Constitution, Capitalism and Anarchism: Moving Beyond Corporatism in a post-post-9-11 United States of America

This piece is a conglomeration of responses inspired by George Washington's piece entitled Are Those Who Question 9/11 Anarchists? and the dialogue it engendered. It got me thinking about the nature of our form of government, its relationship to the best in anarchist thinking and the creative possibilities for a future America post-9-11 justice. It's a bit rambling and jumbled, but I wanted to put it out there for folks to read and respond to if they so desired.

It started with a response to Jon Gold's laying out the definitions of anarchism in relation to the criminality and lawlessness:

Jon Gold:
I think it's important for people to see...
The definition of anarchy...

an·ar·chy –noun

1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary
association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

We currently have a society that can't hold the people sitting in the White House, that are responsible for so many damn crimes, accountable. Does that count as a "society without Government or law?"

PART 1: Nihilism and Criminality vs. Anarchy and Liberty

I would say number 4: confusion, chaos, disorder is the closest description of the "anarchism" of those in the White House and beyond. Although I would associate them more with a nihilistic will to power than any sort of "anarchism." The problem is that they are following the same path as the Third Reich in that they are making the law as they go along. They have entered a permanent state of emergency in which the unitary executive makes laws and drafts signing statements to create the new super-legal territory we all inhabit. This is why, after dozens of scandals, it seems like nothing will stick. And, of course, this is where the hard truth of 9-11 comes in. It WILL stick and it is the latest and most powerful national-security event upon which this super-legislative era is built.

Paul Craig Roberts and Jon Gold are both right about these people we are letting rule over us. They are the biggest lawbreakers of all and the most extreme and violently radicalized group in the land. I think I saw something on 911blogger here about using HR 1955/1959 as a way to investigate the White House and the rest of the neo-cons. I'd been thinking along the same lines. We want the government to investigate our beliefs, because, in terms of 9-11, they're based on facts. Name a group that fits the description of "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" better than this junta. I'm writing an article called "The Fitful Sleeper Cell in the White House" based on this idea. Let's get some damn Centers of Excellence to send us some USC professors to study the deeply disturbed ideology and actionable strategy of the neo-cons and their handlers.

Getting back to "anarchy," if you look at the word "anarchy" itself, the deeper layer of meaning that it suggests is "without hierarchy" rather than without law. In many ways, you can consider the step from a monarchy of a divine-right king to the democracy (meaning "rule by the will of the people" not "pure majority") of a constitutional republic (currently in the hands of a plutocratic oligarchy, true) as an an anarchistic move. It is a leveling of the governmental playing field.

In my eyes:

3 positive contributions of "anarchism:"
1) Faith that humans can figure out how best to care for themselves and each other when given the non-coercive space to do so, which stems from
2) An understanding that "laws" are founded on a deep mutual understanding and an instinctual and evolving ethical imperative that emanates from the human "spirit," and that the best publicly articulated laws attempt to describe that rather than dictate it which leads to
3) Respecting every human being as an individual with equal rights to pursue their own desires and express their unique differences.

3 negative "tyrannies of thought" that "anarchism" sometimes leads to:
1) That hierarchy of any sort in any situation is inherently bad or against human freedom (i.e. there is no such thing as earned position based on skill, experience or responsibility), meaning that
2) There is no room left for much of any level of government being that embedded hierarchies spring up immediately as humans tend towards community, society and governance (i.e. the individual becomes the family becomes the tribe becomes the town becomes the city becomes the state becomes the country becomes the world) whereas
3) Size/scale itself becomes the enemy rather than tyranny, when although more likely, and more easily accepted at larger scales, tyranny is possible at all scales of being (think about the ways you've treated yourself or your loved ones unfairly).

I would say that the USA has a deep streak of some of the best in "anarchism," of the value and pre-eminence of the individual as the source of sovereign power that any level of state power might desire to draw upon, i.e. the consent of the governed. I don't think the more problematic tendencies that we face can be solved just by scaling back the size of government (yes in some cases), but by scaling up the power, rights and responsibilities of the individual(s). And that's what I believe 9-11 truth and justice might lead to if we are focused. I also am writing an article where I title this possibility "The Treason Trial Dividend."

PART 2: Constitution and the Governance of Liberty

Before I hone in on economics, anarchism and the potentially creative role of government, let me make a few more points about the relationship of our Constitutional Republic to the best in anarchist thought. I should point out also, before I make these few points that I, like George Washington, am not talking in any way about the "overthrow" of the government. As I outlined early on in my legally mandated letter to Federal Judges on Bush and Cheney's treason ( ) about which I still have more follow up to complete:
"My intention is not to engage in sedition or libel, but to speak openly and honestly about the largest and most severe case of treason and mass murder in our history. I am not calling for the overthrow of our government but for the restoration of our government by bringing to justice those that have overthrown our government."

What is disturbing about our current state of governance is that there are so many laws (just go watch Henry Waxman talking about his relationship with the "thought crime" bill (HR 1955) he mindlessly and ignorantly voted for which will potentially rule the land- ) but the most fundamental and most ancient in their mandate, such as the mandates against murder and treason, are (semi)openly violated. This is why you cannot claim yourself to be a pro-constitutional, pro-American candidate or politician if you will not confront the most basic, pernicious and destructive breaking of the framing mandate (protect the life, liberty and possibility of happiness of the individuals whose sovereign power you claim to represent) by the highest officials of the land. And, in this case, I would say there is not one presidential candidate who has followed this basic legal and moral duty to its root, Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and McKinney included (though she is the closest I would say). I will expound on this idea in an article titled "Why "We the People's" Movement for 9-11 Truth and Justice is the Real Constitutional Candidate of '08."

Some of the genius of this country's framing documents is that their content implies the massive un-circumscribed space of freedom from which they draw their conclusions and which they remind us still exists no matter what manner of State comes into being. A couple examples of this are:

1) the idea in the Declaration of Independence that our rights and our equality (not our sameness) are "endowed" to us by our "Creator." If you don't like Godtalk, this can be redefined as "inherent in human nature" or "Spirit" "human destiny." But what is crucial to this formulation is that the Constitution and the government/State it engenders is NOT what gives to we individual human beings our rights, it only exists to secure them and to help define their space in a society of interlocking personhoods. This is a very anarchistic revelation.

2) the idea articulated in Bill of Rights that those rights defined are just the very minimum of freedoms that we have. There was much argument amongst the framers whether even defining these crucial few rights would imply that others did not exist. I see the wisdom in that argument, but am grateful that they went ahead and defined these few, or, I have a feeling, we would already be in full blown tyranny. When there is danger, real or fictitious, liberty can fly out the window quickly as Franklin warned us. Just the 1st and 2nd amendments (the potently practiced power of the 1st and the largely implied power of the 2nd) have been crucial to defending the ultimate liberty of the people against the fear and war mongering "perpetual emergency" National Security State.
4th Amendment=freedom to be left alone by the unreasonable and unjustified intrusion and/or coercion of the state. Most if not all the amendments in the Bill of Rights can be defined negatively in some way, meaning "freedom from" the State intruding upon these rights. 1st amendment=not freedom of speech, but freedom from laws made to obstruct our inherent freedoms of speech/press/assembly/religion. In this way, the Bill of Rights secures these rights and implies many more to be protected and enhanced through time. The last 2 amendments explicitly state this:
9th: Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights
10th: Powers of states and people

Again, a deeply anarchistic concept.

PART 3: Cooperative/Competitive Synergies in a Post-Corporatist Economy

The most appropriate way to describe the junta currently in control is corporatism. Mussolini would have been in awe of the Bush/Cheney puppet-headed oil and war cartel. This is not libertarian free market capitalism. I think it is its right wing authoritarian opposite. Oil companies use government levers to gain access to the people's treasure to kill competition literally and figuratively.

In terms of tyrannies or authoritarian states, you have:

the Left (where the many tends to take precedence over the one) example of totalitarian Communism (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), where the State and Industry are merged with the State bureaucracy in the position of power


the Right (where the one tends to take precedence over the many) example of Fascism, articulated most famously by Mussolini as Corporatism, where Industry and the State are merged with Industry (or corporations) taking the driver's seat.

Interestingly enough, they end up looking very similar to each other, mangled messes of tyrannical overreach that serve to hinder the human quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or as I would say, life, liberty and the embrace of meaning in all its forms, happiness, sadness, confusion, inspiration, despair, hope, love... except for state-sponsored fear, war and madness of course.

Tyranny of all sorts-mental, physical, emotional and spiritual- are what we are clearly opposed to.

Capitalism, or a free market system based on profit, is linked to what I see as an inherent thrust or instinct in human beings, namely, the deep desire to compete. Whether looking at the evolution of species (whether or not you see design in that process and its resultant forms) or the play of youngsters on a playground, the human desire to compete as an individual and as a team is powerful. I see the better qualities of a capitalist free-market system as related to sublimating, transmuting or focusing this urge to compete into a game that can have benefits for human life; for competition can take the form of sports, b-boy/MC/DJ battles, the upkeep of Moore's Law of doubling micro-processor speeds, or tribal warfare and nuclear proliferation.

However, it must be recognized that while the surface of capitalism is competition, directly beneath that is a vast and deep network of interdependence and cooperation, which is also a deep, deep human instinct. While the NYSE daily delivers a battle for investment and stockprice, the infrastructure depended upon for the traders and bankers to both get to work (streets/powergrids/trains) and be able to have the capacity to work (read/write/rithmatic, let alone biological sources of food) is a work of finely tuned cooperation. The same thing can be said about the evolutionary process. Too much has been made of crude Darwinian "natural" selection. Operating right beneath the surface of the ecological law of the jungle as a battle to the death or "eat or be eaten," is, literally, the underground law of the rhizomatic, cooperative, internodally-communicative ecosystem as a "humming being", further expanded into the living, breathing panetary being of the "Gaia Hypothesis" (co-conceived by 9-11 truther Lynn Margulis).

So, to me, the question is how then to facilitate the creation and nurturing of an economic set-up that properly balances these two crucial forces and gives to them their proper place?

First, it should be pointed out that cooperatives, which are an economic model that anarchists have both embraced and helped develop, are very close in their structural composition to a standard "for profit" corporation. The main difference in structure is that the hierarchical composition is more tightly knit (closer connection professionally, personally and pay-scale-wise from bottom to top) and has a more closed loop in terms of where the "profit" goes. Instead of having a Board of Directors and investors who are mainly disincarnate to the daily work of the business itself, both the "Board" and the "investors" are made up of those that work the business. And, has been shown in the Mondragon network of cooperatives in the Basque region towards the north of Spain (or some would just say "North of Spain"), it ironically appears that well run cooperatives will out-compete the standard corporate model. But this makes inherent sense. If those who work for a business are more involved in reaping the benefits and playing a role in management and long term planning, there tends to be more of a sense of "ownership," responsibillity and care in the quality of the work being done and the long-term intent of the fiscal planning.

I believe that there are powerful synergies that can work with the best of these different types of economic models which can be stirred into the mix of American traditions such as- innovation, worker comraderie, states and townships as laboratories of possibility, good-natured and legally bound but fierce competition, and a commitment to equal opportunity- to create immense creativity, abundance and possibility.

Working with the idea of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I think that the further down to the root of needs (i.e. food/shelter/healthcare) you go, the less dependent on a global system of cut-throat competitive capitalism you want to be and the more related to a local and cooperative source you do want to be. For example, you don't want to be dependent on Bechtel for your access to fresh water if you are in Bolivia (or anywhere for that matter), but being dependent on Intel for access to micro-processing power is probably a better bet than your local neighborhood computer co-op (though these days I guess you never know what might be possible).

So, here are a few ideas, from my "Treason Trial Dividend" article, that I think might work well in the USA.

Health care/food-1st of all, we need to stop talking about "healthcare" as if it is all about access to high-end medical technologies and affordable pharmaceuticals. This is a tyrannical and myopic way of thinking about this problem, and it is a problem. We face a serious health crisis in this country that we are handing down in even worse forms to the coming generations. In order to deal with "healthcare," we need to talk about "health." And as the father of Western medicine Hippocrates said, we should "Let food be [our] medicine." A very simple, but crucial starting place for proper healthcare is securing access for all people to good food, clean water and fresh air. If these elements are not present, then no matter how many pills, invasive surgical techniques or health spas we have access to, we will be burying ourselves in band-aids in a shallow grave. So, the preamble to a well-organized, IMHO at least somewhat state sponsored (at all levels of government), community-directed, neighborhood physician system is rejuvenating and cleaning up our air and watersheds, and initiating multitudinous Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) cooperatives to recreate the family farm, or something that scale, in an organic or bio-dynamic growing process. This will also draw back together the ancient and highly interdependent relationship between town and country, city and rural.

Justice Thurgood Marshall once made the point that 1st amendment free speech rights are fundamentally dependent on an access to education, being that you can't freely express yourself unless you know of something you want to say and are literate (aurally and textually) enough to say it. So, being that the Preamble speaks to the Common Welfare and our free speech rights are dependent on access to good education, basing school funding so heavily on property taxes sets the next generation into an immediately unequal situation and is anti-American I think. The way I would propose doing it is financing education fully and equally across the nation on the federal level, being that a well educated group of citizens is the most powerful source of liberty and security a nation can have, and allow the spending decision to be completely decided on the local level. The only federal mandates that publicly-funded schools would have to live up to in terms of education should be civics (understanding the workings of your government and your role as a citizen), and basic literacy (math and verbal). Of course, opting out, in the form of home-schooling or charter schooling would be a family's inherent right.

Instead of having a fiat currency, not-so-secretly backed by oil control and military might, or even an openly "backed" old-school scenario of precious metals, I think we should drive a move to hyperlocal, renewable energy production, by backing our American currency in new renewable electricity capacity and, possibly, in informational system capacity (broadband and wifi networks). We do have the Saudi Arabia of wind in the middle of this country. And when you combine a strong move to solar/wind/geothermal with land-based energy sources such as switchgrass, cannabis and algae-based biofuels, as is already beginning to happen, you reinvigorate the heartland and the rural areas of this country, which will benefit everybody very quickly. Just as you can set-up CSA's for good food, you can set-up Community Supported Renewable Energy Projects where, hypothetically, you could have community or individual investment in a new green energy project met halfway by the government (a mix of federal, state, local), which could then launch simultaneously a Community Development Corporation and a Community Credit Union with a Community Backed Currency (scalable to the global level because its based on a universally desirable, translatable and easily measured good- green power, the ability to do work over time, in a clean and renewable manner).

Just a start.

And just wait till we permaculturalize the Pentagon, then we'll be walking and talking like a sovereign, responsible and inspiring citizen of the international community.

For now though, we gotta hone in on speaking the truth with power about treason in the White House and beyond. But it never hurts to dream, scheme and plan for what is coming.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Great ideas...

Health care is definitely a huge issue and I do agree that it is related to the poisoning of our Earth. However, food alone will not heal people. I am especially sickened by the way we treat the elderly in this country. Forcing them to choose between food or meds is shameful. We need to have a system in which people over a certain age are entitled to free medication. Cooperative localized organic farming is the true answer to our food crisis. Cutting out the toxins in addition to burning less fossil fuels in transport just makes too much sense, doesn't it?? Although I am not a vegetarian, we as a nation eat entirely too much meat...another source of pollution. The production of meat is very costly from an environmental standpoint.

As to education, you left out a major component - science. We would not be where we are in the truth movement without the science to back it up. Critical thinking skills need to be taught in public schools. There is a continuing war on science for a reason, and that war is unfortunately winning.

As far as "bringing to justice those who have overthrown our government", I fear that the White House is simply one seat in a theater of global corruption. I am not certain if I completely understand how large the monster really is and is it as simple as bringing "them" to justice? We might be talking about a global fumigation here!

Great article...thanks!

anarchism has a history

Good points here.

Anarchism, along with Marxist socialism, is one of the two great alternative schools of political thought that appeared in 19th-century Europe. While the anarchists won the argument, Marxists managed to seize state power in several countries during the 20th century, with mixed results. Today, after the demise of applied Marxism, it looks like the anarchists were right. The anarchist critique of authoritarianism, hierarchy, and centralized power is more relevant today than ever.

Anarchists think people are capable of self-organizing--they don't need to be coerced by big, centralized hierarchies like mega-corporations or states. The 9/11 truth movement (like this website) is "organized" on anarchist principles, which is both an obvious weakness and its greatest strength. We don't have a charismatic leader running a centralized organization with everybody following orders, which is one reason we're not always very efficient. But the potential for cointelpro-style disruption is vastly reduced by this self-organizing leaderless resistance. The CIA could stop impending disarmament in 1963 by killing JFK, and slow the resistance to the Vietnam war and imperialism by killing Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. But in the 9/11 truth movement there are no key nodes to infiltrate, no top leader to smear or blackmail or assassinate or buy off with CIA-linked foundation grants. If they're wasting time and taxpayers' money messing with us--and I doubt they are nearly as much as many truthers think--their gains will be small relative to the expense and effort.

In his latest diatribe, Peak Oil alarmist Jim Kunstler suggests that anarchist organizational principles will soon become the only ones available:

We'd better prepare psychologically to downscale all institutions, including government, schools and colleges, corporations, and hospitals. All the centralizing tendencies and gigantification of the past half-century will have to be reversed. Government will be starved for revenue and impotent at the higher scale. The centralized high schools all over the nation will prove to be our most frustrating mis-investment. We will probably have to replace them with some form of home-schooling that is allowed to aggregate into neighborhood units. A lot of colleges, public and private, will fail as higher ed ceases to be a "consumer" activity. Corporations scaled to operate globally are not going to make it. This includes probably all national chain "big box" operations. It will have to be replaced by small local and regional business. We'll have to reopen many of the small town hospitals that were shuttered in recent years, and open many new local clinic-style health-care operations as part of the greater reform of American medicine.

Anarchy? Watch this film:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Many hands make light work!
International truth action every day, every 11th!

Meet the real boss

Yes sir Mr. Rockefeller

By the turn of the last century, the Rockefeller family and its associates had a virtual monopoly over the oil and mineral resources of the world.

Not much has changed since.

Over the years, the group has created and/or taken control of a dizzying array of politicians, news media, academic institutions, think tanks and foundations to further its aims.

No one gets to be a serious candidate for President of the United States without being under their control and domination and all White Houses pick Rockefeller employees for its top slots.

Nixon had Henry Kissinger (a Rockefeller agent), Reagan had Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. has Dick Cheney. And on it goes.

Two noteworthy quotes from this video:

* "The (Rockefeller) family has a long history of strengthening the bonds of friendship throughout the Americas."

In fact, the Rockefellers are despised by the people of Latin America.

There's not a Latin American dictator that the family did not have friendly relations with.

If a dictator didn't exist, the family provided one. Under the direction of Rockefeller employee Henry Kissinger, the US initiated and then supported a reign of terror in Chile after organizing the violent overthrow of its democratically elected president.

* "We are able to go about our business here in the Americas and throughout the world with confidence and security because we know the strength of this government stands behind us."

Our business? What business exactly is that? And why should the strength of this or any government stand behind a private commercial enterprise?

To the public and the press, Cheney is a sneering, snarling mad dog.

In front of Rockefeller, he's groveling and obsequious and Rockefeller rewards him accordingly with a pat on the head: "Good boy!"

Here's the real power in the US. Just look at the body language. It could not be any plainer.

Meet him

I've spoken to David R. twice and was not impressed with him. He didn't seem smart enough to make any decisions regarding mankind. Perhaps that one of the real problems - those at the top have no wisdom, but they may not be intelligent either.

More details!

Where did you meet David? And what did you guys discuss?

Thanks for the post! Cheney still a snarling mad dog,

Thanks for the post, alexjonesfan. It's almost a mini-doc itself! You're so right, the body language reveals the power in the relationship!

But Cheney is still very much a snarling mad dog, it's only when in his master's presence that he heels!

...don't believe them!

First of all,

I gave this a 10.

Second, thank you for thinking through various issues, and coming up with solutions.

Third, my intention in arguing against anarchism was:

(1) To try to knock down another simplistic criticism of 9/11 truth (part of my series, including "Are 9/11 Truth Activists Anti-Semitic", are they all liberals, etc. etc.

(2) To try to argue against simple anarchism, i.e. people who want to tear it down (which is the easy part!) without knowing what they WANT to build.

Shumonik is a deep thinker who draws on a lot of knowledge to make suggestions applicable to different issues, and raising different solutions. His is anything but simplistic tear-it-all-down thinking.

Fourth, I have to admit that I was surprised when Bill Douglas, Michael Rivero and others defended anarchism. That shows my ignorance more than anything else.

Shumonik and I are actually saying very similar things as far as the inherent freedoms recognized in the Constitution. Although we might start from different words.

Fifth, I stand by my intention of debunking simplistic attacks using labels against the 9/11 truth movement. As far as the rest of my essay -- arguing against anarchy -- I think that both I and people who consider themselves anarchists have to recognize that we might naturally use different language, but that we share hatred of repressive governments, and perhaps we can come up with a new, neutral, and uniquely American language to describe what real freedom is and how to make it happen.

Again, thanks to Shumonik for a very thoughtful post and for very create proposals.

One caveat

I believe that most people's objection to local governance (someone suggested bio-regional level governance) would likely be defense. What most people would argue is as follows . . . .

If even one aggressive country wants to invade your bio-region, then they'll succeed. We need a strong nation-state to protect us against that one aggressive nation that might never disarm (even if all countries say they will).

Please think about this. I am not saying this myself. But I have a very strong gut feeling that is will be most people's objection to local governance.

Please put your strong intellect to work brainstorming about how to solve or overcome this objection.

Thank you!

"If even one aggressive

"If even one aggressive country wants to invade your bio-region, then they'll succeed."

This is a reasonable concern. There is no magic bullet. But...

If we remember how aggressive countries become that way to being with--a power elite with obscenely concentrated wealth at everyones expense, which is how they get the military force to be able to consider invasions in the first place--invasions that only benefit a tiny group--in theory, if most places AREN"T like this, the aggressive countries conscripted military personal will just scarpper when they get to the reasonable people. No one wants to have their arms and legs blown off just so a few people get richer.

That is a long term and very simplified view, but once that ability to a mass a disproportionate amount of resources to make war to get more resources is crippled--"war" will be a non starter.

In the interim communities are more than capable of "banding together" as needed--we do it all the time with fire, floods and hurricanes(well, when it's funded properly)--no reason the same can't be done in response to invasion threats. ;-)

Excellent blog.

Thanks -- I'll have more to say later.

Any attempt at designed anarchism will result in mob rule.

As I said somewhere else a little earlier, there is no such thing as a world without Billy Bobs. Everyone has to "play nice" for designed anarchist systems to work. Clearly, everyone doesn't play nice in this world. Some of those Billy Bobs will always find a way to keep their weapons, then they will start taking goods from those who don't have them. If guns are banned, they'll just rob people with butcher knives. The guys with weapons will soon gang together and start looting as armed gangs.That puts its 2/3 of thew way to an Afghani/Somali warlord mob rule system.

Anarchism as a system of government is a Utopian fantasy.

I want a completely new way of doing things, too. It's got to be a new way of doing things based on the way people really act in this word. A sizable chunk of those people act just like Dubya, Cheney, and Rove. There has to be mechanisms to deal with them when they get greedy and refuse to be happy with just their 40 acres.