Indeed, it would be foolish to think that communism can be reproduced in
the large corporate states that presently exist. They have to be
overthrown. And most certainly we do have to contend with present day
reality. If we do not recognize reality we will be unable to overthrow
these large corporate states. For that matter, we have to recognize
reality if we want to accomplish most anything. That is what science is
all about.
On 3/4/2016 10:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Saying that traits like agression and dominance are just as much a part of
human nature as love and cooperation, does not make one a "capitalist
apologist", nor does pointing out that the fact that some small societies
have lived with no concept of personal property in the past, does not mean
that this can be reproduced today in the large, interrelated corporate
states that presently exist. We can do a lot of conceptualizing about what
kind of societies can be built if we can manage to create positive change.
There are many alternatives. Richard Wolfe, who is an economist, and
certainly not a capitalist, is opposed to what he calls state capitalism,
his definition of what a Communist State is. We can all dream about these
ideas and to the extent that it is possible for each of us, work toward what
seems to be the correct goal. But we do have to contend with present
reality, and that is the military and economic power of the corporate state
or perhaps it is just the power of international corporations who have taken
control of all of our nation states.
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: Friday, March 04, 2016 9:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 'The truth will come out: Finicum was flat
murdered'
Speaking of books from way back, I happened to just remember a book I saw
years ago and never got around to reading. I have been blind now for almost
twenty-eight years and I saw it before I became blind. If I recall the
synopsis from that time correctly it was a survey of various cultures,
historical, prehistorical and contemporary, where no government exists. I am
sure that no matter how many cultures it surveys the capitalist apologists
will keep insisting that such a thing is against human nature anyway. I
think I remember the title as being People Without Government. I just looked
for that title on Bookshare and did not find it. Then I looked on Open
Library and did find a book with that title. This may be it:
https://openlibrary.org/works/OL8651833W/People_without_government
On 3/3/2016 11:03 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Roger,limit of language.
Your remarks reminded me of a book I read years back. Henry George's,
Progress and Poverty. I posted chapter 29, because I thought it was
in line with this discussion. But I found it interesting just how
little of this book I recalled after som 20 or maybe 30 years.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/3/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly, when all property is owned in common there is effectively no
property. To even speak of common ownership is a capitulation to
class property relations. In a society that actually has all property
owned by the entire community you have to introduce words like own
and property to them because they don't have equivalents in their own
languages and then you have to explain the concept. Colonialists have
often found that it is rather difficult to get across the concept of
ownership and property. Nevertheless, capitalist apologists will just
keep right on claiming that such a way of life is against human
nature while completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of
humans who have ever lived have lived under just such a system.
On 3/3/2016 7:08 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
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
that kind of messed everything up.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 of pattern was seen. Once you got
about half way across the continent the people would be 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 have been considered to be of different
nationalities. Nevertheless, 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 was
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 was mutually beneficial too. 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
the anarchists, have something in common.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
Miriamwill gradually transform from a means of administering people into
-----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 variety. Scientific socialists hold that class
society causes the state, 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
a 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,
Proudhon, 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,
politics.who?
anarchist.He then said that he was not an old anarchist, he was a newvote for Bill Clinton.
anarchist.
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
anarchists but do not understand 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
dating back to 2001 and 2006.And if you take their claims of being anarchists as good coin Ifact, anarchist philosophy is completely incompatible with
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
selfishness.
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
7."The truth will come out. LaVoy was just flat murdered," Tad
Houpt, the owner of a small logging company, said by phone Feb.
rules.farmers.cops.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
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
Finicum.ranch.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
freed.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
weapons," it reports.agitators.up.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
ranchers participated.The Times did quote one rancher from Nevada, Diana Clark, at
the funeral. "All of us ranchers feel like we're backed into
a corner,"
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
frame-up.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
carrying of firearms.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
disagree. Be free."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
Oregon 97720.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,
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
