Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 234

On June 19 2020 20:40 hiems wrote: Loco do u have siblings? If so are they similar to you? lol

We have some similarities but on the whole we are quite different. He doesn't pay attention to the news or political topics of any kind. He is very impatient and impulsive (ADHD, unmedicated). He is narrowly focused on personal achievement and raising his standard of living by trying to join the upper middle class. He is working on his PhD in criminological psychology. He has struggled to understand my views and choices at times, but he said recently that I am his "divergent lighthouse," i.e. the person who gets him to think outside of the box and the narrow field of study he is engaged and which takes up all his time and in and he thanked me for it.

On June 19 2020 22:49 Spitfiree wrote: I hope he does, maybe there's a few more of them that undermine all your world views in which your only coping mechanism is lame ad hominem. Loco is really hard to follow mainly because of the wall of text but also because his arguments are structured in a complex way where you'd have to spend a few dozen hours to read on different movements, thinking models, ideologies and etc. just to get the foundations of his ideas (he obviously spent a lot of time and effort into that, and I doubt anyone of us is anywhere near that level). If I were him I'd feel like I'm teaching an elementary school class at this point.

thanks but I'm way too self-indulgent on here so I can't feel that way. It takes a special kind of pedagogical understanding, patience and commitment to do actual teaching.

On June 19 2020 10:05 Loco wrote: I asked you here, in the case of Cheran, how is it that they can enforce private property without centralized force backing it? Who is it that issues the status of X land or property being private, versus public?

I already told you twice, private property doesn't require enforcement of a centralized force, rooftop koreans enforced their private property by themselves.

There was no redistribution in Cheran, people have their land titles, the pink slip for their cars etc.

How does that work? Are the people without land ownership working for those that have land and renting land from them?

How it works in every other place, some people own their house or business, others rent the house or storefront etc.

Sorry, I meant companies owning the infrastructure of the economy and some of the land. The rest is private property owned by individual actors to do with as they please. That's what we should expect in an-cap, right?

Sigh... are you asking how right wing anarchism works after all this time? thats why I said assume I'm libertarian, what does this have to do with cheran?

According to this article, "Mexican organized crime has turned to extorting whoever does well in a given sector or taking over businesses directly – be that logging, mining, agriculture, public transport, or even mom and pop tortilla shops." So it doesn't seem that easy to flee from them since they'll just find you again if you are successful. It doesn't make much sense to me that there would be economic death of an area when poor people generally don't have the ability to flee and they are so invested in their current place, and when the cartels benefit from extortion, it's better to do more threatening of farmers than active destruction. The fact that they make a ton of money from non-drug avenues every year also indicates that they must be successful at maintaining presence in a lot of places?

As I already pointed out, cartel presence is focused in specific areas, if the cartel starts growing in a city the businesses start to flee to other safer cities and indeed poor people can't leave, and suffer the afformentioned economic death of the area.

No the cartel doesn't run legal businesses LOL, they don't run a Mom & pops tortilleria, one day they show up, ask them for monthly payment and if they don't pay, they one day they show up again and kill everybody in the shop, they do this to every business they can from many sizes, some people pay the money which very likely spirals them into bankrupcy, others flee, and other braves one don't pay up and brace for a battle.

I don't think it's about "opening businesses". If you take Nestlé for instance, they can go everywhere and prey on poor indigenous communities for their bottled water product. We're talking about access to resources.

And as i said, most towns don't have resources of interests, Nestle isn't going to build a bottle plant in every fucking pond lol.

Cheran is a town in Michoacán, which exports 90% of Mexico's avocados. Mexico exported the equivalent of 2.8 billion dollars worth of avocados last year. That's a lot. At around 15:00 in this video one of the guys patrolling says the cartel wanted to start growing avocados there, as you'd expect, since Michoacan is one of the absolute best places in the world for this crop. You can't honestly be saying that the cartel and the corruption is disconnected from global free market capitalist forces?

The cartels are extorting avocado producers many have lefts, farms have been abandoned because of kidnappings, perhaps the cartel wants to build farms but they don't run them a sicario isn't going to fucking plow the land at 5am ffs... if anything they pay for the building of the farm and tell the farmers, if you don't give me X ammount of money every month, I'll kill your family.

I don't know what you mean with tied with capitalist forces, but the cartels aren't running legitimate businesses, they extort, kidnap, traffic humans and mostly sell drugs, their ties with "capitalists forces" is in the form of money laundering, however this laundering is allowed or done by the government, virtuallly every big politician in México has close ties with the cartel, as you already know our President that you loved not long ago, released the Chapo's son (Oviedo Guzman), and in fact a couple of months ago he visited the Guzman's family the day of Oviedo's birthday, he shook the hand of el Chapo's mom and ate with them.

Saying the government and the cartels are connected would be a huge understatement, the government are the cartels.

"'We can’t put a project like this at risk in order to participate” in the federal election, Chávez said. “If we let in an election like this, with polling stations and all that accompanies that, the parties are going to want to get back in here.” Nope, looks like they don't allow it. Several sources confirm it. (Also looks like they very much like Zapata, which doesn't support your assertion that they are very different ideologically from ELZN.) I don't really understand your second point, but you seem to be conceding that this is a libertarian socialist experiment, not a capitalist one?

I meant the right to vote.. in México we have voting cards which is basically our ID card for everything, I assume they can vote if they want to in the nearest town, not that it matters or that I think they care, they obv don't want anything to do with politicians.

What I'm saying is that their situation is ring wing libertarian but not because that is their ideology, they aren't socialists either as you read, they were big avocado exporters with big farms with ISO regulations, but as most indigenous zones they tend to lean left, so I would say they are ideologically economically center-left but socially conservatives, they are deeply catholic and would probably literally hang an lgbtq activist pushing for same sex marriage or something like that.

Because as I said, they aren't an-caps ideologically, they arent progressive lefties either they would put a tire on your neck and lit you on fire if you pushed for gay marriage, they are simply an indigenous community fed up with crime and the way their society is structured is technically some form of libertarianism (now that you pointed out their assemblies).

Yeah I'm aware that they have their own beliefs like distrust of modern medicine and such but they have improved on this already and as such I'd consider them more progressive than conservative. I highly doubt they are into public lynching of homosexuals, do you have any source on this?

I think a rift in how we see things is due to scale, you've talked about the atomization of the individual and I think you are mistaking into thinking that is what I want, and I don't think that is the result of capitalism and I think its mostly a problem of scale, (plz dont explain to me how capitalism atomizes ppl for the 100th time), I think a small community of libertarians or socialists will be closely knit, but in a huge metropolis is hard not to be atomized and fucked by the system whichever it is, these kind of huge societies are absolutely new to us as a species, it isnt hard to see why it has been challenging, we don't have the solidarity of ants.

I don't think that's what anyone wants unless they are clinically anti-social. But it's an inevitable effect of economic liberalisation.

Scale complicates things but the issue is not scale itself, its diversity and competition and hierarchy. If you have plenty of resources and cultural homogeneity it doesn't matter if your group is 100 or 1,000,000, it will have less conflict than a room with 10 random modern americans in it who are used to living in a competitive environment based on artificial scarcity and the creation of new wants and needs.

I don't think huge societies are new. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people living under a horizontal structure isn't new. It was pretty much the norm for the longest time, and we have examples that show that it is still possible today given the right circumstances.

You can look at any social species and they are all functionally the same: they can all be hijacked or mislead by external factors. If you remove an animal from the environment it is accustomed to thrive in, you're bound to get into trouble most of the time, because the new environment will most likely be hard to adapt to. You can hijack the instincts of an ant or a bee by giving them certain drugs or forcing them into conflicts in a controlled environment. The systems we have created over time to advantage certain groups over others--systems which we accord meaning and importance to and continually reinforce-- just so happen to be that controlled environment.[/QUOTE]

on more important news... memes:

Advocating for censorship because "it can save lives" what could go wrong?

On June 20 2020 02:32 Baalim wrote: I already told you twice, private property doesn't require enforcement of a centralized force, rooftop koreans enforced their private property by themselves.

I didn't say it required it. What it does require is that the option to use centralized force is there. You're not required to use it, but it can be of use to you if you decide to. The rooftop koreans had the option of calling the cops. (That the cops didn't respond this one particular time is irrelevant.) In the case of personal or communal property, there is no option of using centralized force, it never exists -- there is only the option of self-defense or community defense. Private property, by definition, means that there is an institutional body that recognizes your claim to property. By contrast, personal or communal property is only recognized by your neighbors and community.

There was no redistribution in Cheran, people have their land titles, the pink slip for their cars etc.

Of course there was redistribution. Do you think the politicians, the police and the cartels were floating around in the sky above them, living in some alternate reality? By kicking them out they redistributed the land they had been raping back among themselves, and they redistributed political power among themselves. They call themselves comuneros -- co-proprietors of communal land.

How it works in every other place, some people own their house or business, others rent the house or storefront etc.

So you think they have a state-like institution that enforces property rights, and that they have landlords? Is this just what you want to think or do you have evidence for it?

Sigh... are you asking how right wing anarchism works after all this time? thats why I said assume I'm libertarian, what does this have to do with cheran?

You said they were functionally an an-cap society, so of course I am asking how an-cap society works, so as to find out if their society matches the an-cap model.

According to this article, "Mexican organized crime has turned to extorting whoever does well in a given sector or taking over businesses directly – be that logging, mining, agriculture, public transport, or even mom and pop tortilla shops." So it doesn't seem that easy to flee from them since they'll just find you again if you are successful. It doesn't make much sense to me that there would be economic death of an area when poor people generally don't have the ability to flee and they are so invested in their current place, and when the cartels benefit from extortion, it's better to do more threatening of farmers than active destruction. The fact that they make a ton of money from non-drug avenues every year also indicates that they must be successful at maintaining presence in a lot of places?

As I already pointed out, cartel presence is focused in specific areas, if the cartel starts growing in a city the businesses start to flee to other safer cities and indeed poor people can't leave, and suffer the afformentioned economic death of the area. No the cartel doesn't run legal businesses LOL, they don't run a Mom & pops tortilleria, one day they show up, ask them for monthly payment and if they don't pay, they one day they show up again and kill everybody in the shop, they do this to every business they can from many sizes, some people pay the money which very likely spirals them into bankrupcy, others flee, and other braves one don't pay up and brace for a battle.

"taking over" doesn't mean running the businesses legally themselves. It just means you have enough power to basically have slaves running your for-profit operation while only leaving them with the bare necessities so that they can keep working for you.

And as i said, most towns don't have resources of interests, Nestle isn't going to build a bottle plant in every fucking pond lol.

Indigenous communities always have resources of interest because they rely on them for their survival. If they are a big enough population, it means their territory is rich enough to exploit by commercial interests. The privatization of all of nature is the end-goal of an-cap which is clearly not something that benefits indigenous communities. There are numerous examples of companies like Nestlé going into these territories and promising jobs to these people only to end up extracting tons of water from their territories virtually for free and selling it back to them at a profit. It's incredible to me that you would think indigenous communities are enacting right-wing anarchism to their benefit.

The cartels are extorting avocado producers many have lefts, farms have been abandoned because of kidnappings, perhaps the cartel wants to build farms but they don't run them a sicario isn't going to fucking plow the land at 5am ffs... if anything they pay for the building of the farm and tell the farmers, if you don't give me X ammount of money every month, I'll kill your family.

Well here we have proof that they are not just extorting avocado producers who got into the avocado business on their own, but that they forcing farmers and communities to go into this business because it is profitable for the cartels. This is obviously not an isolated incident.

I don't know what you mean with tied with capitalist forces, but the cartels aren't running legitimate businesses, they extort, kidnap, traffic humans and mostly sell drugs, their ties with "capitalists forces" is in the form of money laundering, however this laundering is allowed or done by the government

I mean that their actions are tied with the whole machinery of global capitalism. Their actions are ruled by the global demand for certain products or services. By "capitalist forces" I include the creation of that demand (because demand is not spontaneous, nor a representation of "intrinsic wants": it is created in order for an economy to keep growing). That demand was created and is maintained through various ways.

Free market capitalism and cartels go hand in hand. Free market capitalism legally decimates those who cannot resist, time and time again it destroys entire communities, leaves deserts where there used to be life, and eliminates ways of living that diverge from the main model, while cartels do the same thing but in an always illegal manner. Corporations often behave in legal ways and exploit blind-spots and loopholes instead. Both are unaccountable and extremely hard to fight against and both are only interested in more profit and more growth. Both are overwhelmingly given the opportunity to prevent the self-determination of people by the dominant political processes of our time.

Saying the government and the cartels are connected would be a huge understatement, the government are the cartels.

You are almost there. Add in that when the profit-motive is what directs human action on a macro-level, you lay the foundation for all of this to be possible. Big transnational corporations and their ultra wealthy representatives are not under democratic oversight, they are allowed to influence and control government and powerful institutions like the World Bank and the IMF which effectively create poverty throughout the world in order to enrich a tiny minority of people. These forces also control public opinion.

That's the trifecta that leads to huge amounts of "corruption" and suffering. I put corruption in quotes because it is functioning like this by design, it's not a matter of individual moral failure. When there exists incredibly powerful institutional bodies that can manufacture poverty, they also create the inevitable side-effects of poverty: crime, deception, and extreme violence.

I meant the right to vote.. in México we have voting cards which is basically our ID card for everything, I assume they can vote if they want to in the nearest town, not that it matters or that I think they care, they obv don't want anything to do with politicians.

Maybe if they go out of town yes but that's not terribly useful to them.

What I'm saying is that their situation is ring wing libertarian but not because that is their ideology, they aren't socialists either as you read, they were big avocado exporters with big farms with ISO regulations, but as most indigenous zones they tend to lean left, so I would say they are ideologically economically center-left but socially conservatives, they are deeply catholic and would probably literally hang an lgbtq activist pushing for same sex marriage or something like that.

They have 27,000 hectares of communal land of which they call themselves co-proprietors. Their local businesses are all run under a worker co-operative model. They ban all forms of capitalist exploitation. They make political decisions based on consensus, and their highest authoritative body is called the "community assembly" which gives everyone a political voice. Heriberto Ramos, a high school principal, said the following: “We have two important projects: one, to continue rescuing and recovering our language, and the other, to not imitate the curriculums of outsiders that have come in and created individualist mentalities.”

Every single one of these things belong to the socialist tradition. You even have school principal say that he doesn't want to create individualists -- the pillar of right-wing thought. What more do you need? Are you seriously going to keep telling me that they are functionally right-wing anarchists and they just don't conceive of themselves as such ideologically? Because, what, you assume that they hate gay people? This is madness.

I've always said that one of the main reasons why discussing politics with you is horribly unproductive is because you continually restricted the different forms of socialist thought and organizing to a single one of them, which is in effect state capitalism with a socialist logo or "communism" in the party name. This is the most definitive proof of you not having a basic grasp of different forms of socialism that we will ever get, so thank you for your engaging me on this, I can now rest easy.

Ulysses S Grant now falls too

LOLOLOL

On June 20 2020 06:16 Loco wrote: [QUOTE]On June 20 2020 02:32 Baalim wrote: I didn't say it required it. What it does require is that the option to use centralized force is there. You're not required to use it, but it can be of use to you if you decide to. The rooftop koreans had the option of calling the cops. (That the cops didn't respond this one particular time is irrelevant.) In the case of personal or communal property, there is no option of using centralized force, it never exists -- there is only the option of self-defense or community defense. Private property, by definition, means that there is an institutional body that recognizes your claim to property. By contrast, personal or communal property is only recognized by your neighbors and community.

Playing dictionary for the 100th time... No it private property doesn't mean its enforced by a centralized authority, it means not belonging to the state, so individuals or businesses.

Of course there was redistribution. Do you think the politicians, the police and the cartels were floating around in the sky above them, living in some alternate reality? By kicking them out they redistributed the land they had been raping back among themselves, and they redistributed political power among themselves. They call themselves comuneros -- co-proprietors of communal land.

The police has probably a small building and patrols, probably now in the hands of the autodefensas, the government had its building which is now probably used by the junta auxiliar.

There was no redistribution of ownership of businesses or houses or anything like that.

So you think they have a state-like institution that enforces property rights, and that they have landlords? Is this just what you want to think or do you have evidence for it?

I think I explained 3 or 4 times already how property rights are enforced, there are landlords like in everywhere, this doesn't mean there is a magnate building skyscrapers, this is a shitty poor town, landlors probably own a couple of storefronts, some inherited the house from grandma and are putting it up for rent.

Evidence? yeah sure I'll go tomorrow and knock on doors lol.

You said they were functionally an an-cap society, so of course I am asking how an-cap society works, so as to find out if their society matches the an-cap model.

And later on i corredted that since they do have a form of government they are actually libertarian-like.

"taking over" doesn't mean running the businesses legally themselves. It just means you have enough power to basically have slaves running your for-profit operation while only leaving them with the bare necessities so that they can keep working for you.

They extort businesses and ask for protection fees, just like the old school italian mob in the US.

These aren't sofisticated people, they are illiterate dumb psychopaths that just come up with a number they think you can pay, perhaps you can negotiate a bit, and thats pretty much it.

Indigenous communities always have resources of interest because they rely on them for their survival. If they are a big enough population, it means their territory is rich enough to exploit by commercial interests. The privatization of all of nature is the end-goal of an-cap which is clearly not something that benefits indigenous communities. There are numerous examples of companies like Nestlé going into these territories and promising jobs to these people only to end up extracting tons of water from their territories virtually for free and selling it back to them at a profit. It's incredible to me that you would think indigenous communities are enacting right-wing anarchism to their benefit.

No they don't, they have resources but for them to be a coveted opportunity for a business to want to invest in it requires many things, if some region has pine-trees but is in the middle of the mountains with dirt roads then its much easier to get such a common and fast growing wood in another place.

Why do I have to explain this? some places are sitting on top of a lot of resources with a lot of potential profit, but most don't.

Well here we have proof that they are not just extorting avocado producers who got into the avocado business on their own, but that they forcing farmers and communities to go into this business because it is profitable for the cartels. This is obviously not an isolated incident.

It may happen a few times, but its not their MO, its muuuuuuch more profitable to simply pressure and offer them more money to plant coke and mairhuana than fucking avocados.

I mean that their actions are tied with the whole machinery of global capitalism. Their actions are ruled by the global demand for certain products or services. By "capitalist forces" I include the creation of that demand (because demand is not spontaneous, nor a representation of "intrinsic wants": it is created in order for an economy to keep growing). That demand was created and is maintained through various ways. Free market capitalism and cartels go hand in hand. Free market capitalism legally decimates those who cannot resist, time and time again it destroys entire communities, leaves deserts where there used to be life, and eliminates ways of living that diverge from the main model, while cartels do the same thing but in an always illegal manner. Corporations often behave in legal ways and exploit blind-spots and loopholes instead. Both are unaccountable and extremely hard to fight against and both are only interested in more profit and more growth. Both are overwhelmingly given the opportunity to prevent the self-determination of people by the dominant political processes of our time.

Well sure, they supply a demand, the cartels wouldn't exist if drugs were legal though, and no political system will ever outlaw them without a black market that will be as powerful as the demand itself, ironically nobody has been more tied to cartels than the socialists in the area, the whole revolutionary movement in south america has been financed by drug dealing and kidnaps, the recently defeated Morales turned Bolivia into a big coke player. when the money runs out in the socialist paradise, drugs are always an easy way to finance it.

You are almost there. Add in that when the profit-motive is what directs human action on a macro-level, you lay the foundation for all of this to be possible. Big transnational corporations and their ultra wealthy representatives are not under democratic oversight, they are allowed to influence and control government and powerful institutions like the World Bank and the IMF which effectively create poverty throughout the world in order to enrich a tiny minority of people. These forces also control public opinion.

Indeed and I dont like these centralized institutions that exist only because states allow it, it is not a byproduct of free trade though.

That's the trifecta that leads to huge amounts of "corruption" and suffering. I put corruption in quotes because it is functioning like this by design, it's not a matter of individual moral failure. When there exists incredibly powerful institutional bodies that can manufacture poverty, they also create the inevitable side-effects of poverty: crime, deception, and extreme violence.

You just described any socialist attempt on a big scale, corruption poverty and extreme violence.

They have 27,000 hectares of communal land of which they call themselves co-proprietors. Their local businesses are all run under a worker co-operative model. They ban all forms of capitalist exploitation. They make political decisions based on consensus, and their highest authoritative body is called the "community assembly" which gives everyone a political voice. Heriberto Ramos, a high school principal, said the following: “We have two important projects: one, to continue rescuing and recovering our language, and the other, to not imitate the curriculums of outsiders that have come in and created individualist mentalities.”

I said they are functionally libertarians but ideologically center-left... jesus christ read properly.

Because, what, you assume that they hate gay people? This is madness.

Is these when you "listen" instead of thinking you know better?

I don't assume, remember I have a trans friend who was tortured and killed in a place like that, these aren't left-wing scandinavians and have nothing in common with you, they are ultra conservative and reject modernity, they would put a tire on your neck and set your fursuit on fire with you in it if you tried to push progressive values onto them.

It might pain you to admit that but frankly it should be absurdly obvious that show most indigenous zones in the entire world are.

I've always said that one of the main reasons why discussing politics with you is horribly unproductive is because you continually restricted the different forms of socialist thought and organizing to a single one of them, which is in effect state capitalism with a socialist logo or "communism" in the party name. This is the most definitive proof of you not having a basic grasp of different forms of socialism that we will ever get, so thank you for your engaging me on this, I can now rest easy.

When you stop licking the balls of state socialits then I might be gracious and back down.

The fuck, To Kill A Mockingbird has literally the same plot as the BLM protests right now. Schools arent very bright

Also you post that as an argument against the BLM, which is ironical, since I highly doubt Minnesota school boards are filled with anything other than whites that apparently decided to pull the book out....really confused here?


I highly doubt that Cheran doesn't have centralized enforcement of law when it comes to property. They still have an AG and I'm guessing they're using him for tangled cases as well. Seems to me like they've done nothing else than remove the political parties and police, otherwise everything else functions exactly the same way

On June 20 2020 08:08 Baalim wrote: Playing dictionary for the 100th time... No it private property doesn't mean its enforced by a centralized authority, it means not belonging to the state, so individuals or businesses.

How can I be "playing dictionary" when you are the one who is posting a meaningless dictionary definition? The definition you are using is obviously incomplete; it doesn't take into account different systems, it just presupposes the dominant one. In other words it's colloquial, it doesn't belong in a serious discussion about political philosophy. Here's the one from Wikipedia which is also brief but more helpful:

"Private property refers to a kind of system that allocates particular objects like pieces of land to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others and to the exclusion of any detailed control by society.[1] In legal terms it's usually a designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[2] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[3] Certain political philosophies like socialism and anarchism make a clear distinction between private and personal property[4] while others blend the two together. Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's political system."

So, as we have already established, you are using a false dichotomy, which is excluding the potential for communal ownership. They do not need to rely on the concept of private property and ownership, and your mind is just apparently unable to conceive of how a society such as this one can work without private property for some reason, so you just conveniently fill the gaps with it because you are unwilling to learn about it.

What could make someone refuse to learn something so simple? Maybe because it threatens the years and years of that obstinate resolve of yours by which you have reinforced that view, and the pleasure that you have obtained by reducing all forms of libertarian-left ideologies to barbaric dictatorships? I don't know, but that seems like a very strong possibility. In other words, it goes back to your denial that anarchism is something that exists at al if it is not on the far-right. Your logic appears as follows: if anarchism works, then it must be right-wing. Then you use backwards reasoning to justify this pre-made conclusion and ignore all proof to the contrary.

The police has probably a small building and patrols, probably now in the hands of the autodefensas, the government had its building which is now probably used by the junta auxiliar. There was no redistribution of ownership of businesses or houses or anything like that.

There is no one left that was part of the organized state police. They elected new people, regular people, in the roles of community policing. They are directly accountable to the people that they are protecting. This is, again, the opposite of a model of privatization, where competition would theoretically be what creates some kind of accountability by means of "voting with your dollar" for whichever police force is the most competent.

Again, the people who were kicked out obviously lived somewhere and had claims over land and resources. They couldn't be floating in the sky and they weren't breatharian sun-gazers. Expropriation implies a form of redistribution.

And here's something more:

" When the municipal police were run out of town, their weapons and vehicles were used to create Community Patrol (Ronda Comunitaria) and Forest Protection (Guardabosques) formations. Those are overseen by this council, and their memberships are rotating and determined by the neighborhood assemblies. The Community Patrol, made up of a hundred people, maintains checkpoints at the entrances to Cherán, and responds to concerns reported to it by the bonfires and assemblies, while the Forest Protection units ensure that the loggers do not return. Individuals of all genders participate in these groups. Neither group is viewed as a law enforcement formation, but rather as organized members of the community, selected and held accountable by the community, working to maintain the security reclaimed by the 2011 uprising."

"Instead of detecting, preventing, or punishing “crime” within a legalistic framework, the council concerns itself with “anticommunal conduct,” in which case the Community Patrol may intervene. Depending on the incident, such cases may be resolved by mediation, repayment for damages, community service, or referral for rehabilitation or psychological treatment. If the implicated individual refuses to cooperate, they may be placed for a short time in a kataperakua, which translates roughly as “where we all may fall into.” It is an open-air, roofless cell where the individual must endure the elements and reflect on their behavior. It is utilized about twice a month, often as the result of fights."

Yep, so, a community patrol, which is regularly rotated (left-wing anarchist idea) and a strong focus on rehabilitation, no private prison. In fact no prison at all; we can't conceive of this short period of exclusion as such. It follows from this that we can't conceive of them lynching gay people either.

I think I explained 3 or 4 times already how property rights are enforced, there are landlords like in everywhere, this doesn't mean there is a magnate building skyscrapers, this is a shitty poor town, landlors probably own a couple of storefronts, some inherited the house from grandma and are putting it up for rent.

You have explained how it works in your mind, in an-cap. You haven't explained how it works in the real world in a place like Cheran which is directly democratic, rather than capitalistic.

Evidence? yeah sure I'll go tomorrow and knock on doors lol.

You can do that and I'll pay for your trip and time if you find one.

And later on i corredted that since they do have a form of government they are actually libertarian-like.

But you are using the word libertarian in the American, right-wing sense, so it doesn't change anything, you are still denying that this is left-wing organizing, aren't you?

They extort businesses and ask for protection fees, just like the old school italian mob in the US. These aren't sofisticated people, they are illiterate dumb psychopaths that just come up with a number they think you can pay, perhaps you can negotiate a bit, and thats pretty much it.

Well clearly some of them are a bit more sophisticated than that and they try to coerce people into producing things that will make them more profit.

No they don't, they have resources but for them to be a coveted opportunity for a business to want to invest in it requires many things, if some region has pine-trees but is in the middle of the mountains with dirt roads then its much easier to get such a common and fast growing wood in another place. Why do I have to explain this? some places are sitting on top of a lot of resources with a lot of potential profit, but most don't.

In this case it was profitable to do the logging and it would have been more profitable if they had been successful in starting avocado crops there.

Indeed and I dont like these centralized institutions that exist only because states allow it, it is not a byproduct of free trade though.

Of course it is. The more free trade there is, the less democratic oversight there is by design. And we have seen what this leads to: the more "free" trade is encouraged by government, the stronger the bureaucratization, too. This is the neoliberal paradox that is apparent today. If you watch a documentary like HyperNormalisation this is explained quite beautifully. It was a myth from the start that you could decouple a capitalist economy from its government and that there was such a thing as a trajectory for "smaller government".

The main difference between this kind of tyranny and the regular state capitalist tyranny of old school socialist regimes is that this free market one is more diffuse, the power is more decentralized into these different institutions' and transnational corporations' hands. The states benefit from this immensely as they are more resistant to social instability as a result. They have exported the worst kind of exploitation of people into places in the global south where most of us are never going to see and they have taught us that this is normal, and that in fact, they are helping poverty, when in reality they created it and are maintaining it.

I said they are functionally libertarians but ideologically center-left... jesus christ read properly.

Functionally, that is, organizationally, they are far-left. Neighborhood councils, anti-individualist education, no privatization and worker co-op run businesses, 67,000* hectares of communal land... which part is right-wing again?

I don't assume, remember I have a trans friend who was tortured and killed in a place like that, these aren't left-wing scandinavians and have nothing in common with you, they are ultra conservative and reject modernity, they would put a tire on your neck and set your fursuit on fire with you in it if you tried to push progressive values onto them.

Which anarchist society did your friend get killed in? Again I am not even saying that you are wrong, I am saying the likelihood that you are wrong is high, since there appears to be no evidence for them being gender bigots. I did read that the culture is very Christian and they adore Saint Francis, but the highest council is secular, so it further increases the chances that you are wrong about them. Also if they had fully rejected modernity they would not have the kind of focus on female representation that they have, and they wouldn't have become more trusting of doctors and agree to work with them. They also arrange trips to go to the hospital. That's more progressive than the average Chinese family lol.

sigh... if I were an SJW this is where I would say "Its not my job to educate you" but lets make one try.


- Cheran has private property, people have titles for their land, houses, they have pink slips for their cars etc, people rent properties like houses and storefronts... No you can't pay for my trip to gather evidence, you are broke lol, if you don't believe me fine lol keep being ignorant and stubborn.

- Farming is communal in all of México, not just Cheran, they are called ejidos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido), thats how its handled since the the revolution in 1910, this has been the biggest source of enrichment for corrupt politicians, they buy this land at absurd prices then legislate the protection away and basically own the land of where entires cities will be built upon, for example, you probably know Cancún, well the land of the entire city is owned by an ex-president who did this, the whole ejidal concept is disastrous and has led to corruption you just can't fathom.

- No, the cartels arent very sophisticated, they simply extorted a lot of money from avocado farmers, the production fell drastically and didnt meet export requirements, the cartel is foolishly trying to get avocado producers to start making money so they can extort it from them, that obviously is never going to work.

- Most indigenous zones in México are like Cheran, this isnt an experiment, its the status-quo. These towns are ruled by some form of council, there is little or no police presence, farming-land are ejidos, which are communal, they will fight against businesses that exploit local resources, the difference is that Cheran has strong cartel presence, which leads to state, federal and even army presence, they had enogh of its coruption and kicked them out.

Most indingeous zones don't have cartel presence (cartels are usually in the north while indigenous zones are mostly in the south), most dont have police, the bigger ones do but they are local guys who basically deal with petty crime, real crimes are dealt by lynching, and these local cops don't interfere and just watch.

Rallying is in contact with these communities since we race in their roads (mountany roads in the middle of nowhere), the organization has to go town-by town and create good-will giving them stuff or trying to make it a tradition so that they allow the cars through, actually last year in my state's rally it was cancelled because this town who is usually a pain in the ass decided they didn't want to have its road closed any longer so they grabbed a driver until they opened the roads, the police who are usually there to try to enfoce the roads being closed when they saw the town walking up to them, they dressed in civilian clothes and left because they know they could be lynched if things go south, so as I said... all indigenous towns are mostly autonomous.


Loco:

My general approach in life is to listen to people with specific issues because I know my own subjective experiences involve built-in biases and extreme knowledge-gaps.

Also Loco:

I am not even saying that you are wrong, I am saying the likelihood that you are wrong is high

Oh yeah you totally don't think you know better than someone who actually lives in here and has had friends killed by this kind of people, hypocrite.

You simply don't want to believe me that they would kill gay activists because it goes against your stupid preconcieved idealized notions, but I assure you, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, they don't have a "focus on female representation" you seem to see things through your western culture glass, pre-hispanic cultures didn't subyugate women as much as western civilizations, so Mexico is matriarchal in man ways yet at the same time very misoginist in others.

You realize I mentioned their violence towards deviancy because I knew how you would react right?, I knew you would refuse to acknowledge what is obvious no anyone that has been in contact with virtually any indigenous zone, they have little tolerance to what they consider degeneracy in their culture. The reason you have trouble admitting this is the same reason you said Chavez had an honest face, and that Mexico had the best president in the world... you are an ideologue and as such you idealize your beliefs and shut your eyes to the ugly parts in it, like anyone in a cult

Trouble in paradise... there was a shooting in CHAZ (now called CHOP lol) and 3 people got shot, two injured and one died, apparently a 19yo man.


Apparently EMTs who won't go into an active shooter scene without the police securing the area are the ones to blame lol.

We live in the information age dude. I don't need to be physically present in order to know things about it. Were you in Chop to know someone got killed?...

I've just read an essay on them that was published recently from someone who has been there. The essay is part of a collection on different experiments in direct democracy, which, again, by definition, is left-wing and socialistic in the broadest sense of the word. That's why it's published by left-wing anarchists. Cheran is even on the cover of the book ffs.


I've read and watched the people living there directly from their own publications (like Cheran TV which I posted). Plus, you are also not physically present. You've never lived in an indigenous community. The idea that you know them well based on things like your rally-group having some contact with them just to talk about roads is ludicrous. You're really stretching the limits of the believable here. By the way, I lived in Canada my whole life and didn't know jack shit about the many indigenous cultures living there until one year ago.

I'm not broke and I never said anything about my finances so you're just being dishonest.

You're obviously wrong about them and about your conception of both left-wing libertarianism and right-wing libertarianism. If I make a post on the libertarian or ancap reddit and ask if Cheràn is functionally right wing or whatever language you wish to use, they are all going to laugh their asses off, or at least say absolutely not, that's my bet. Should I do that? I'll let you decide what question I should ask. I want to be as fair as possible to your interpretation, but it won't change anything, the people on your side will tell you the same things I have said.

"they have little tolerance to what they consider degeneracy in their culture"

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they all agree on what constitutes degeneracy, or react towards "degeneracy" in the same way as fascists, i.e. by making heads roll. You just claim that they do and provide no evidence. I don't like to believe things without evidence, can you blame me for that? Do you really believe that you are somehow special and people should just believe everything you say when you can't provide evidence for it outside of the realm of personal anecdotes?

Also, notice that your argument is that they aren't progressive because they think LGBT people are degenerates. What if we flip this around and say: they aren't right-wing because they consider capitalism and individualism to be degeneracy? They apparently do, they explicitly stated it in the interviews I provided, yet you still think they are functionally right-wing. Double standards much? You can't be a right-wing libertarian society while opposing capitalism and individualism, this is the most basic stuff dude.

Let's put it another way. If they have private property, why do they have it? Do they need it?

That idiot Raz is pretty fucked.

On June 20 2020 04:33 Baalim wrote: Advocating for censorship because "it can save lives" what could go wrong?

Eriador mentioned the statue of Olav the Holy.... Its right around the corner before they remove the statue too....

Blackout - an all black healing space

On June 21 2020 06:11 Loco wrote: We live in the information age dude. I don't need to be physically present in order to know things about it.

What happened with "I listen to people who live there and don't presume to know better"?

The_results_are_back_in_and_it_turns_out_that_was_a_lie.jpg

Plus, you are also not physically present. You've never lived in an indigenous community. The idea that you know them well based on things like your rally-group having some contact with them just to talk about roads is ludicrous. You're really stretching the limits of the believable here. By the way, I lived in Canada my whole life and didn't know jack shit about the many indigenous cultures living there until one year ago.

Proving again you have no idea what you are talking about since you see it through your westerner lens, unlike the US/Canada we didn't isolate them in reservations thouands of kms away.

I just took a picture from the top of my house, what you see in the background is a rural indigenous zone, its called Ocoyucan (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipio_de_Ocoyucan) and actually since 2015 the mayoralty has been taken by a left-wing farmer organization asking for the destitution of the mayor so I literally live at a 10min drive away from an indigenous zone with some kind of political struggle. Most mexicans interact with indigenous people on a daily basis, I went to the factory today, many of the workers are indigenous, a woman when she started working with us didn't know how to write or read, I only talked about rallying because it was relevant to picture how autonomous they are regarding enforacing laws.

Spare me your ignorant condesending assumptions the next time ok?

I'm not broke and I never said anything about my finances so you're just being dishonest.

Great, I have a friend who lives in Michoacán, so if I get him to get on video of somebody who tells on camera how he is renting property (house, storefront etc), what do you say if we bet 10k, it obv has to be escrowed.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they all agree on what constitutes degeneracy, or react towards "degeneracy" in the same way as fascists, i.e. by making heads roll. You just claim that they do and provide no evidence. I don't like to believe things without evidence, can you blame me for that? Do you really believe that you are somehow special and people should just believe everything you say when you can't provide evidence for it outside of the realm of personal anecdotes?

Loco: I listen to people and dont assume to know better about where they live.
Baal: Rural towns In México are deeply religious and can be violent towards homosexuals
Loco: You are wrong, where is the proof?
Baal: Well my trans friend was tortured and killed in a rural town.
Loco: Anecdotal.

As I said, this is obvious to anybody who lives in the 3rd world, indigenous town don't like gay stuff, its a bit funny to me that you are oblivious to such trivial universal knowledge.

Also, notice that your argument is that they aren't progressive because they think LGBT people are degenerates. What if we flip this around and say: they aren't right-wing because they consider capitalism and individualism to be degeneracy? They apparently do, they explicitly stated it in the interviews I provided, yet you still think they are functionally right-wing. Double standards much? You can't be a right-wing libertarian society while opposing capitalism and individualism, this is the most basic stuff dude.

Of course they aren't right wing ideologically, I've said that already 2 times, they are functionally because they don't have a socialist economic sistem, they are capitalists, they have currency, property, markets etc.

Let's put it another way. If they have private property, why do they have it? Do they need it?

wat? are you asking me why do people need private property? ffs.

^lol need to see what he comes up with this time.