engineer a top-down system of traditional management where employees defer to authority in an adversarial workplace? The psychological shift alone was daunting. But desperate times can bolster resolve. Against all odds, including belligerent bosses, intransigent owners and reluctant bureaucrats, the idea took hold.

Today, there are more than 200 ‘recovered’ co-operative factories in Argentina — up from 161 companies in 2004 — providing jobs for more than 9,000 people. Most are smallish, which means the hands-on approach is a little easier to manage. Three-quarters of the firms employ fewer than 50 workers, though two per cent have more than 200 employees. They are scattered across a range of industries from shoes and textiles to meatpacking plants and transport firms.1

What began as a brave experiment after the economic collapse of 2001 has become a vibrant and stable part of the economy. According to University of Buenos Aires researcher Andrés Ruggeri: ‘The workers learned that running a company by themselves is a viable alternative. That was unthinkable before… These are workers who have got back on their feet on their own.’2

As in Argentina’s 2001 crisis, the co-operative spirit often emerges when times are toughest, in the midst of economic collapse and social disintegration, when people are searching for alternatives. A little history is instructive.

read the rest of this article- http://www.newint.org/features/2012/07/01/co-operatives-international-year/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lerxst
The two party system seems to be the one-two knock out punch used by the corporations to fool the public into thinking that they actually have some say in the decision making process. many of us are now dissolusioned with this system having seen this sham played out time and time again with each party always failing to live upto their promises

Both parties clearly create policies that indebt the public but benefit the corporations (who fund them) so isn't it time to look for alternatives?

One option is the pirate party. Pirate parties exist around the world with the aim of supporting:

civil rights, direct democracy and participation, reform of copyright and patent law, free sharing of knowledge (Open Content), data privacy, transparency, freedom of information, free education, universal healthcare and a clear separation between church and state.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] They advocate network neutrality and universal, unrestricted access to the Internet as indispensable conditions to some of this. (wikipedia)

See the following for more info:

http://pirate-party.us/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

Many pirate parties are affiliated to the Pirate Parties International (PPI). See here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Parties_International
 
Last edited:
The fiat currency system is clearly heading towards a precipice. The central banks are keeping zombie banks alive by printing more and more money, but how long can this go on for?

A new currency that is not susceptible to inflation is 'bitcoin'

More info here: http://bitcoin.org/

Here's a link to a paper by Frank Braun called 'Bitcoin in the Counter Economy': http://shadowlife.cc/files/btcotc.pdf
 
The corporate powers that are the shadow government behind the politicians we see on TV are trying to take control of the internet. the internet however is a fantastic resource for people that allows the sharing of ideas, connection between people around the world and the conducting of business between people

One counter measure to the increased surveillance of the internet is encryption for example through 'TOR' to ensure your annonymity

More info here: https://www.torproject.org/

If the corporate powers seek to limit the public's access to the internet because they control the servers then there are options to keep the internet up and running for example through meshnet: https://projectmeshnet.org/


 
Last edited:
The corporations have gained a monopoly over the mainstream media with just a handful of companies providing the mainstream news

One alternative is to seek independant sources of news for example the indymedia network: http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml

Groups like Wikileaks also provide perspectives that can't be found in the corporate media and protest groups like the occupy movement are linking up with groups around the world, see the following for more info:

Occupy wallstreet: http://occupywallst.org/tag/interoccupy/

InterOccupy: http://interoccupy.net/about/mission/

Take the square: http://takethesquare.net/

Peoples assemblies: http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/newswire/

Globalise Resistance: http://www.resist.org.uk/

People's Global Action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples'_Global_Action

There are also people power groups online offering opportunities to sign petitions, write to politicians and donate money for activist campaigns such as Avaaz and 38Degrees
 
Last edited:
The corporate elites and the politicians who represent them hold a yearly meeting called the World Economic Forum at Davos

As an alternative to this the public around the world have created the World Social Forum to discuss alternatives and solutions to current problems:

http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=19&cd_language=2

''The World Social Forum (WSF) is an annual meeting of civil society organizations, first held in
Brazil, which offers a self-conscious effort to develop an alternative future through the championing of counter-hegemonic globalization. Some[SUP][who?][/SUP] consider the World Social Forum to be a physical manifestation of global civil society, as it brings together non governmental organizations, advocacy campaigns as well as formal and informal social movements seeking international solidarity. The World Social Forum prefers to define itself as "an opened space – plural, diverse, non-governmental and non-partisan – that stimulates the decentralized debate, reflection, proposals building, experiences exchange and alliances among movements and organizations engaged in concrete actions towards a more solidarity, democratic and fair world....a permanent space and process to build alternatives to neoliberalism."[SUP][1][/SUP] It is held by members of the alter-globalization movement (also referred to as the global justice movement) who come together to coordinate global campaigns, share and refine organizing strategies, and inform each other about movements from around the world and their particular issues. The World Social Forum is explicit about not being a representative of all of those who attend and thus does not publish any formal statements on behalf of participants.[SUP][2][/SUP] It tends to meet in January at the same time as its "great capitalist rival", the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. This date is consciously picked to promote their alternative answers to world economic problems in opposition to the World Economic Forum.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_social_forum
 
Last edited:
If you are unhappy to learn that not only have we the taxpayer had to bailout the banks so that they can pay their creditors (the global investors) but that the banks have also been involved in money laundering for drug cartels and the finance of terrorism and crime as well as rigging LIBOR interests rates, not to mention the selling of toxic assets as triple A rated products then perhaps its time for us to take our money out of the banks and to put it elsewhere for example in community credit unions or other ethical banks


http://www.moveyourmoney.org.uk/

Credit Unions:
''A credit union is a member-owned financial cooperative, democratically controlled by its members, and operated for the purpose of promoting thrift, providing credit at competitive rates, and providing other financial services to its members.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]

Many credit unions also provide services intended to support community development[SUP][4][/SUP] or sustainable international development on a local level,[SUP][5][/SUP] and could be considered community development financial institutions.
Worldwide, credit union systems vary significantly in terms of total system assets and average institution asset size,[SUP][6][/SUP] ranging from volunteer operations with a handful of members to institutions with several billion dollars in assets and hundreds of thousands of members'' [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union


Action can actually be taken against the banks for example through Max Keisers 'buy silver campaign':
[/URL]
http://maxkeiser.com/2010/12/16/is-the-crash-jp-morgan-buy-silver-campaign-actually-working/
 
Last edited:
ATTAC: The Association for a Taxation of financial Transactions and for the Aid of Citizens is an ''international movement working towards social, environmental and democratic alternatives in the globalisation process''

ATTAC is committed to better controls of financial markets, closing down tax havens a more democratic Europe

http://www.attac.org/en

See also Tobin Tax: ''
A Tobin tax, suggested by Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin, was originally defined as a tax on all spot conversions of one currency into another. The tax is intended to put a penalty on short-term financial round-trip excursions into another currency.
Tobin suggested his currency transaction tax in 1972 in his Janeway Lectures at Princeton, shortly after the Bretton Woods system of monetary management ended in 1971.[SUP][1][/SUP] Prior to 1971, one of the chief features of the Bretton Woods system was an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value—plus or minus one percent—in terms of gold. Then, on August 15, 1971, United States President Richard Nixon announced that the United States dollar would no longer be convertible to gold, effectively ending the system. This action created the situation whereby the U.S. dollar became the sole backing of currencies and a reserve currency for the member states of the Bretton Woods system, leading the system to collapse in the face of increasing financial strain in that same year. In that context, Tobin suggested a new system for international currency stability, and proposed that such a system include an international charge on foreign-exchange transactions.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax
 
Last edited:
''Direct Action occurs when a group of people take an action which is intended to reveal an existing problem, highlight an alternative, or demonstrate a possible solution to a social issue. This can include nonviolent and less often violent activities which target persons, groups, or property deemed offensive to the direct action participants. Examples of direct action can include strikes, workplace occupations, sit-ins, tax resistance, graffiti, sabotage, hacktivism, property destruction, blockades, and other forms of community resistance. By contrast, electoral politics, diplomacy, negotiation, and arbitration are not usually described as direct action, as they are politically mediated. Non-violent actions are sometimes a form of civil disobedience, and may involve a degree of intentional law-breaking where persons place themselves in arrestable situations in order to make a political statement but other actions (such as strikes) may not violate criminal law. The aim is to either obstruct another political agent or political organization from performing some practice to which the activists object; or to solve perceived problems which traditional societal institutions (governments, powerful churches or establishment trade unions) are not addressing to the satisfaction of the direct action participants.

In general, direct action is often used by those seeking social change, and non violent direct action in particular has historically been a regular feature of the tactics employed by social change movements.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

Some example of direct action are:


Reclaim the streets is a collective with a shared ideal of community ownership of public spaces. Participants characterize the collective as a resistance movement opposed to the dominance of corporate forces in globalization, and to the car as the dominant mode of transport. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_Streets)

http://rts.gn.apc.org/

Centri Sociali are ''self-managed social centers appeared all over Italy during the mid 1980s, as a result of the recession and resignation of 1970s left-wing militant students and youth that were dissatisfied with authority.

Young adults with no money, place to meet, or fondness of authority squatted abandoned buildings, renovated them, and turned them into social youth centers. These self-organized groups began to find new purpose in the centers, as if they were operational factories, schools, prisons, gas stations, or stores that they once were before abandonment. These refurbished buildings became semi-legal, unconventional, independently run activity centers.
The social centers were often located in the outer suburbs of larger cities and were run cooperatively by several groups that used the facilities as underground drop-in centers, youth clubs, drug rehabilitation sites, recording studios, cinemas, art galleries, and eventually even computer venues that specialized in computer hacking. As a retreat for disgruntled youth, the social center became a breeding ground for Italian political music. Today, they are considered the heart of Italian hip hop.'' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centri_sociali)

Community gardening
can also be a form of direct action taken to use land for the benefit of the community:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_gardening

Ya Basta and the Dissobbedienti:

The Ya Basta Association is a network of Italian anti-capitalist and pro-immigrants rights organizations and groups, fueled by the Italian social center movement, formed in 1994, and known for the "authorship" of the Tute Bianche, and later disobbedienti phenomena.
Formed as a result of the "eros effect" of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation uprising in Chiapas in 1994, the Ya Basta Association is sometimes confused with its corresponding tactical project, the Tute Bianche. However these two projects are distinct in that while the Ya Basta Association is an overarching project involving many facets, including the utilization of the "white overall" tactic, the Tute Bianche was a broader tactic involving, at the time of Genoa 2001, many participants unconnected with the Italian Association.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya_Basta_Association

Tute Bianche was a militant Italian social movement, active from 1994 to 2001. Activists covered their bodies with padding so as to resist the blows of police, to push through police lines, and to march together in large blocks for mutual protection during demonstrations.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tute_Bianche

''Landless Workers' Movement (Portuguese: Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, or simply MST) is a social movement in Brazil, being generally regarded as one of the greatest (or, according to some, the greatest[SUP][1][/SUP]) largest social movement in Latin America with an estimated informal 1.5 million membership[SUP][2][/SUP] in 23 out of Brazil's 26 states.[SUP][3][/SUP] According to the MST itself, its aims are: firstly , to fight for access to the land for poor workers in general,something to be carried out, secondly, through land reform in Brazil, and, thirdly, through activism around social issues impinging on the achievment of land possession, such as unequal income distribution, racism, gender issues, Media monopolies, etc.[SUP][4][/SUP]

In a shorter, alternative formulation, the MST strives at the achievment of a social covenant provinding a self-sustainable way of life for the poor living in rural areas.[SUP][5][/SUP]
Following in the tracks of various messianic or partisan-inspired movements for land reform in Brazil, the MST differs from its previous counterparts in its being mostly a single-issue movement, treating land reform as a self-justifying cause. It claims its effort at land occupations are legally justified and rooted in the most recent Constitution of Brazil (1988), by interpreting a passage which states that land property should fulfill a social function. It also claims, based on 1996 census statistics, that just 3% of the population owns two-thirds of all arable land in the country.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers%27_Movement

''The Chipko movement or Chipko Andolan is a movement that practised the
Gandhian methods of satyagraha and non-violent resistance, through the act of hugging trees to protect them from being felled. The modern Chipko movement started in the early 1970s in the Garhwal Himalayas of Uttarakhand,Then in Uttar Pradesh with growing awareness towards rapid deforestation. The landmark event in this struggle took place on March 26, 1974, when a group of peasant women in Reni village, Hemwalghati, in Chamoli district, Uttarakhand, India, acted to prevent the cutting of trees and reclaim their traditional forest rights that were threatened by the contractor system of the state Forest Department. Their actions inspired hundreds of such actions at the grassroots level throughout the region. By the 1980s the movement had spread throughout India and led to formulation of people-sensitive forest policies, which put a stop to the open felling of trees in regions as far reaching as Vindhyas and the Western Ghats.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipko_movement

''Squatting consists of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land and/or a building - usually residential -[SUP][1][/SUP] that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have lawful permission to use.
Author Robert Neuwirth suggests that there are one billion squatters globally, that is, about one in every seven people on the planet.[SUP][2][/SUP] Yet, according to Kesia Reeve, "squatting is largely absent from policy and academic debate and is rarely conceptualized, as a problem, as a symptom, or as a social or housing movement."[SUP][3][/SUP]
Some squatting movements are political, such as anarchist, autonomist, or socialist.'' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

''
Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a loosely associated hacktivist group. It originated in 2003 on the imageboard 4chan, representing the concept of many online and offline community users simultaneously existing as an anarchic, digitized global brain.[SUP][4][/SUP] It is also generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures, a way to refer to the actions of people in an environment where their actual identities are not known.[SUP][5][/SUP] It strongly opposes Internet censorship and surveillance, and has hacked various government websites. It has also targeted major security corporations.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Its members can be distinguished in public by the wearing of Guy Fawkes masks.
In its early form, the concept has been adopted by a decentralized online community acting anonymously in a coordinated manner, usually toward a loosely self-agreed goal, and primarily focused on entertainment. Beginning with 2008, the Anonymous collective has become increasingly associated with collaborative, international hacktivism. They undertook protests and other actions in retaliation against anti-digital piracy campaigns by motion picture and recording industry trade associations.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] Actions credited to "Anonymous" are undertaken by unidentified individuals who apply the Anonymous label to themselves as attribution.[SUP][11][/SUP] Some analysts have praised Anonymous as the freedom fighters of the internet,[SUP][12][/SUP] and a digital Robin Hood,[SUP][13][/SUP] although others have condemned them as "anarchic cyber-guerrillas".[SUP][14][/SUP]
Although not necessarily tied to a single online entity, many websites are strongly associated with Anonymous. This includes notable imageboards such as 4chan, their associated wikis, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a number of forums. After a series of controversial, widely publicized protests, distributed denial of service (DDoS) and website defacement attacks by Anonymous in 2008, incidents linked to its cadre members have increased.[SUP][15][/SUP] In consideration of its capabilities, Anonymous has been posited by CNN to be one of the three major successors to WikiLeaks.[SUP][16][/SUP] In 2012, American magazine Time named Anonymous as one of the most influential groups of people in the world.[SUP]'' [/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29


 
Last edited:
''Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world. By requiring companies to pay sustainable prices (which must never fall lower than the market price), Fairtrade addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers. It enables them to improve their position and have more control over their lives. ''

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/
 
Many of the following ideas are from 'The Dictionary of Alternatives' by Parker, Fournier & Reedy

Appropriate Technology

''Appropriate technology is an ideological movement (and its manifestations) originally articulated as "intermediate technology" by the economist Dr. Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher in his influential work, Small is Beautiful. Though the nuances of appropriate technology vary between fields and applications, it is generally recognized as encompassing technological choice and application that is small-scale, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally controlled.[SUP][1][/SUP] Both Schumacher and many modern-day proponents of appropriate technology also emphasize the technology as people-centered.[SUP][2][/SUP]

Appropriate technology is most commonly discussed in its relationship to economic development and as an alternative to transfers of capital-intensive technology from industrialized nations to developing countries.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] However, appropriate technology movements can be found in both developing and developed countries. In developed countries, the appropriate technology movement grew out of the energy crisis of the 1970s and focuses mainly on environmental and sustainability issues.[SUP][4][/SUP]
Appropriate technology has been used to address issues in a wide range of fields. Well-known examples of appropriate technology applications include: bike- and hand-powered water pumps (and other self-powered equipment), the universal nut sheller, self-contained solar-powered light bulbs and streetlights, and passive solar building designs. Today appropriate technology is often developed using open source principles, which have led to open-source appropriate technology (OSAT) and thus many of the plans of the technology can be freely found on the Internet.'' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology)
 
The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) or ''Wobblies'' is a global trade union aiming to represent the interests of workers around the world:


http://iww.org.uk/about/introduction
 
''The Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) is a growing network of sustainable communities and initiatives that bridge different cultures, countries, and continents. GEN serves as umbrella organization for ecovillages, transition town initiatives, intentional communities, and ecologically-minded individuals worldwide.

People and communities meet and share their ideas, exchange technologies, develop cultural and educational exchanges, directories and newsletters, and are dedicated to restoring the land and living a cooperative sustainable lifestyle.''

http://gen.ecovillage.org/about-gen.html

Examples of some existing eco villages from around the world are:

Findhorn
Crystal waters
Auroville
Christiana

Intentional Communities include:

Brook farm
Twin Oaks
Oneida
 
Last edited:
Cooperatives have already been spoken about in this thread and offer a viable alternative to the market economy:

The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA): http://2012.coop/welcome

An example of a large cooperative is: ''The MONDRAGON Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2011 it was providing employment for 83,869 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote.[SUP]'' [/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

Another example is: 'Suma is the UK’s largest independent wholefood wholesaler/distributor, specialising in vegetarian, fairly traded, organic, ethical and natural products. We are a workers’ co-operative committed to ethical business.' http://www.suma.coop/about/
 
Last edited:
Decroissance or ''Degrowth is a political, economic, and social movement based on Ecological economics, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas. Degrowth thinkers and activists advocate for the downscaling of production and consumption—the contraction of economies—as overconsumption lies at the root of long term environmental issues and social inequalities. Key to the concept of degrowth is that reducing consumption does not require individual martyring and a decrease in well-being. Rather, 'degrowthists' aim to maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, culture and community.[SUP]'' [/SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth