The anthropologists studied people in many parts of the world, but that was
after our own native peoples had been ethnically cleansed so what we have
are the stories of the American Indians themselves, and their lives as
observed by their conquerers. I gather that a tribe owned a vast swathe of
land through which it moved through the seasons. Buut then they invaded each
other's territories.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 10:00 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
Land as property was not a concept among North American Indians until long
after Columbus.
It does not mean however that they were "primatives" for lands were highly
cultivated and even forest lands were managed. But they were "owned"
so-to-speak in common, not by individual land holders, and for the common
good.
Now again I'm talking about North American cultures. There are differences
in some of the Mezo=-American (Aztecs, Mayans) and Inca civilizations.
By the way before Columbus there were cities and cultures more advanced and
more populated than in Europe at the time. In fact there were one hundred
million native americans before Columbus. But guns and germs and steal
destroyed about 98 percent of that population in less than one century.
98 million people! The holocaust was astounding.
have to scoot but there are some excellent books on this history and they
are "objective" too.
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:48 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
But in some, people did own things and they used them as tokens ofof pattern was seen.
wealth or power. Sometimes it was cows or shells. Some groups had
elaborite systems for evaluating wealth. I studied all of this stuff
in college so I can't remember all the details but there was great
variation in cultures.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz ;
Comcast
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 7:09 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
Again correct for the most part for these were for lack of better
words mutualist/communal societies.
Also in many indigenous societies there were no real notions of
private property including ownership of land itself.
It wasn't even a concept this private ownership of property that is.
Itwas indeed owned by all in common.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 10:11 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
If you are not using the word class in the same way that I am then
you are talking about a different subject and using the same word to
talk about a different subject to someone who is talking about one
subject at the same time that you are talking about a different
subject is a recipe for a failure to communicate. Anyway, a classless
society does not deny the existence of leaders or even bullies. What
makes preclass societies classless is that all members of the
community participate in labor and the labor is conducted for the
collective good of the community. It would be a stretch of the
definition of exploitation, but if there is any exploitation of labor
then it is a mutual exploitation. One feature of the Australian
social system before the European colonization is the lack of clear
lines in regard to where one community ended and another began. In
most cases of preclass societies the limit was the limit of language.
Even in nearby New Guinea there were and still are hundreds of
languages in a very small area. These languages were unintelligible
to each other and effectively made a barrier that defined the
community. There are a lot of indications that prior to ancient
imperialist conquests the proliferation of languages was similar over
the entire planet. Of course, the necessity of common origins of
humanity means that even prior to that there must have been only a
few or even one universal language. The linguistic distribution in
Australia was a bit different, though, and may well be closer to what
the situation was prior to the extreme proliferation of mutually
unintelligible languages. In one area the people spoke in the same
way while just a few miles away some of the words were different and
inflections were slightly different, but there was no problem in
understanding each other. The neighbors were considered part of the
community and aided each other. A few miles further along the people
spoke a little bit more different from the first group and less
different from the second group and to the second group were no more
difficult to understand than the first group and so were treated as
just as much of the community as the first group. The first group
would have noticed more profound differences in their speech, but
would have had not much trouble understanding them while having less
contact with them. Then just a few miles even further away the same kind
variety.Once you got about half way across the continent the people would behave been considered to be of different nationalities. Nevertheless,
speaking so different from the first group that they would not be
able to understand each other at all and so they would effectively be
speaking another language. But would it really be a different
language since each adjacent group would be able to understand one
another perfectly well? On the rare occasions that people from one
side of the continent interacted with one another they would have
considered each other to have been different communities and in the
modern world would
each adjacent group considered itself to be one community. They just
lived in slightly different areas.
What this led to was that effectively the whole continent waswas mutually beneficial too.
cooperating with each other for mutual benefit with no coercion and
no coordinating government. The whole continent was living in
anarchy, the same kind of anarchy that the anarchists advocate. It
functioned because the people of one locale saw each other as friends
and neighbors and realized that mutual cooperation with the people
around oneself was beneficial to oneself and the others too. They
also had every reason to understand that cooperating with the people
over the hill
That is, they had mutual interests and few conflicting interests.
Then the Europeans showed up and started deporting their criminals
into the continent and insisting that the natives adopt the European
culture or else and that kind of messed everything up.
On 3/2/2016 9:28 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I don't know anything about the social organization and culture of
the indigenous population of Australia. But I do know how little
children behave in a play area. Some kids are more aggressive than
others. Some take toys from others. Some push others out of the way
in order to be first going down the slide. I suspect that those
folks in Australia had a power structure with some being the
leaders or the elites or whatever, even if that meant that they were
the ones who decided how the food would be divided up or how tasks
would be allotted. I'm not using the word, "class", in the precise
manner that you are. But I am saying that in any group of people,
you'll end up with some individuals who are more dominant, who are
leaders in one way or another. The power is never distributed equally.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was
flat murdered'
If you claim that the main barrier to a classless society is human
nature then you will have to explain all of the classless and
stateless societies that have existed. About the only way I can see
that you can do that is to exclude them from being humans. To pick
out just one example, I would expect that all of the people who are
descended from the residents of Australia before the European
colonization might rather object to such a characterization.
On 3/2/2016 10:59 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I think the main barrier to a classless society is human nature,anarchist.
not the stae. But other than that, I suppose I could call myself
an
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 10:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum
was flat murdered'
Anarchism and socialism are very similar. I have explained on this
list before that anarchists and communists have pretty much the
same goal.
Anarchists just call that goal anarchy and communists call it
communism.
Both tendencies are for the eventual abolition of the state. The
main difference is that the anarchists see the biggest obstacle to
that eventual goal to be the state itself. They have the idea that
class society is caused by the existence of the state and that if
the state were abolished then class society would go away. Lenin's
book, State and Revolution, was mainly a polemic against the
anarchists. He argued that their stance that a classless society
could be attained by the abolition of the state would not work
because those who had an interest in the state's continued
existence would just reestablish it on the instant that it was
abolished. I will counterpose scientific socialism to anarchism now
because even though I said that socialism and anarchism are very
similar it is more accurate to point out that anarchists have
always been considered to be socialists, just not of the scientific
politics.something in common.Scientific socialists hold that class society causes the state,will gradually transform from a means of administering people into a
that the state is a way of regulating and administering class
relationships and that if class society is abolished then the
objective conditions for the continued existence of the state will
have been removed and the state will fade away. That is, it
means of administering things.
By the way, it is important to remember that anarchists call
themselves libertarians. They were calling themselves libertarians
a long time before the right wing libertarians started calling
themselves libertarians. That is why I cringe whenever the word
libertarian is used on this list as if right-wing libertarian was
the only kind of libertarian. Insofar as they advocate the
abolition of the state or its minimization, though, the right-wing
libertarians and the left-wing libertarians, the anarchists, have
Bakunin ...The main difference between those two camps is that the left-wingtalking about and that Chuck does not know enough about it himself
libertarians are in favor of the abolition of capitalism and class
society in general and the right-wing libertarians are for the
elimination of the state, but have no problem with capitalism and
with class society in general. Still, though, there are a whole lot
of complete misconceptions at large about what anarchism is and,
unfortunately, that is true among a lot of people who falsely call
themselves anarchists. That is probably why Chuck says that all the
anarchists he knows seem so selfish. The point is that the people
he knows who call themselves anarchists probably do not know what
they are
to recognize that.
On 3/1/2016 9:57 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:Re:
Emma Goldman was an anarchist. There's a book about her on BARD
and one on Bookshare. I haven't gotten through much but she sounds
very close to being a socialist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger ;
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 9:21 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy]
anarchy.[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered'
My comment about bringing on the anarchy was intended as a
sarcastic response to your elevation of property over justice for
human beings and the then disparaging indication that otherwise
you would have
But, actually, I wonder if you have really ever known an anarchist.
Most of the people I have known who call themselves anarchists do
not know what they are talking about. I remember one who was a
singer in a punk band who called himself an anarchist and I asked
him which anarchist tradition he adhered to. He didn't seem to
know what I meant so I offered some suggestions, Kropotkin,
Proudhon,
who?
anarchist.He then said that he was not an old anarchist, he was a new anarchist.vote for Bill Clinton.
Then he threw around some words like death and destruction. I just
shut up having satisfied myself that he did not have the slightest
idea what an anarchist was. Then there was the woman who claimed
to be an anarchist and when I tried to explain to her where I
thought anarchist politics went wrong she also seemed to not know
what I was talking about and then went on to tell me about how
important it was to
The list goes on. There have been a few, though, who did adhere to
traditional anarchist collectivism. I worked with a man in the
anti-draft movement who was well grounded in anarchist politics
and history. At a later time I got peripherally involved in the
defense of a high school student who was expelled from school for
being an
I had some conversations with her and while I found her a bit
naive she was definitely learning about and following anarchist
2006.what anarchism is.Later she sued the school board and even though I was not present
in the courtroom I caught a report on television and was surprised
that my old comrade in the anti-draft movement testified as a
friend of the court and as an expert on anarchism. He turned out
to be a university professor by then. Since you describe the
anarchists you have known as selfish people I suspect that they
were of the variety who claim to be anarchists but do not
understand
And if you take their claims of being anarchists as good coin Ifact, anarchist philosophy is completely incompatible with selfishness.
suspect that you don't know much about it either. I do happen to
have some very strong reservations about anarchism, especially the
position about abolishing the state by decree and the theory that
capitalism is a manifestation of the state rather than the state
being a manifestation of capitalism or some other class system,
but it is undeniable that many anarchists have dedicated
themselves to anarchist collectivism as both a revolutionary goal
and as a way of life. That is far from selfishness. In
On 3/1/2016 12:54 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman
for
DMARC) wrote:
what has anarchy ever done for people? The anarchists that I know
of are extremely self-serving and operate out of a very narrow
perspective, their own!
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 5:09 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out:
Finicum was flat murdered'
Property before people? How capitalist. Bring on the anarchy.
On 2/23/2016 6:38 AM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman
for
DMARC) wrote:
the real issue here is how one chooses to fight for injustice.
When one crosses certain boundaries such as property lines there
are potential consequences. We live in a society where anarchy
does not rule.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 8:31 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
And what does one risk when one chooses to not fight back
against injustice?
On 2/19/2016 9:26 PM, Charles Krugman (Redacted sender ckrugman
for
DMARC) wrote:
when one chooses to live as an outlaw and adopt the ways of the
wild west taking over property that doesn't belong to them they
run the risk of being killed or murderedd if one chooses to use
the melodramatic rflare.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2016 6:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] 'The truth will come out: Finicum
was flat murdered'
http://themilitant.com/2016/8007/800755.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 80/No. 7 February 22, 2016
'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat murdered'
BY SETH GALINSKY
Working people should denounce the cold-blooded Jan. 26 killing
of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum by Oregon State Police and the FBI;
the frame-up conspiracy charges against Ammon Bundy and others
who took part in the occupation of the Malheur National
Wildlife Refuge; and the frame-up of Dwight and Steven Hammond,
two Harney County, Oregon, cattle ranchers, imprisoned for a
second time on the same bogus arson charges dating back to 2001 and
corner,"weapons," it reports.agitators.farmers.cops."The truth will come out. LaVoy was just flat murdered," Tad
Houpt, the owner of a small logging company, said by phone Feb. 7.
Finicum and Bundy were traveling to a Jan. 26 community meeting
that Houpt helped organize in John Day, Oregon, when they were
intercepted by the
Bundy initiated the refuge occupation Jan. 2 to draw attention
both to the frame-up of the Hammonds and to U.S. government
land policies that have been undermining the livelihood of
ranchers and
up.ranch.The persecution of the Hammonds outraged small ranchers and
farmers throughout the West - controlled burns are common to
control invasive plants and to prevent the spread of wildfires.
Despite serving the sentence imposed by the trial judge, the
Hammonds went back to jail Jan. 4, because of a U.S. Appeals
Court ruling that their sentences didn't meet federal minimum
rules.
After the trial the U.S. Bureau of Land Management vindictively
revoked the Hammonds' grazing permits, threatening the survival
of their
Meanwhile, the Oregonian reported Feb. 6 that the scanty
official information and one grainy video released on the
killing confirm many aspects of the accounts by Shawna Cox and
Victoria Sharp - who were in the pickup truck driven by Finicum.
According to both of them, the cops first fired one shot at the
vehicle they were in after Finicum initially pulled over.
Finicum then shouted out to the cops, "I'm going to see the
sheriff," a reference to Sheriff Glenn Palmer of Grant County,
who was also scheduled to be at the John Day meeting and has
been quoted in the press as saying the Hammonds should be freed.
Finicum tried to drive away, but was soon forced off the road
again.
The
Oregonian reports that the FBI admits lethal force was used
when the truck "approached the checkpoint," that is, even
before the vehicle crashed into the snow bank and Finicum gets
out with his hands
Much of the capitalist press justifies the killing and
prosecutions by labeling Finicum and Bundy as extremists and
outside
land policies."To his detractors," the New York Times said, "he was a
doctrinaire leader of an illegal protest that is deeply opposed
by many who live near the refuge." The paper conveniently
leaves out that most people in the area support the demand to
free the Hammonds and are sympathetic to their opposition to
the government
Many local residents visited the refuge, met Finicum and Bundy
or donated food and supplies to the occupiers.
Some 1,000 people attended Finicum's funeral in Kanab, Utah, Feb .
5.
While pretending to be objective, the Times' description of the
scene plays on many of its readers' prejudices. After the
service there were "cowboys on horseback and members of
so-called patriot groups wearing camouflage and carrying small
The Times did quote one rancher from Nevada, Diana Clark, at
the funeral. "All of us ranchers feel like we're backed into a
firearms.she said. "And it's hard to get anyone to acknowledge our
needs, and so they gave us a platform."
At least 22 smaller protests against the killing of Finicum
took place Feb. 6, from Florida to Washington. One common
placard was "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," a slogan first popularized
by protesters against police brutality after the killing of
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. At events in John
Day and Prineville, Oregon, dozens of local ranchers participated.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors have now indicted 16 supporters
of the occupation with conspiracy to "prevent by force,
intimidation and threats, officers and employees of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service . from discharging the duties
of their office" at the wildlife refuge.
The list of what the indictment calls "overt acts" to further
the conspiracy is proof itself that the prosecution is a frame-up.
The first "act" it lists is an Oct. 5 meeting where Ammon Bundy
warned Harney County Sheriff David Ward that if the Hammonds
went to jail there could be "extreme civil unrest."
Although the occupiers are not accused of pointing their
weapons at anyone, the indictment claims that they "brandished
and carried firearms." Oregon law allows the open carrying of
97720.discussion.
Bundy released a statement from prison Feb. 6, noting that the
occupation was civil disobedience. He encouraged those "who
disagree with my speech" or dislike his ideas to engage in
civil
"If you do not advocate for government to tolerate ideas that
it hates, then the First Amendment and free speech mean nothing,"
he said. "Arm yourself with ideas. . Argue and disagree. Be free."
Supporters of the Hammonds continue to organize. A new online
petition calling on President Barack Obama to free the Hammonds
had
3,341 signatures as of Feb. 9. The Oregon Cattlemen's
Association is asking that donations be sent to: The Hammond
Family, c/o Sandra Carlon at US Bank, 493 N. Broadway, Burns,
Oregon
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
