Ready-to-print version of "Sustainable Solutions to Social Challenges" from the SocialPacifists. Please print and distribute freely.

(The booklet is layed out to be printed & folded for distribution. Directional markings are in the spine. Please note that, if you're reading it online, the pages will seem out-of-order. Following the page numbers at the bottom of each page will make this easier.)

The site doesn't work.

It's more bureaucrash propaganda. Seems to be designed to win over anarchists.

It's an interesting pamphlet. It proposes some non-governmental solutions, and the general theme is that government will fail, and the people can do it better.

The solution it proposes -- "education", and the unorganized, atomized consumer boycott -- isn't that effective, because the consumers and producers are, in a globalized system, alienated from each other. In a globalized system, not only can producion be moved -- demand can be moved as well.

For example, cigarette companies, facing tough regulations in the USA, are focusing their efforts on Asian markets. Marketing cigs here declines, but increase elsewhere. Profits are preserved.

Brand names can be changed, or factories can simply sell to other companies that aren't being targeted. Boycotts that work against vertical enterprises fail against systems where different aspects of production are interchangeable.

(Perhaps, in a globalized system, the way people support each other isn't via a refusal to buy a specific product (like Nikes), but direct support to workers and peasants who seek to seize the factories and plantations.)

--------

Found another Bureaucrash story here, an oldie, from IMC:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/119909.php

Not sure of the precise nature of the "link" to the IPN/CEI and whether they got money from ExxonMobil, but they were at the same event.

JohnK,

>> Not sure of the precise nature of the "link" to the IPN/CEI and whether they got money from ExxonMobil, but they were at the same event.
Bureaucrash was at the DC World Bank/IMF protest with ACORN. Does that mean they’re linked too? I was once in the same room as Richard Gere. Does that mean we’re linked?

Bureaucrash is supported solely by donations from individuals and foundations. We don’t take corporate money because we don’t like corporations – we’re Free Market activists, for christssake!! Let me help you out here:

Free Market = No government intervention into the economy

Corporation = A business that has purchased “limited liability” protections (in the form of a “corporate license”) from THE GOVERNMENT. They’re government-created entities. They wouldn’t exist in a free market.

Now I realize you’ve all fallen for the Republican doublespeak, which has somehow managed to convince people that their mercantilist, regulationist economic policies are “free-market”, but c’mon – that’s ridiculous! Think about it: What the hell is a “free-trade agreement”? Its rules! Its regulations governing trade (527 pages-worth, in the case of the “Free” Trade Area of the Americas agreement). If it’s regulated, then it’s not true free-trade. (Regardless of what you call it.)

>> It's an interesting pamphlet.
Thank you. And, FYI, I wrote it long before Bureaucrash was around. There’s no connection between the Social Pacifist’s project & Bureaucrash, except for the fact that the booklet’s author is now a Bureaucrash activist.

(From the linked article):

>>The IPN espouses free-market libertarian views, which conveniently seem to corespond with those of ExxonMobil and other sponsors
Do you hear how absurd that claim sounds? (Never mind the misspellings. I’m talking about the substance.) The author is trying to make us think that IPN only promotes the views it does because it’s funded by Exxon. Why wouldn’t we assume (the far more likely & reasonable position) that Exxon was funding a group BECAUSE it liked what IPN was already saying?! If I received a big fat check from ExxonMobil, would that suddenly invalidate everything I’d written in the booklet I published?! Would it be any less-valid if I started using that Exxon money to publish it?



Look: I have absolutely no idea about this article’s claims, and who funded what. I’m assuming it was written by one of the activists who “jammed” the event it’s covering – as no one else would have any idea that it happened…but I don’t hear you yelling “bias” there.

If you don’t agree with IPN’s ideas, (or Bureaucrash’s ideas), then why don’t you focus on telling people why it is you think they’re wrong; instead of trying to pull some character-assassination crap that doesn’t have anything to do with whether they’re right or wrong? That might be worth reading.

SocialPacifist

>>The solution it proposes -- "education", and the unorganized, atomized consumer boycott -- isn't that effective, because the consumers and producers are, in a globalized system, alienated from each other. In a globalized system, not only can producion be moved -- demand can be moved as well.


Gee, now if only we could create some technology that made it possible (or even better, "easy") for people to communicate & organize on a global level as well. Maybe in the year 2000...

The fact that you've posted this comment to a website of this kind makes your critique really really funny. You realize that, right?

SocialPacifist -- sh(A)ne

I've posted a piece of a debate that I had with the Milwaukee Greens in 2000, which should better address your concerns about the effectiveness of market activism in a globalized economy:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/146548.php

I said I was not sure. The article linked mentioned it. Why are you denying it so strongly?

>>>If you don’t agree with IPN’s ideas, (or Bureaucrash’s ideas), then why don’t you focus on telling people why it is you think they’re wrong; instead of trying to pull some character-assassination crap that doesn’t have anything to do with whether they’re right or wrong? That might be worth reading.

You didn't read the first several paragraphs? There I criticized the content of the pamphlet.

My alleged "character assasination" was two lines long, and it was even casting doubt upon the original association.

You're going nuts over nothing, and ignoring my main point.

No, no, no. I should have made that more clear: I didn't mean "you" in particular. I responded to your criticisms, and I appreciate them.

It's the article you linked to that I was mostly responding to; using "you" in the general sense. I'm sorry you took it that way, though looking again, I can see how you would. Please do take a look over my other replies & the article I posted.

sh(A)ne