maybe it's time

I just feel lately that we the people are at war with each other politically,economically, racially and religiously. Right, left, black, white, muslim, christians,rich,poor and what ever kind of groups you want to put here.

Certain subjects are taboo in public whether in conversation ,book reading, and other types of communication for fear of someone verbally or physically attacking you, which does seem to happen more and more frequently especially over real or imagined race issues.

Also, more and more of our rights are being taken away every day. Some people want this to happen and some people don't. The same with taxes and forms of government. Some people want the constitution and others don't.

Since we can't put on our big boy pants and play nice, maybe we should just take our toys and go home. So to speak. It makes perfect sense in my mind, because lets face it, if we can't overcome these petty differences it's going to get ugly and violent here. I personally don't want to see this.

So maybe, just maybe, it's time to break up the country here in America and possibly in other countries as well. What we should do is break up the country into 4 or 5 regions, each with their own form of government. Each government can work independently from each other, governing their area the way the people want it. Maybe have some type of supreme court with maybe 2 representatives from each region on this court to ensure that the regions don't bicker with each other and to take some sort of command to pull the country back together in times of war or emergency like a natural disaster.

The people can decide which community they would be more comfortable living in.

I'm sure this is probably a pretty dumb idea, but all this bickering and fighting amongst ourselves is just wearing me out and it's time someone comes up with a solution to fix it. There is no way we can just please everybody. But this might be a possibility.

reply to post by shadwgirl


Not trying to be overly critical here, but what you are describing is basically bigger states and no president. Nothing would really change so far as social tensions go.

Federalism is a very large part of the problem, in my opinion. I think most of the Western countries (America and Australia in particular) are too large, and secession would definitely help.

Unfortunately, it is not going to be allowed to happen. The powers that be are trying to move us towards more conglomeration, not less. They want world government.

Yea, MAYBE it is!

I just posted a thread on the David Wilcock interview with Drake where Drake indicates a secret military plan to make it happen. At first I thought it was crazy-talk, but David Wilcock's been around and seems to have verified his sources. There was also that Anonymous video about the 10000 roundup recently. And our recent series about the banker bug-outs. The thread I just posted is here:

Is THIS The Reason for Massive Wave Of Banker Resignations?

reply to post by reitze


Whats the 10,000 round up and the banker bug outs if you don't mind me asking?

It's funny, I was feeling just like you today.
I got really mad learning the extent of corporate power
in literally writing laws that affect our real freedoms.

I really think a lot of what we disagree about most fiercely,
are subjects fed by the shill talking heads that ALEC
(American Legislative Exchange Commission) is paying for.

People know things are not right, they are pissed off. But we have been so propagandized by the state that people are confused, and direct their anger in the wrong direction.

Of course this is what the capitalist class want, as long as our anger is directed inwards against other working class people, then they can continue exploiting us with no fear of a revolution.

Revolution of the proletariat is what they fear.

Dividing us even more is not the answer, we need solidarity with all workers. We are all workers and exploited by the capitalist class, that is our common ground, we need to realise that. We need to reverse the divisions that have been perpetuated by the capitalist class and realise our common goals and interests.

We need to reverse the self interest that the capitalist class has conditioned into us, and realise that we are weak and unable to change anything as individuals.

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by reitze

 

Whats the 10,000 round up and the banker bug outs if you don't mind me asking?

I read something about a month or 2 ago on 10000 arrests (prolly an anon thing). The banker bug outs is a reference to the series of threads here on ATS about high level bankers resigning (over the last 4 or 5 months).

ATS search result:

Massive Wave Of Resignation From Top Level Bankers. The Elite ...
Feb 20, 2012 ... The chief financial officer of Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. announced recently that he will resign from the position, a move that ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread811099/pg1
Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up ...
Massive Wave Of Resignation From Top Level Bankers. The Elite Are Loosing Their Grip or/and SHTF · Massive Wave Of Resignations: More ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread813961/pg1
Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up ...
Feb 27, 2012 ... Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up, Eleven Bankers Resign Today (Feb 27th), page 2. privacy. Pages: ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread813961/pg2
Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up ...
Feb 28, 2012 ... These bankers and high officials are resigning their posts en-masse it would seem - because Comet Elenin was a harbinger object for what is ...
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread813961/pg3
Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up ...
Massive Wave Of Resignation (Part III): Momentum Building Up, Eleven Bankers Resign Today (Feb 27th), page 4. privacy. Pages:

Originally posted by ANOK
Dividing us even more is not the answer, we need solidarity with all workers. We are all workers and exploited by the capitalist class, that is our common ground, we need to realise that. We need to reverse the divisions that have been perpetuated by the capitalist class and realise our common goals and interests.

You don't think ownership of the means of production could work on an individual property/family scale, ANOK?

The main reason why I am opposed to large scale federalism, is because it is impossible for everyone to maintain accountability, in a single giant group of billions of people. Individual humans can't cognitively keep track of more than about 50 people each.

reply to post by reitze


So were there actual arrests made or just talk about it?

And are bankers seriously bugging out or are they just resigning in masse?

Originally posted by petrus4

You don't think ownership of the means of production could work on an individual property/family scale, ANOK?

Didn't we have this discussion already?

Socialism is owning the means of production by the individual. Everyone who works owns the place they work at collectively/cooperatively. No one person has ownership or control over others.

The main reason why I am opposed to large scale federalism, is because it is impossible for everyone to maintain accountability, in a single giant group of billions of people. Individual humans can't cognitively keep track of more than about 50 people each.

I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Why do we need to keep track of people? Each work place would be autonomous, and the workers make their own decisions democratically, as apposed to not having any control when their is a 'private owner'. Why should anyone outside of your community and work place tell you what is best for you and your community.

I see you still fail to understand the concept of worker ownership of the means of production.

When I say 'individuals' I means the capitalist concept of it, which is to divide and weaken our collective power. We can not change anything all by ourselves, we have to organise, just like they have organised against us, in order to make change. If we don't we will continue to squabble amongst ourselves, so we want a race war, or do we won't to change the economy to better serve us all?

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't see how that has anything to do with it. Why do we need to keep track of people? Each work place would be autonomous, and the workers make their own decisions democratically, as apposed to not having any control when their is a 'private owner'. Why should anyone outside of your community and work place tell you what is best for you and your community.

I accept that.

I merely sought clarification.

Imo, a couple of you are close to what I think needs to happen. Including the OP. The Fed is just too big. I seriously fear that our military complex along with the fed had gotten so big that they are now almost alive themselves with their crave and lust for more power. Till the fed goes, well...its only gonna get worse.

Once the Economy finally goes this year tho, and people start wondering why gas just hit 11 bucks and the grocery stores are empty that its finally time to act. Its gonna take more than 5 dolllar gas to provoke Americans to finally get off their fat asses, put aside the keyboards and #ing iphones, and go to civil war. Make no mistake...a revolution IS coming to America. Its just the catalyst has not been started to set it off. Will it take till after elections? who knows, but its coming. and soon,

Thats my piece anyway. Preparing accordingly. Sorry if i sorta started sidetracking but to me it all ties in.

Originally posted by petrus4
I accept that.

I merely sought clarification.

Ok fair enough mate. Sry I got a little testy lol.

Just wanted to add as we're on the subject. Individualism is what is tearing us apart socially. We have lost the unity that workers and communities used to have. Without that unity we are weak to appose the state that is organised against us.

Originally posted by ANOK
Just wanted to add as we're on the subject. Individualism is what is tearing us apart socially. We have lost the unity that workers and communities used to have. Without that unity we are weak to appose the state that is organised against us.

I actually agree with this.

I'm going to be going back north next month, ANOK; and when I do, I will be going back to a town of maybe 800 people who are very group minded, in that sense. I will also be spending some more time on an archetypical commune; the people there are owner builders, and the whole nine yards. Completely custom built houses, and beautiful ones too. They grow their own food, produce their own power, and do as much without fiat currency as they possibly can.

As far as the left is concerned, though, one of the things which the Political Compass talks about, is two particular subgroups. Authoritarian Socialism, which wants strong central government, central planning, and all the rest of it; and Libertarian Socialism, which still wants to be collectively oriented, but on a smaller scale, while avoiding each individual workplace or community (which have been given a lot of different names; syndicates, communes, soviets, as well as co-ops etc) growing sufficiently large that the risk of a Stalin type develops.

I consider myself an adherent of the latter category. You might find it frustrating that I seem to be paranoid about the relationship between the individual and the collective; but this is only because I know that there have been some extremely negative experiences with authoritarianism in the past. It is also an instinctive thing, truthfully; it goes beyond mere logic.



The above is the result that I have consistently received from the Political Compass, over the period of the last 11-12 years. My avatar should not be considered as merely for decoration. I am not moderate.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by ANOK
Just wanted to add as we're on the subject. Individualism is what is tearing us apart socially. We have lost the unity that workers and communities used to have. Without that unity we are weak to appose the state that is organised against us.

I actually agree with this.

I'm going to be going back north next month, ANOK; and when I do, I will be going back to a town of maybe 800 people who are very group minded, in that sense. I will also be spending some more time on an archetypical commune; the people there are owner builders, and the whole nine yards. Completely custom built houses, and beautiful ones too. They grow their own food, produce their own power, and do as much without fiat currency as they possibly can.

Hey that's pretty cool, be sure to tell us about it when you get back mate.

As far as the left is concerned, though, one of the things which the Political Compass talks about, is two particular subgroups. Authoritarian Socialism, which wants strong central government, central planning, and all the rest of it; and Libertarian Socialism, which still wants to be collectively oriented, but on a smaller scale, while avoiding each individual workplace or community (which have been given a lot of different names; syndicates, communes, soviets, as well as co-ops etc) growing sufficiently large that the risk of a Stalin type develops.

I don't really buy into the 'political compass'. To me it is just the inclusion of the misunderstandings created by the appropriation of left wing terms. There really can't be authoritarian socialism, it's an oxymoron and ignores the true original meaning of socialism, and the left in general as an anti-statist, libertarian, movement.

It puts libertarianism on the right, another oxymoron. The right has never been libertarian, as we have discussed libertarian was a left wing term meaning the same as 'anarchism'.

I prefer the original meaning of left and right...

The original political meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’ have changed since their origin in the French estates general in 1789. There the people sitting on the left could be viewed as more or less anti-statists with those on the right being state-interventionists of one kind or another. In this interpretation of the pristine sense, libertarianism was clearly at the extreme left-wing.

www.la-articles.org.uk...

It makes more sense and doesn't confuse ideologies.

I consider myself an adherent of the latter category. You might find it frustrating that I seem to be paranoid about the relationship between the individual and the collective; but this is only because I know that there have been some extremely negative experiences with authoritarianism in the past. It is also an instinctive thing, truthfully; it goes beyond mere logic.

But this is the misunderstanding, collectivism is not authority, the terms are not synonyms, just as capitalism and free-market are not synonyms. The term simply means cooperation and solidarity, people working together for a common goal. We have to realise we have a common goal. The divisions of people have been created purposely in order to keep us from organizing. The authority in a socialist/anarchist collective is not from the top down, but from the bottom up.

The collective does not override individuality. It is simply a way to organise labour, which under socialism would be a much smaller part of our lives, not the dominating factor it is now. It has been estimated by some that under a libertarian socialism society we would only have to work 2-3 hours a day to produce enough for our needs. Outside of work you are completely free of the collective aspect of work.

It doesn't have to be a complete commune type society, this is about labour and producing for our needs only.
Nothing wrong with 'communes' but that is taking it to a whole new level. Even communism is not communes. Communes are another concept that came out of communism and socialism, but it is not a model for how society has to be under those economic systems.

My form of socialism is very basic, worker ownership of the means of production. What people do in their private lives is no business of mine, and as long as they don't harm others they can do what they want.

Communes can be authoritarian if they make rules, and a lot of them do, which again is fine as long as it is all voluntary, and no one is coerced to do what they don't want to.

The above is the result that I have consistently received from the Political Compass, over the period of the last 11-12 years. My avatar should not be considered as merely for decoration. I am not moderate.

Authoritarian should be on the right, libertarian on the left imo, as it was originally meant to be. This is why so called communist countries like North Korea are not Communist, nor are the left wing.

Capitalist society is organised in a top-down way. Orders come from the top and those at the bottom obey them. The institutions by which the bosses rule, the Government and the State, are built so that the rule of a minority over the majority is possible. Control of political freedom, ideas and information is fundamental to their working. Participation is strictly limited so that most people never have any say...
...It will be organised from the bottom up and production will be to meet peoples' needs, not for the private profit of a few. Anarchist society will make real the old call "from each according to ability, to each according to need". Every individual will enjoy complete control of her/his life with no limit on their freedom as long as they do not encroach on the freedom of anyone else. Now, isn't that something worth struggling for?

flag.blackened.net...

Originally posted by ANOK
I don't really buy into the 'political compass'. To me it is just the inclusion of the misunderstandings created by the appropriation of left wing terms. There really can't be authoritarian socialism, it's an oxymoron and ignores the true original meaning of socialism, and the left in general as an anti-statist. libertarian, movement.

You're probably correct, here. The PC's authors actually state, "Put Stalin and Hitler in a room together, and have them avoid economics, and they could find plenty to talk about."

It puts libertarianism on the right, another oxymoron. The right has never been libertarian, as we have discussed libertarian was a left wing term meaning the same as 'anarchism'.

I think it's more a case of them being willing to consider people like Ayn Rand libertarians. In a sense they were; it's just that individualistic libertarianism, in that sense, while it wants its' own freedom, has trouble recognising that that form of freedom for itself, will inevitably result in a lack of freedom for everyone else.

But this is the misunderstanding, collectivism is not authority, the terms are synonyms, just as capitalism and free-market are not synonyms. The term simply means cooperation and solidarity, people working together for a common goal. We have to realise we have a common goal. The divisions of people have been created purposely in order to keep us from organizing. The authority in a socialist/anarchist collective is not from the top down but from the bottom up.

As long as this is the case, I have no objections whatsoever. I am probably more concerned about making sure that that is the case on an ongoing basis, perhaps, than some you might speak with here.

The collective does not override individuality. It is simply a way to organise labour, which under socialism would be a much smaller part of our lives, not the dominating factor it is now. It has been estimated by some that under a libertarian socialism society we would only have to work 2-3 hours a day to produce enough for our needs. Outside of work you are completely free of the collective aspect of work.

I do understand that Nature itself provides verification of the socialist model, ANOK. Kropotkin documented that as well, of course.

Communes can be authoritarian if they make rules, and a lot of them do, which again is fine as long as it is all voluntary and no one is coerced to do what they don't want to.

Agreed.

Originally posted by petrus4

You're probably correct, here. The PC's authors actually state, "Put Stalin and Hitler in a room together, and have them avoid economics, and they could find plenty to talk about."

When the workers own the means of production then the workers have the power. Power comes from controlling the economy. It would be hard for a minority group to gain power when the majority of people own and control the means to produce for the economy.

To me political leaders don't even enter this discusion, the anarchism in me sees anyone in power as self interested, just using the ideology for personal power. So really Lenin and Hitler are no different in that sense.

I think it's more a case of them being willing to consider people like Ayn Rand libertarians. In a sense they were; it's just that individualistic libertarianism, in that sense, while it wants its' own freedom, has trouble recognising that that form of freedom for itself, will inevitably result in a lack of freedom for everyone else.

For the private owner capitalism is liberty, and they have convinced the working class, at least in America, that it is liberty for all because they claim, in theory, that we can all be private owners. Which we know to not be true because if we were, who would do the labour. If we are all private owners then it would be in a sense socialism because the workers would own the means of production, and have to do the labour ourselves. (was it you that said something like that, that under socialism we are all in a sense capitalists?)

As long as this is the case, I have no objections whatsoever. I am probably more concerned about making sure that that is the case on an ongoing basis, perhaps, than some you might speak with here.

It is the case, if it isn't then it's not socialism, it is something else.

I do understand that Nature itself provides verification of the socialist model, ANOK. Kropotkin documented that as well, of course.

We are simply overworked producing crap that does nothing but make money for capitalist owners. People are starving, but instead of growing crops we make useless plastic doodads that get thrown away.

Look at the fashion industry for an example of a waste of production simply to make continuous profit. I like clothes, but society has been conditioned to throw away perfectly good clothes because they're not fashionable.
This concept is fed by media, which also makes money from it.

Agreed.

We need to find common ground, and work from there.

(BTW I edited a couple of points in my last post since you posted this reply to it, as I usually do lol, nothing major but cleaned it up a bit and added some clarification of my points).

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by reitze

 

So were there actual arrests made or just talk about it?
And are bankers seriously bugging out or are they just resigning in masse?

In the other thread the video in my OP has an interview with a military-insider discussing an "oathkeepers" type of plan to round up the elite criminals who act as though they're above the law. It seems to correlate to pending 10,000 arrests the Anonymous videos also suggested a couple months back.

The search-result to the dozen past threads on banker bugouts above was about banker resignations. My impression from those threads is that many of them are relocating to small countries - New Zealand seems to come to mind as one of the popular destinations - though that's just my impression, I'd not researched it and am only reflecting an impression from reading those threads.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by ANOK
Just wanted to add as we're on the subject. Individualism is what is tearing us apart socially. We have lost the unity that workers and communities used to have. Without that unity we are weak to appose the state that is organised against us.

I actually agree with this.
...


The above is the result that I have consistently received from the Political Compass, over the period of the last 11-12 years. My avatar should not be considered as merely for decoration. I am not moderate.

I like that graph, hadn't seen it on a website till now (heard it mentioned over 10 years ago when I wrote my book on applying libertarian philosophy to govt).

I think I'm more "individualistic" than you are, but not crewel to the truly disadvantaged either. My score?
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.72



politicalcompass.org