Ecologism without Class Struggle is tantamount to Fascism

Needs saying! Without genuine Equality of oppurtunity, poverty in the West/ Global North will create apathy about environmentalism and poverty in the South will continue to exert pressures on the environment. Without a Class Struggle element, any realistic solutions to the coming crisis that allow Southern economies to develop will involve Totalitarian measures such as restricting the number of children Northern families have, which would ultimatley involve sterilising disabled people, immigrants and the general poor. Forced abortions would be common, but maybe banning non-essential flights and use of cars wouldn't be a bad thing!

Practical Anarchy as Opposed to Statism or Libertarian Communism as such

Anarchism, although obviously grounded in ideology, personally is more about doing what is practical as opposed to doing things for ideological reasons. The economy doesn't directly come into it, for "policies" such as organic food cooperatives, producer-consumer-anti-market drug co-operative/syndicates, medical/psychyatric patient's, housing and transport collectives.

People often use the word "communism", or a "commuist society". The problem is: how do you define the community or society. Without voluntary communitees, you have forced collectivisation. Without opt-in societies, you have Statist dictatorships. Ideally, the criteria for a product or service would be the willing ness of individuals to produce a certain product or service, with direct supply being free at the point of use. With a separation of producers and consumers outside a syndicalist or collectivist scenario, you would have a new form of class domination and antagonism between producers and consumers. Municipalism could be a half way solution for libertarian communism, but this brings democracy into conflict with freedom and allows some unfortunate scope for those more intellectually inclined, or simply those with more time on their hands, to dominate political affairs.

Twelve

Me as a twelve-year-old
That’s not too hard to imagine
The years in between leave me stone cold
Now I’m beginning to get to know myself again
But at the same time my views have changed
Although the questions I ask are still the same
When I was seven I asked: “Who made God?”
Around sixteen, I asked myself
“If people are so rational, what do we need governments for?”
Will anyone give me any answers at seventy?
At twelve, no-one seemed to give me any answers
At school, I was asked a lot of questions
Wasn’t that my job?
All I learned was to know my place and a lot of rude words
At 70, I hope I’m still asking
(14.10.2005)

Possessions

I slowly, or quickly, filled my home with objects accumulated over time
The sofa I bought second hand
The camp bed given by a friend of a friend
The desk I’ve had for years
Pots, pans, assorted propaganda lying around
Each item brings back memories
The people I met in London or Leeds
I watch “Morgan and Plattell” because they piss me off
(the TV)
I’m like that, I have to be challenged
(unlike the people on the TV)
The computer I got to compensate my dyslexia
The ‘fridge I got when I was at Keele
Treasured books and CD’s
Take me to other worlds in my head
And enter others
(7.10.2005)

Hyperspace concepts

Travelling faster than the speed of light (or its concept anyway) create problems in that a) There is an infinite energy barrier to overcome at the speed of light and b) Complex numbers are always involved when describing time, mass and length.

It would seem that for an object travelling faster than c, relative to rest, time both increases and assumes a negative dimension. Also, the faster the object travels, the more its mass apparently decreases.

It would seem, from a certain perspective, that a faster-than-light object also travels back in time. Of course, if a spaceship were to leave Earth at some point, travel to a distant star and then return, but during its journey it travelled back in time to sometime near the point of departure, it would seem to the people back on Earth as if the ship had achieved super-luminal velocities.

These seeming paradoxes and impossibilities could be the means by which faster than light travel is achieved. If gravity and magnetism could be combined, anti-gravity may be possible. A ship with an anti-gravity drive could be built and placed in orbit, where it is restrained by gravity. Operating the anti-g drive could fool the parent planet that the ship has negative mass and the ship would start to move away from the planet. If the anti-g drive were used to its full potential, the ship may actually be propelled into the super-luminal realm. With the paradoxes described, this could be termed “hyperspace”, but this does not mean that objects in normal space do not affect those in hyperspace.

A reversal to “realspace” could be achieved by travelling near an object’s “mass shadow”, thus entering another solar system. Another method would be to restart the anti-gravity drive in reverse. It may be possible that, for a ship in hyperspace, the outside universe is only apparent through the gravitational effects of bodies in it. This comes on to a common problem in science fiction: navigating in hyperspace.

A different method for entering hyperspace could involve quantum mechanics and warped space. A very thin craft (but probably very wide if it is to have passengers and/ or crew) could be accelerated to relativistic velocities using several methods (solar wind, a giant orbital laser, plasmas). As its length contracts, a space-warping device (actually the opposite of Star Trek’s Warp Drive) could be activated until the length has been contracted to Planck orders of magnitude. Over a certain period of time, the craft may actually breach the light barrier due to a similar process as quantum tunnelling. The craft can then continue to be accelerated by outside means.
Similarly, a length-warping effect could stretch a ship and create a similar illusion to space as the mass-altering method on gravity.

The interesting thing about super-luminal travel in Star Trek is that the value for gamma effectively remains the same. In reality, it may actually be possible to “jump” or “warp” from rest to super-luminal velocities and keep (the magnitude of) gamma at unity. Of course, this would mean that a star ship, for example, could instantly travel faster than c one minute and then the next return to rest/ “classical” velocities, but when faster than c it can only travel at around 1.42 times the speed of light. Not quite the basis for an interstellar federation, but still plenty of potential for near-stellar trade/ exploration!

(“gamma” refers to the ratio in relativistic physics between rest mass and mass at relativistic velocities. The inverse of gamma determines length contraction and time dilation. “c” refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, a universal constant)

HYPOCRICY

Lets not wind up Turkey
1.5 million Armenians, lets just forget them
Terrorists never win, they say
Tell that to the Nicauraguans
Is Political Islam going through its own Propaganda by Deed phase?
Well, that’s what Charles Clark seems to think
Lock them up for three months just to be sure
Next time we’ll bring back the rack
Terrorism doesn’t work they say
Depends on how much terror
Let them join the EU, they’ll learn about democracy
10,000 died defending the Paris Commune
Lets forget about that, remember terrorism doesn’t work
State Terror works: remember Kronstadt
WHAT THE BLEEP DOES TERR MEAN ANYWAY?
(7.10.2005)

"Smeagol in the looking glass"
Azure eyes remind me of all that I have seen
Hairy ears remind me of all that I have heard
My mouth hides behind a Gallic moustache,
But I do not hide my words (sometimes)
A beard seems to try to hide my neck,
“That’s Prince Kropotkin to you” it says
Another argument with Trotsky about omelettes and broken eggs

Nun-raping Liberal Communist Deep-Eco Feminazi

My parents don’t believe I have a problem
They say that I should get a job
That would make me happy
When a job got me into this situation

Words

Words are just words
Just labels
They don’t expect anything
But they assume expectations
I never had the chance to get to know myself
Could never find the words to describe myself
Son?
Brother?
Man?
Treat me like a son
Love me as a brother
But acknowledge me as a man
(23.9.2005)

I am me
I refuse descriptions
They are all too limiting anyway
Call me what you will
If its all the same to you
(30.9.2005)

"Excuses"

Don’t ask me I only work here
I didn’t do it
Nobody saw me do it
You can’t prove anything
The butler did it
I didn’t know it would do that
There are unknowns
There are known unknowns
And there are unknown knowns
I thought……….
(30.9.2005)

Colours
Yellow fever
The Green book
Little Red Book
Black bloc!
My “red mist”
Scarlet woman
Brown noise, ha ha
White noise
“Green autonomist”
Black hole
White hole?
Men In Black
Feeling kinda blue
True blue, baby
I love you
Brown Eyed Girl
Brown sugar,

See sound, ultrasound
Gamma-rays, see letters?
(30.9.2005)

Well, I've done my small bit for world peace thanks to a visit to my local piggy station. You can't vote for peace, you have to demand it!

Nozic and Anarchy/ Communism

Let us assume that there are basically two types of state. One employs a monopoly of violence and has limited involvement in other areas. This is often called “Capitalism”.
The other has a monopoly on the economy and limited involvement in other areas. This is often called “Communism”. For the late Robert Nozic, as a libertarian modern states are often an approximation of “Communism”, whereas anarchy, for him, would lead to a “dominant protection agency” which would become the Universal Protection Agency, which would lead to “Capitalism”.

In reality, centralised state economies only directly control industry and mostly regulate other areas. In the USSR, for example, the existence of a black market denied the state’s monopoly on the economy. Similarly, armed criminals and terrorists make a mockery of the state’s monopoly on violence. Of course, if the Capitalist State genuinely did have a monopoly of violence, it would have no legitimate reason to exist, just as if a Communist State actually had a monopoly of economical activity, it would have no reason to exist if it has no competitors.

What if a Corporation has an economic monopoly and also runs the state? There is in fact a country just like this. Unrecognised by most nations, Transendentria sits precariously next to Moldova, near the Black Sea. Its economy and government are entirely controlled by an entity called the “Sheriff Corporation”, but inside its borders they act as if it is the last part of the Soviet Union. Capitalism meets Communism head on and sets up home together.

Democracy: A Transitory State?

Historically, and considering recent events, it would be difficult to consider “new” democracies as genuinely expressing the “will of the people”. Weimar Germany, 2nd Republic of Spain, occupied Iraq and the presidential elections in Afghanistan and the DRC all had voters split on sectarian, class or regional lines. In the end a “strong leader” ended up becoming the default option.

This was especially the case in the presidential elections in Afghanistan and the DRC. In both cases there was only one candidate who was recognised by the whole country with all the other candidates mainly only having support in certain provinces.

For westerners, these growing pains are a long forgotten memory and are often dismissed. The only example that comes to mind, strange as it may seem but it has a point, is the events during the Clone Wars in the Star Wars mythos. The events describe a transition from a constitutional republic to a dictatorship, but it would be an interesting thought experiment to see what would happen if a peace deal was made at the end of the Clone Wars.

In this hypothetical scenario, General Grievous, the Separatist leader, offers peace after the death of Count Dooku. After this, general elections are held throughout the Republic and contested space for the position of Galactic Leader. Standing in this contest are: Palpatine, the incumbent Chancellor; Grievous, as part of the peace deal; and Senator Padme Amidala and others. In this situation, it is difficult to see any result other than Grievous being denounced as a terrorist and Amidala being denounced either as a pacifist with Separatist sympathies, or her pregnancy and relationship with a member of the Jedi Council will come out and make her, and the Jedi, appear corrupt, thus both would lose to Palpatine, giving him the opportunity to destroy the Jedi anyway and declare himself emperor.

The real issues behind the political situation, being outlying system’s reluctance to support senate corruption, senate corruption itself and the Jedi’s ability to maintain peace, especially with the secession of some systems, are never discussed in the battle between personalities.

In all the situations described the “strong leader” type has an advantage over other candidates through existing powers. Elections in these circumstances are more like Bonapartist-style referendums then any kind of real expression of the popular will.

“Democracy”, in this scenario, is faced with two possible fates: be overthrown in a revolution or become a dictatorship.

Oh, I'm in a happy mood (probably won't last). I'm doing a group talk on Animal Rights for Philosophy and http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/356133.html Milton Friedman is dead!

Libertarian Marxism? A foray into Individualist Anarchism.

Firstly, I would happily include William Godwin and Pierre Joseph Proudhon as consistent “Individualist Anarchists”, although I also consider Proudhon to be the only consistent Liberal in history.

Characters like Max Stirner, Hakim Bey and John Clark also generally fit into this category, but are probably better described as “Ego Communists” or “Communist Individualists”, and cover the philosophical ground somewhat of “Insurrectionary Anarchism”. Anti-state and anti-democratic but socialists all in their own way.

My main focus is on the ideas of Benjamin Tucker, William Thompson and, especially, Thomas Hogskin. Hogskin’s ideas could best be described as “Libertarian Marxist”, and Tucker owes a great debt to Proudhon, although for Tucker worker’s collectives would produce their own currency as opposed to a more nationalist mutual bank. For Tucker, the market is not free enough, and he describes, sometimes convincingly, how it could benefit workers with the end of capitalist and state monopolies.

Thompson describes how the workers could buy out their bosses and how a system similar to Tuckers (free market anarchism*?) would lead to equality. Unlike Tucker and Hogskin he admits that this ultimately wouldn’t help inequality between co-operatives or provide for orphans or the elderly.

Thompson’s ultimate solution is to have an Owenite-style co-operative state. Thompson’s libertarian credentials are somewhat redeemed by his assertion that the state exploits the working classes through unfair laws (inheritance, property rights, taxes) more than capitalists. As an aside to the two above positions, I would have to assert that the state requires the (taxed) capitalist exploitation of surplus labour in order to be funded, like the rich man funding an orphanage though exploited surplus.

As an aside, I would define “the” authoritarian position as being “If it wasn’t for a particular institution, there’d be more poverty”. Compared to the libertarian position as being “It’s state monopolies that create poverty, and if not, we don’t care anyway”, as opposed to using the terms “left” and “right” which are often meaningless. As someone who considers himself an anarchist, I would partly agree with both. Capitalism creates poverty, but the state often keeps people in poverty, doesn’t do enough to eradicate poverty and limits wealth redistribution through the laws that it enforces.

Hogskin’s position is an almost perfect example of the problem of dividing and defining society on class lines. Writing in the 1820’s, he espoused a primitive form of Revolutionary Syndicalism, showing himself to be a “Workerist” through and through. For Hogskin, all forms of labour are equally valid and it is capitalist relations that create inequalities between wages (and presumably state institutions as well; there is no call for an SPD-style levelling of wages).

The solution for this is for workers, including management, to combine in unions for each trade and to recognise their common enemy: the non-labouring Capitalist. They would eventually take over the economy and run it on market-socialist* lines similar to Tucker’s. With all capitalists expropriated, management would no longer have any privileged positions in the workplace and the manager of, for example, a biscuit factory, would be just as important, and have the same relative wage as, the tea lady.

The problem is simply: what about those who don’t work? Hogskin’s is a position typical of later Marxists in suggesting an alliance between the proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie at the expense of the lumpenproletariat (and students, the elderly/ retired, the disabled, single mothers, refugees and orphans).

Unlike Marx, Hogskin does not see any benefit to industrial society from capitalists. It has been suggested that this position shows up the naivety of market socialism, for how would roads and canals and other infrastructure be built without either large-scale collectivism (probably administered by the state) or through large accumulations of capital?

This does, however, fit in with the supposed environmental benefits of “individualist anarchism”. Various environmental and other interest groups would still survive the state and would probably be in a better position to take on certain corporate interests, that a state would most likely side with, especially if they had a large membership. Similarly, it could be said that roads, nuclear power stations (and weapons) etc would only be built if they were absolutely needed or had the overwhelming support of the community. Otherwise, people would learn to do without or become more self-sufficient. Of course, if the voluntary funding ran out anyway, a project would have to be abandoned.

I would imagine that in the societies envisages by Tucker and Hogskin, inheritance would be abolished and the capital put to social uses (building schools, hospitals, orphanages etc), although without voluntary co-operation they would quickly become reliant on charitable donations.

I think the questions society really needs to answer to respond to the “Individualist Anarchist’s*” position are: do we really need universal education after elementary level, can we do without nuclear power and, especially with greater equalities of income, is the trade and use/ abuse of narcotics really a problem or is it simply a majority imposing its own moral code on a minority?

Thinking about the issues more closely, I would have to place the Individualist Anarchists slightly outside anarchism for the most part and among the so-called Libertarians, while keeping Godwin and Stirner as the altruistic and egoistic keepers of the true Individualist flame.

I think the main issue with Libertarianism is that you may have got rid of Capitalism but you haven’t got rid of Feudalism. To have the vulnerable unsupported by society (the same goes for international society) will lead to a “warrior, freeman, serf” system whereby the strong are in a greater position to exploit the weak. The point about Anarchism is that society has to collectively agree to end Feudalism. For ever. Capitalism is not the default mode of human economic activity, it is in fact a fairly transitory, localised phenomenon, but the legalised subjection of human labour is as old as politics.

*For the purposes of the positions described, these are effectively the same with more obvious differences asserting themselves outside the scope of this essay.

More from Tucker:

Passive Resistance

If one-fifth of the people were to resist taxation, it would cost more to collect their taxes, or try to collect them, than the other four-fifths would consent to pay into the treasury, The force needed for this bloodless fight Liberty is slowly but surely recruiting, and sooner or later it will organize for action. Then, Tyranny and Monopoly, down goes your house!

"Passive resistance," said Ferdinand Lassalle, with an obtuseness thoroughly German, "is the resistance which does not resist." Never was there a greater mistake. It is the only resistance which in these days of military discipline resists with any result. There is not a tyrant in the civilized world today who would not do anything in his power to precipitate a bloody revolution rather than see himself confronted by any large fraction of his subjects determined nat to obey. An insurrection is easily quelled; but no army is willing or able to train its guns on inoffensive people who do not even gather in the streets but stap at home and stand back on their rights. Neither the ballot nor the bayonet is to play any great part in the coming struggle; passive resistance is the instrument by which the revolutionary force is destined to secure in the last great conflict the people's rights forever.

The idea that Anarchy can be inaugurated by force is as fallacious as the idea that it can be sustained by force. Force cannot preserve Anarchy; neither can it bring it. In fact, one of the inevitable influences of the use of force is to postpone Anarchy. The only thing that force can ever do for us is to save us from extinction, to give us a longer lease of life in which to try to secure Anarchy by the only methods that can ever bring it. But this advantage is always purchased at immense cost, and its attainment is always attended by frightful risk. The attempt should be made only when the risk of any other course is greater. When a physician sees that his patient's strength is being exhausted so rapidly by the intensity of his agony that he will die of exhaustion before the medical processes inaugurated have a chance to do their curative work, he administers an opiate. But a good physician is always loath to do so, knowing that one of the influences of the opiate is to interfere with and defeat the medical processes themselves. He never does it except as a choice of evils. It is the same with the use of force, whether of the mob or of the State, upon diseased society; and not only those who prescribe its indiscriminate use as a sovereign remedy and a permanent tonic, but all who ever propose it as a cure, and even all who would lightly and unnecessarily resort to it, not as a cure, but as an expedient, are social quacks.

From an essay by the 19th century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker:

First, then, State Socialism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.

Marx, its founder, concluded that the only way to abolish the class monopolies was to centralize and consolidate all industrial and commercial interests, all productive and distributive agencies, in one vast monopoly in the hands of the State. The government must become banker, manufacturer, farmer, carrier, and merchant, and in these capacities must suffer no competition. Land, tools, and all instruments of production must be wrested from individual hands, and made the property of the collectivity. To the individual can belong only the products to be consumed, not the means of producing them. A man may own his clothes and his food, but not the sewing-machine which makes his shirts or the spade which digs his potatoes. Product and capital are essentially different things; the former belongs to individuals, the latter to society. Society must seize the capital which belongs to it, by the ballot if it can, by revolution if it must. Once in possession of it, it must administer it on the majority principle, though its organ, the State, utilize it in production and distribution, fix all prices by the amount of labor involved, and employ the whole people in its workshops, farms, stores, etc. The nation must be transformed into a vast bureaucracy, and every individual into a State official. Everything must be done on the cost principle, the people having no motive to make a profit out of themselves. Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself. Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer. He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison. All freedom of trade must disappear. Competition must be utterly wiped out. All industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly. The remedy for monopolies is monopoly.

Such is the economic programme of State Socialism as adopted from Karl Marx. The history of its growth and progress cannot be told here. In this country the parties that uphold it are known as the Socialistic Labor Party, which pretends to follow Karl Marx; the Nationalists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through Edward Bellamy; and the Christian Socialists, who follow Karl Marx filtered through
Jesus Christ.

What other applications this principle of Authority, once adopted in the economic sphere, will develop is very evident. It means the absolute control by the majority of all individual conduct. The right of such control is already admitted by the State Socialists, though they maintain that, as a matter of fact, the individual would be allowed a much larger liberty than he now enjoys. But he would only be allowed it; he could not claim it as his own. There would be no foundation of society upon a guaranteed equality of the largest possible liberty. Such liberty as might exist would exist by sufferance and could be taken away at any moment. Constitutional guarantees would be of no avail. There would be but one article in the constitution of a State Socialistic country: "The right of the majority is absolute."

The claim of the State Socialists, however, that this right would not be exercised in matters pertaining to the individual in the more intimate and private relations of his life is not borne out by the history of governments. It has ever been the tendency of power to add to itself, to enlarge its sphere, to encroach beyond the limits set for it; and where the habit of resisting such encroachment is not fostered, and the individual is not taught to be jealous of his rights, individuality gradually disappears and the government or State becomes the all-in-all. Control naturally accompanies responsibility. Under the system of State Socialism, therefore, which holds the community responsible for the health, wealth, and wisdom of the individual, it is evident that the community, through its majority expression, will insist more and more in prescribing the conditions of health, wealth, and wisdom, thus impairing and finally destroying individual independence and with it all sense of individual responsibility.

Whatever, then, the State Socialists may claim or disclaim, their system, if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all must kneel; a State school of medicine, by whose practitioners the sick must invariably be treated; a State system of hygiene, prescribing what all must and must not eat, drink, wear, and do; a State code of morals, which will not content itself with punishing crime, but will prohibit what the majority decide to be vice; a State system of instruction, which will do away with all private schools, academies, and colleges; a State nursery, in which all children must be brought up in common at the public expense; and, finally, a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture, or scientific breeding, in which no man and woman will be allowed to have children if the State prohibits them and no man and woman can refuse to have children if the State orders them. Thus will Authority achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried to its highest power.

Such is the ideal of the logical State Socialist, such the goal which lies at the end of the road that Karl Marx took. Let us now follow the fortunes of Warren and Proudhon, who took the other road, - the road of Liberty.

This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.

Full essay on:
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html
Although I don't entirely endorse this particular economic position,the point does have to be made about the hypocrises of modern advocates of capitalism and so-called "anarcho-capitalists". Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom or markets in a genuine system of exchange, only monopolies and has a great deal more in common with state socialism,its professed nemesis than it would like to admit: both depend on the state for a monopoly of economic power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6135526.stm
With 100 bodies being being brought into hospitals and mortuaries every day, I would suggest that the estimate of civilain casualties in Iraq of 100K is a low one. This figure cannot include those directly killed in bombing raids during and after the invasion (easily 20-30 thousand) and other instances where whole, or even identifiable, bodies couldn't be found. There is also the thousands of people (including entire families) who basically would have been killed in cold blood in their own homes, not naming sides but obviously including Fallujah and as a result of sectarian rivalry, who's bodies where probably just left in situ or recieved a quick burial under Islamic custom to consider.

As a, probably still concervative, estimate of civilian casualties, it must easily be over 150K. Probably 170-180 when certain specific, deliberate murders are taken into consideration. This still leaves accidental casualties (i.e. heart attack victims, road accidents) who would normally be saved if hospitals in certain areas weren't already bombed or overloading with war victims. Many hosptials ran out of or were short of vital medicines due to the war and sanctions, leaving the most vunerable to face a death sentence.

Anarchist justice.

My Godwinian-Bookchinian phase notwithstanding, in fact any phase notwithstanding, I would have to say I have a basically Social-Liberal take on criminal justice.

OK, I have about three takes on criminal justice, but I like to be both balanced and different.

My first, but most recent take on it would simply be: GET RID OF THE POLICE AND PUT THE MONEY INTO SOCIAL SERVICES (needs to be said)! Effectively fitting in with a (strong) social liberal/ anarcho-syndicalist (v.tempted to put quotation marks on one or t'other) position in that offences are better off being prevented (potential of nanny state so I can't wholly endorse this position) than society taking its revenge out on perpetrators. Instead I would favour rehabiliton programs (including for some murderers like for the unfortunate examples when an individual in an act of madness kills his/her children) with only the worst killers and rapists (but maybe most killers realistically) imprisoned basically for their own safety.

Of course I could be charged with wooly thinking here, but to tar someone with the tag "murderer" will result in history being repeated.

Consensus justice. In this case an indvidual would have a trial of sorts, any external factors taken into consideration (like peer pressure), a unanimous verdict given (not including the trialee) and punishment/rehabilitation decided by consensus. If the perpetrator does not agree to the sentence (to prevent a lynch mob mentality) then they would either be let off, possibly expelled from any present communal relations or the trial would be repeated with different members of the community present. If a sentence is never decided, trials could be repeated indefinitely thus creating an ad-hoc punishment of sorts.

Commune justice. This could be interpreted as neo-tribalism. If people live in small communes, a set of guidelines/punishments etc could be reached by consensus. If someone from one commune infringes on the rights on someone from another, individuals from a third could be brought in as arbitrators.

Hello Lancaster! Good to see there's some alternative academia here.

Trial of Saddam Hussein "So-damn insane"?

Philipino commies "defend" Saddam
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355493.html

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355433.html

Non-Saddam related, but part of the "War on Terror", i.e government terror of British population: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/355477.html

Have to say, do not agree with the whole legalised revenge thing,its still revenge. Where do you stop? "An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

If Saddam should be hanged for something governments do all the time http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/354689.html then people like Blair, Bush and Rumsfeld (and Clinton and Albright) should be vivisected!

Ban animal testing, there's plenty of war criminals (and politicians) out there!

Regards national sovereignty and will, those were violated when we invaded, ffs!

The only real expression of national will would have been a revolution to overthrow Saddam.
Of course, a revolution is what lead to Saddam being in power in the first place (and the west saving is arse a few times!)

Meaning to put something out on Anarchist Justice at a later date.

Education and Democracy

Sometimes it almost seems as if modern democratic representation is designed specifically to instil a particular elite in power. The Lawyer MPs, those who went to Eton, Oxford, Cambridge, anywhere where the ideas of the ruling class dominate, anywhere where they can hone their (narrow) political arguments to confuse the confusable into believing that they alone are superior to us mere mortals. Us mere mortals, who have only the ability to recognise “our betters” and thus vote appropriately.

To begin again, our elected representatives often come from privileged backgrounds, with the benefits of private education. The problem begins when, first, those with a private education are significantly more likely to enter the halls of power, and secondly, those same individuals are expected to administer and oversee the institution of public education.

As, by definition, only a minority can rule, it would also make sense from the politician’s perspective that only a minority should be taught to rule while the majority are taught only to be governed. Thus, universal suffrage combined with universal education creates a servile caste taught to obey, but being the majority of the population, or, more correctly citizenry, expressing its supposed will through the filter of representative government, it can continue to “enjoy” the illusion that it is free and is in fact in charge despite being “everywhere in chains”.

When Nationalism is brought into the equation, the game takes on a darker dimension, for what makes Nations different when they are all democratic? The Government then becomes the apparent will of a democratic volk and thus Blood becomes connected with State. With the state being conceived of in organic terms, any individual or collective dissent from legislation can be considered as a cancerous cell to be removed for the common good, regardless of morality. Of course, the question remains: if a policy is the national will, why is government needed? This is of course turned around by government; any dissent is going against the national will and is therefore unpatriotic.

God I get so angry sometimes!

I really should point out that I have no conception of "ownership " at all. After I post this blog, I do not own it. This does not mean that someone else can claim it as their own or take credit for it, it is now (or will be) in the public domain and is an entity of its own. If anything it "owns" itself. Ditto intellectual property. Someome else shouldn't profit from something you have produced, but you still don't necessarily have any rights over it.

It is CONTROL that is important (and yes, this is at someone who's riled me) not ownership. The USA and the USSR have/had modern industrial economies, with control legalised to and by a minority, backed up by the state, backed up by force. The phrase we are looking for here is "state capitalism", by fact and by definition.

As I don't believe in ownership, I don't belive in class as such, but there are castes, even with a high degree of mobility, and there is control. There was once no aristocracy and few capitalists in Serbia in the 19th century
(Statism and Anarchy) and the same went for China in the early 20th ("just poor and poorer", Sun Yat Sen) so by a class definition, Serbia and China were "worker's states". But who had control? The government and warlords of course!

A crack dealer can become a rock star, a peanut farmer President and a chav can win the lottery like everybody else, but inequality has not been eradicated, it has been polarised.

What do I do?
I read I possess I obsess
I dispossess I clean I remove
I destroy I hit myself I beg for forgiveness
I pray for rain I pray for sun
I
DON’T
DO
ANYTHING
I walk I obey I disobey
I hurl abuse at authority figures I get letters off the DWP,
which I rip up
I can’t talk to my sister I want to talk to my sister
I have terrible handwriting I am dyslexic
I have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety
And I get called a nun raping, liberal, communist,
deep eco, feminazi (who needs to drop the I)