Hometown: Worcester, MA until 1991
Home country: USA
Current location: Beirut
Member since: Wed Jan 19, 2005, 04:55 PM
Number of posts: 38,958
Hometown: Worcester, MA until 1991
Home country: USA
Current location: Beirut
Member since: Wed Jan 19, 2005, 04:55 PM
Number of posts: 38,958
Escaped and at large.
"Austerity" is what Europeans call the effort to reduce public, governmental debt. It involves raising taxes on working people and reducing their public benefits. In America, we call it "fiscal conservatism." The public debt in question is usually caused by political pressure by by the ultra-rich, capitalist class to reduce taxation on economic elites. At the same time, reactionary elements in society, including the economic elite, have pressed--through their media allies and direct lobbying--for continuous war and the growth of incarceration, often racially-biased and in for-profit facilities. These expenses increase the public debt. The economic elite and others benefit from wars and prisons because they profit from the production of war materials and prison-building and maintenance. Remember Haliburton? Shareholders like Dick Cheney made a killing on the Iraq war and its aftermath while Americans incurred debt and cuts to important domestic spending. The people of Iraq suffered tremendously. In the meantime, capitalists are moving the economic base that might enable the country to repay its debts to countries with cheap, easily exploitable labor, while trousering the profits.
At the same time, the ruling class continues to make money on the debt they created by making it impossible to repay it in a reasonable amount of time. That increases interest payments and compounding interest increases the overall debt through its mere existence. All the, conservative elements in government use the growing debt as a pretext for reducing or ending domestic spending that buoys the economy and helps ordinary people. These programs include education, various consumer, environmental, and employee protections, as well as the various aspects of the social welfare safety net. The damage this causes to the economy and to working people causes them to decline in standard of living and exacerbates the problem of private persons with corporate, consumer debt, medical debt, child support past due, and student debt. The debtor becomes a de facto slave to his or her creditors. For their part, the super-rich are not hurt by the economic declines because they already own everything.
So now people owe a staggering about of money to the ultra-rich, capitalist class, not only in America, but all over the word. Debt payments of so-called third-world governments are crippling their ability to pull their countries out of poverty. In industrial nations, people are working harder for less, not only because of reduced wages, but because of increased public and private debts they must pay. This debt is a powerful means of social control by the creditor class. For instance, a student with $100,000 in student loans is mostly interested in becoming a cog in the corporate machine to repay her loans, and simply cannot afford to do something meaningful that might help change the corporate culture. Likewise, the American public has been convinced that the country is poor, overlooking the fact that a tiny fraction of the public control about half of all the wealth or that 80 individual humans control as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. Consequently, people believe that the country cannot do anything to improve life. This leads to scape-goating using narratives encouraged by power structures. Those who still have something to lose blame various minority groups, including the truly destitute, for somehow being parasites on society. As a practical matter, parasites generally have something to show for their parasitic existence, which rules out the impoverished. The real parasites are, of course, the super-rich who are obscenely wealthy at the expense of their workers and their debtors.
The solution to all this artificially created debt is remarkably obvious, or else it would be if we had not all been conditioned to serve the parasites: don't pay it. A global refusal to pay public and corporate creditors who have two instantaneous desirable affects. First, it would allow debtors to stop wasting their lives and resources paying the creditor class. Secondly, it would immediately impoverish that class, eliminating them as a significant political or social influence in the world. This is something that humanity must do in a global, controlled effort to avoid the temporary economic chaos that may follow the default of one or several nations on their debts. We need not be concerned about the downfall of the parasitic creditor class. There are other ways to finance houses, businesses, or whatever. The only reason we need to borrow money is because banks are hording it. Without public debts or the political influence of creditors, public college education would once again be free. In all, a controlled international bankruptcy will effectuate a major correction in wealth inequality and eliminate a gigantic burden from working people worldwide. As a global human community, it is long past time we realize that people are more important than money and that the solution to the crushing weight of debt to a tiny minority is simply not to pay it.
A few years ago, I wrote an essay called Foucault, OWS, and the Nature of Power. https://www.facebook.com/notes/brutus-marcus-junius/foucault-ows-and-the-nature-of-power/262025397191543
It was about ending the financial and political power structure by consensus. Unfortunately, my suggestion appears to have been a bit ambitious. One problem with the consensus model is that it only takes a very small dissenting minority to derail the whole movement. The goal, of course, is to gain an overall, broad human consensus, not merely a consensus of OWS or whatever movement. Consequently, we need an intermediate step. In order for debt liberation to become reality, we do not need a consensus or even a majority. Rather, for a social movement to become successful, it needs to gain the acceptance of forty percent of the public. Once an idea gains approval with 40% of the public, it is no longer a fringe notion. Humans are driven by a need for community and for a common narrative. Once the majority see that a new idea has the support of a significant minority of the population, that idea becomes legitimate and even inevitable to most of the rest of the public. There will of course be a committed opposition of about a quarter of the public, but that is not significant opposition.
We have seen this happen recently. In 2004, the American Republican party used anti-gay marriage state initiatives to boost the conservative voter turn-out to facilitate Bush's reelection. Eight years later, Republican media operatives accused Obama of supporting gay marriage equality because it was so popular. The opposition had been entrenched, well-financed, and broad. Sometime in 2007 or 2008, American voters realized that gay marriage was no longer a fringe movement and was, therefore, normal in their eyes. The Supreme Court realized that when it declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. The proponents of marriage equality have won, apparently overnight. It was not overnight, however. It was a long struggle to get to 40%. Part of that was simply waiting for enough hide-bound, elderly white men to die and be replaced by liberal young people. The same is happening in this country with marijuana legalization. In 2000, who would have guessed opposition would simply crumble in ten years? It is possible to change people's minds and to accept a radical new idea. It only takes 40% to free ourselves from debt slavery.
Posted by Deep13 | Sun Mar 2, 2014, 10:35 PM (10 replies)
"In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat." (NAB)
This is a favorite quote of the so-called Christian right, based on the assumption that some of the poor do not have income-generating jobs, yet still eat because of public welfare benefits. The right-wing reading of this one line is based on unspoken, yet erroneous, modern assumptions about first century society, but also about modern society.
As with all quotations, this verse must be read in the context of the entire epistle and, to the extent possible, the entire New Testament. 2 Thessa is an admonition, ostensibly by Paul, against idleness and rumor-mongering, that is to say gossip. In context, Paul seems to believe that idleness leads to stirring up trouble. This was at a time when Christianity was a diverse, underground movement with little cohesion and no real uniformity of doctrine. Certainly anything that threatened group cohesion was a serious problem.
The first century was obviously pre-industrial and pre-bureaucratic. There was no welfare system and starvation was a very real concern for common people. A crop failure or a trade disruption could cause a famine at any time. The only way to exist was to earn a living farming, in an urban trade, or as someone's slave, which would presumably include a food allowance. The only people who did not work where ones rich enough to pay others to work for them, either in wages or in purchasing and supporting slaves. Verse 10, therefore, directed to the wealthy and educated classes. These people may have had occupations as educated professionals, estate holders, or government or religious officials, but they did not do genuine, sweat-inducing labor.
Early Christianity generally believed in the equality of humans before God. English translations of the Bible that speak of humanity as "man," are using the term in place of the Greek word homos, meaning human with no assumption of gender. Consequently, the promoters of the new religion did not want artificial class barriers among their members with some laboring and others frittering away time like they had always done while their servants did the work. In verses 7-9, Paul makes it clear that he and other preachers insisted on getting their hands dirty when visiting the various communities to show that they did not consider themselves above that sort of thing. After all, there was no point living a rich life as Christ would soon return to judge their holiness. (See Acts 5:1-11; Matt 19:16-24)
So, it is the idle rich, those who spend their days directing others to work on their behalf, who are the object of verse ten. Further, verse 10 specifies that it is unwillingness to work and not the fact of non-productivity that is the offense. Those too old, too young, or too sick to work, or those unable to find employment are not to be cut off. (See e.g. Luke 6:30-36) It also does not say that ones work, to be valid, must be in exchange for money.
One assumption underlying the right-wing view is that for work to be valid, it must necessarily be in exchange for money. That is to say that raising ones children and all that involves is not considered "work." Neither is charity or volunteer community or ecclesiastical work. Yet this is based on the modern assumption that people are paid cash for "real" work. Pre-modern economies where cash poor by today's standards and many were paid in kind. Further, there is an element of sexism in the modern assumption, because to the degree that anyone is doing the kind of unpaid work mentioned above, it is usually women. Consequently, many in modern society are working harder and more often than most did before the industrial revolution destroyed the natural ebb and flow of seasonal labor demands, instead requiring workers to perform constantly like the machines they attend. Yet, to exist even at a poverty level, they require assistance fro the state. (See 1 Thessa 4-12)
This brings us to perhaps the most malicious assumption of modern poverty. I say "malicious," because it is not merely a misunderstanding, but a deliberate lie, that being that most who depend on some for of public assistance are lazy, dishonest, unproductive, and generally undeserving of help. This is not true and has never been true. It is rumor that is spread by right-wing political and media outlets in order to discredit any idea that the people have a right to a certain equity of the wealth that they create. Rather, the idle, wealthy classes for whom others work believe that any charity should be an act of grace based on their own discretion with no obligation to share the bounty that others have created for them. The sin of pride, it seems, causes them to see salvation, if they consider it at all, to be theirs by right, rather than as a divine act of grace paid for by the undeserved suffering of another. Now as in the first century, it is the parasitic upper class that preys on the sweat and degradation of others, eating lavishly while doing no real work.
Posted by Deep13 | Fri Jan 10, 2014, 01:04 AM (64 replies)
We are finally having a serious national debate on gun control, so it is important that we get our terms straight. This is not an argument one way or another, just a list of terms.
automatic, "full auto"
This is a firearm that shoots continuously when the trigger is depressed, one round after another, until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammunition. These are considered "machine guns" under Federal law and highly regulated and almost nonexistent in the civilian market. "Rounds per minute" ratings refer to full auto only. Examples include mounted machine guns, military grade M16s, M4s, AK47s, and submachine guns like the Thompson and Uzi.
This is a firearm that shoots ONCE when the trigger is depressed and then loads the next round automatically. One must depress the trigger for each round fired--no continuous shooting. Examples include most handguns, civilian AR-15s, and AK variants, but also many sporting rifles and pistols. There are a few semi-auto shotguns out there too. "Automatic" in the context of a handgun means "semi-automatic." Many of the lowest cost and most common .22s are semi-auto because their construction is less expensive than bolt or lever actions.
bolt, lever, or pump action
“Action” refers to the way spent cases are ejected and new rounds are loaded. Bolt has a handle at the breech, where the cartridges are loaded near back of the barrel. When moved back by hand, the empty case is ejected. A new case is loaded when one pushes the bolt forward again. With a lever or cowboy style action one uses a lever, usually in the shape of a loop, located behind the trigger for the same purpose. Lever action rifles and shotguns are mechanically complex and expensive. With a pump, it is the same thing except the hand grip is the fore end of the shotgun (usually) or rifle (rarely). It slides forward and backward to change rounds.
handgun or pistol
Any hand-held (no shoulder stock) firearm with a barrel less than 16". Automatic pistols use the recoil of the previous shot to load the next round into the chamber for firing. They feed from a detachable magazine. Revolvers are an older design that includes a chamber for each round in a rotating, metal cylinder. Finger pressure on the trigger advances the next round into firing position. Handguns use pistol ammunition, which is short and blunt, especially for automatics where they must fit in the handle. Example, .38 Sp., .357 mag., .44 mag. for revolvers and .45acp, 9mm para., .40 S&W for auto-loaders.
Technically it is any firearm with grooved channels cut into the inside of the barrel in a spiral pattern to make the bullet spin in flight, including pistols, muskets, cannons, and shotguns. In common parlance, however, and under Federal law, it is a shoulder-mounted firearm that shoots single bullets (not a shotgun) with a barrel greater than 16". Includes military and civilian guns. Proper rifles shoot rifle bullets, which tend to be long and often pointed. Examples include .30-06, .22-250, and .30-30.
A short rifle, some of which shoot pistol ammunition.
The metal tube where bullets are accelerated from expanding gas. Federal classification often depends on the length of the barrel.
The space for the unfired round behind the barrel, ready for shooting.
Under Federal law, it is any firearm capable of automatic fire. Historically, it refers to a mounted firearm capable of automatically shooting rifle bullets or special, large caliber machine gun bullets like .50 BMG. Machine guns are strictly regulated by Federal law and almost no civilians have them.
A hand or shoulder mounted automatic firearm that shoots pistol ammunition. Examples include Thompson (Tommy gun), UZI, and MP5.
A firearm capable of shooting a number of small pellets at once. Pellet size differs among game animals ranging from very small raven pellets to relatively large 0-0 buck pellets or a single slug projectile. Generally, the larger and more dangerous the intended target, the larger and fewer the projectiles will be. Shotguns can be single shot, double shot (2 barrels), pump, lever, or semiautomatic. Shotguns and their ammunition are described in terms of gauge rather than caliber, with the large 12-gauge being the most typical.
A lightweight, high-capacity, short rifle capable of firing either full or semi-auto (select fire) and using shortened rifle ammunition such as 5.56mm, 7.62 Russian, or 7.62 NATO. Examples include the M16, M4, and AK47. Civilian grade (i.e., not as tough as military specifications) semi-auto only versions are NOT assault rifles, even if they look just like their military counterparts.
These are full sized, long rifles that take full-length rifle ammunition. They are rugged for military use and can be bolt action, semi-auto or full auto depending on when they were first issued. The USA’s main battle rifle in W.W.I was the 1903 bolt-action Springfield in .30-06. In W.W.II, it was the semi-auto M-1 Garand Springfield also in .30-06.
This is a term created by legislators and the news media to refer to high-capacity, military-style firearms. As it has no historic meaning, the definition is whatever the legislative authority says it is. Under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition was an “assault weapon.” It also greatly restricted certain accessories that Members of Congress felt were of military rather than sporting purposes. These included flash-hiders, folding stocks, and bayonets. These rules applied to any firearm regardless of caliber or basic configuration. So a high-capacity AR-15 was not allowed and neither were pistols or .22s with detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
high capacity magazine
This refers to the number of rounds that a detachable magazine can hold. Be aware that not all guns use detachable magazines. There are two ways of defining this term.
The first is to apply an across the board capacity, say ten rounds, to all magazines regardless of model or caliber. Anything in excess of that is high capacity. The 1994 Federal AWB defined any magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds as high capacity and illegal for civilians. So, all auto-pistols, sporting .22s, and Ar15s were limited to 10 rounds.
The other method is to define it from the manufacturer’s perspective. Firearms are designed to hold a certain number of rounds. Those are normal capacity. Magazines that exceed those amounts are high capacity, because they exceed what is normal for that gun. The Ruger 10/22 rimfire rifle comes with a 10-round magazine that fits flush with the stock. The rifle was designed around that magazine, which is, therefore, normal for that gun. Ruger also makes a 25-round banana clip for it that sticks out of the stock several inches. It works fine, but it completely changes the ergonomics of the rifle. The 25-rounder is, therefore, high capacity.
Since many pistols are designed to hold in excess of 15 rounds and AR15s typically use 30-round magazines, gun control proponents tend to prefer the across-the-board limit rather than allowing “assault weapons” to continue using their “normal” magazines.
The diameter of either the bullet or the gun barrel expressed as decimal fractions of an inch, .38 sp, .223 Rem, .45 ACP. The letters that follow the number indicate inventing company (.308 Win for Winchester) or some specific characteristic (.357 magnum, meaning large). By convention, .36 caliber bullets are referred to as .38 as in the cases of .38 Special, .38 Super Automatic, or .380acp. If the caliber has a pair of numbers, it refers to year of first production (.30-06 from 1906) or case capacity (.45-70 for 70 grains of black gunpowder). Caliber can also be expressed in millimeters such as 7mm Mauser. If the millimeter caliber has two numbers, the second one is the length of the case. For example 9x19, a.k.a. 9mm parabellum, a.k.a. 9mm Lugar should not be confused with 9x17. Sometimes the same cartridge has inch sizes in the USA and millimeter sizes in Europe, for example .380acp and 9x17, a.k.a. 9mm Kurtz are the same round.
In modern parlance “cartridge” implicitly means “metallic cartridge” and refers to the shell case, primer, smokeless gunpowder, and bullet all as a single unit. Sometimes they are generically called “rounds” as are plain bullets. Primers are either center fire with a priming cap in the center of the base of the casing. Otherwise they are rimfire with the priming material (mercury fulminate) around the rim of the case. Center fire is highly reliable. Rimfire is less so, but inexpensive and is reserved for very small calibers.
The projectile part of the cartridge. They are usually made of lead, though other materials are available, and covered with a copper coating. They come in a variety of shapes for various purposes.
.22LR or just “twenty-two”
0.22 Long Rifle, for rifles and handguns, is the single most common and least expensive cartridge in the world. They consist of a quarter inch wide lead slug, sometimes with a copper coating (not an actual copper jacket) at the end of a ½” copper case. To reduce costs, they are rimfire. They are slow, not powerful, and have limited accuracy. They also have very limited lethality making them unsuitable for most crimes or self defense. One can kill with a .22, but not easily. Due to their low cost, low recoil, and low noise, however, they are a favorite for recreational shooters, Olympic target shooters (the biathalon is .22), juvenile training, and very small game. The vast majority of rimfire ammunition is .22LR (there are some others) and it is its own category of ammunition (handgun, rifle, shotgun, rimfire).
Posted by Deep13 | Mon Dec 24, 2012, 05:28 PM (39 replies)
During the second half of the last century, French philosopher Michel Foucault developed a revolutionary theory of power relationships. Previous theories like Marxism and liberalism describe power as emanating from concentrations of power in the form of economic, social, and political elites. This power descends from the rulers to subjugated classes. Even in the liberal, democratic model, democracy merely serves as a check on power elites. What was different about Foucault was that he understood that centers of power were an illusion. It does not flow from the governing to the governed. Rather it is diffuse and decentralized touching everyone.
"When I think of the mechanics of power, I think of its capillary form of existence, of the extent to which power seeps into the very grain of individuals, reaches right into their bodies, permeates their gestures, their posture, what they say, how they learn to live and work with other people."
(Foucault, interview J.L. Brochier.) Power centers only work because a person’s behavior and thoughts are self-regulating. This is a direct result of the surveillance society. When Foucault spoke of surveillance, he did not mean a passive watching, but surveillance with active supervision. Again, it is important to understand the supervision is largely self-imposed. A person internalizes and naturalizes the values of her or his society and constantly checks her thinking and actions against that standard. This self-regulating behavior touches every aspect of our thoughts, feelings, and actions and informs our feelings on large-scale ideology like patriotism and religion, but also on the most intimate matters such as gender identity.
The cause of self-surveillance is the apprehension of authoritarian surveillance. Foucault illustrates the effect by describing a peculiar prison called the Panopticon. It consisted of a cylindrical arrangement of cells built around a single guard tower. The point is that the prisoners do not know when they are being watched, so they watch themselves and regulate their own behavior. The prison system classifies and compartmentalizes people into narrow categories, but it is not the only institution to do so. Surveillance, classification, compartmentalization, and objectification characterize every institution and aspect of culture and thought. This self-surveillance and regulation is what is meant by “knowledge is power.” The point of all this is that power does not belong to the powerful. It exists in every person in a very real sense. It is important to remember that Foucault presents a postmodern, industrial age phenomenon that has grown out of the classification, surveillance, and compartmentalization of modern life. Foucauldian power relations are not organic to human society generally.
This brings me to my main point. While Foucault was not a revolutionary philosopher like Marx was, his observations point to the vulnerability of the present system. Without the appearance or air of authority, the present power structure simply ceases to exist. The OWS movement implicitly understands this. It is not a revolutionary movement in the conventional sense. It does not seek merely to replace the heads of authority—whether governmental or economical. Rather, it seeks to replace the existing power structure entirely. Do not think of OWS as an interest group or a political party. When it claims to be (rather than to represent) the 99%, it means it literally. The entire 99% may not be on the street protesting and many of them are still stuck in their habits of self-surveillance and conformity. Nevertheless, the advent of instantaneous, decentralized communication has caused the masses to turn the surveillance tables onto the existing power elites.
I realize I am generalizing the OWS movement. Specific individuals want specific things of course and on some details they may even be at cross-purposes. On the large scale, however, OWS represents a genuine, inevitable, and irresistible threat to those who imagine themselves in power. The movement is in its infancy presently, but as the fascist-capitalist system creates more victims out of what was once the middle class, more and more will realize that there is no political remedy. In 2006 and 2008, the electorate demanded changed. Having failed to deliver fundamental change, the electorate again turned to its only option and put the Republicans back office. Now, approval ratings strongly suggest that most people have given up on the present system. Those with a vested interest in the present system—the military/prison/industrial complex—know they have reason to fear. A similar movement brought partial revolution to Egypt and Libya and hopefully will eventually bring down the Syrian dictatorship. Meanwhile, rioting against nationalized debt slavery fills the streets in Europe.
Consider another aspect of how self-surveillance turns the table of knowledge and power on the oppressors. In the 19th century, the white, Christian, heterosexual patriarchy established nuclear family model for the industrial, middle class. Our whole society was build around it: law, economy, church, school all caused people to engage in self-surveillance and self-regulation toward the white, male-dominated, hetero norm. Scientific and medical professionals increasingly classified sexual behavior that deviated from that norm as abnormal and criminal. The classification and compartmentalization of persons turned practices into identity. One went from performing sodomy to being a homosexual; sex went from a verb to a noun. This kind of objectification still exists in the penal system (a criminal, a drug offender, a pedophile) and in the medical system (a diabetic, an amputee, an alcoholic) as if that one aspect of a person defines the whole person.
By turning that knowledge-power around, object groups acquire subjectivity. For examples, gay rights advocates have taken the idea of sexuality as identity to press for civil rights with considerable success. This is despite the logical inconsistency of arguing both that alternative orientations are both atypical and in need of protection and a different kind of normal in need of acceptance. Feminism and gay identity politics is a direct threat to the white, hetero patriarchy and it knows it. The resistance to gay and female rights ought to make that obvious. If subjugated, objectified groups can find subjectivity in their own self-surveillance, what is to stop the rest of us? On a basic, possibly subconscious, level, OWS protesters know this.
There is no leadership, spokespersons, or official demands of OWS for the simple reason that the nation need not define itself in opposition to anything else. By creating demands or selecting leaders, the movement would define itself in opposition to the status quo casting itself as “the other” and apart from what is normal. Further, a specific leadership renders it vulnerable to decapitation by removing that leadership by arrest, death, or bribery. OWS and any larger movement that grows from it ought to continue to avoid that trap by remaining a decentralized movement. The goal of OWS is not to replace the existing power system or to put pressure on liberal or progressive (whatever that might mean) politicians. We are way beyond liberal solutions.
Liberalism holds that one can make improvements to the human condition within the institutional establishment by tweeking the existing system. In this sense, it is a close relative of conservatism, which holds that improvement comes by complying with existing rules. Liberal, representative democracy institutionalizes class conflict to create a struggle of interests within the legal system. In the case of the European power structure (including its settler states like the USA), that balance has been damaged to the point where the laboring classes no longer possess the political resources to exercise political agency. Instead of fixing or overthrowing the current system, OWS seeks an organic replacement. At some point, the movement will simply be the nation and perhaps more than that. After all, we will eventually have to admit that humanity has outgrown its collection of nation states.
During the French revolution, representatives of the third estate declared that they were the nation. That was a preindustrial society before mass communication, so they were being figurative. In our case it is close to literally true. The representatives of the third estate sitting as a committee simply became the national legislature. This is why distinctions between public and private resources or the idea of observing local property regulations is rather silly. OWS is no more trespassing on public land than Washington’s army was trespassing at Valley Forge. If we no longer recognize the authority of the Mayor or government of New York City, for example, then we do not recognize its ability to regular where, when, or how we assemble. It is absurd for us to decry the immorality of laws that allow banks to commit highway robbery while still fretting over camping regulations. It is not so much that the Constitution grants or protects the right to protest. Rather, OWS as the embodiment of the nation need not look to any authority above or outside itself. The fact that OWS is present on Wall Street or some other meeting place is its own justification.
If it seems like people who would ordinarily support the Democrats are skeptical or are unenthusiastic, it is because we know that the political contest is a sideshow. The reason it is “Occupy Wall Street” and not “Occupy the Capitol” is because we know that Washington is a puppet theater and that gambling on change by playing party politics is a sucker’s game. Again, the idea is not simply to replace leaders or to enact specific reforms. OWS seeks to replace the entire political, social, and economic culture with a wider sense of human community. It already conducts itself in that manner. Rather than leaders with the prerogative to make decisions for the group, OWS operates on consensus. It is clear from the past ten or twelve years that there is no political, institutional solution for what ails us. Fortunately, we do not need one.
Posted by Deep13 | Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:32 PM (35 replies)
Go to Page: 1