{"article":{"id":146530,"heading":"Sustainable Solutions to Social Problems (pamphlet)","author":"The Social Pacifists","created":"2006-02-07 04:40:28","modified":"2006-02-07 23:59:50","last_modified":"Wed, 08 Feb 2006 06:59:50","article":"

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.)<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","summary":"Ready-to-print version of "Sustainable Solutions to Social Challenges" from the SocialPacifists. Please print and distribute freely.","numcomment":7,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2006\/02\/billboardmadison.jpg","filesize":"13.7 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2006\/02\/146530.php","image":{"original":"\/uploads\/2006\/02\/billboardmadison.jpg","small":"\/uploads\/2006\/02\/billboardmadison.jpgthumb.jpg"}},"attachments":[{"id":146531,"heading":"Sustainable Solutions to Social Problems (pamphlet)","article":"","author":"The Social Pacifists","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"application\/pdf","created":"2006-02-07 04:40:28","modified":"2007-02-03 03:25:38","fileurl":"\/usr\/local\/www-domains\/la.indymedia.org\/public\/uploads\/2006\/02\/sustainable.pdf"}],"comments":[{"id":146535,"heading":"Site doesn't work.","article":"The site doesn't work.","author":"johnk","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 06:37:27","modified":"2006-02-07 06:37:27","fileurl":""},{"id":146536,"heading":"This is more Bureaucrash propaganda","article":"It's more bureaucrash propaganda. Seems to be designed to win over anarchists.\r\n\r\nIt'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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nFor 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.\r\n\r\nBrand 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.\r\n\r\n(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.)\r\n\r\n--------\r\nFound another Bureaucrash story here, an oldie, from IMC:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/la.indymedia.org\/news\/2004\/11\/119909.php\r\n\r\nNot 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.","author":"johnk","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 06:59:11","modified":"2006-02-07 06:59:11","fileurl":""},{"id":146544,"heading":"You can do better than that","article":"JohnK,\r\n\r\n>> 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.<<\r\n\r\nBureaucrash was at the DC World Bank\/IMF protest with ACORN. Does that mean they\u2019re linked too? I was once in the same room as Richard Gere. Does that mean we\u2019re linked? \r\n\r\nBureaucrash is supported solely by donations from individuals and foundations. We don\u2019t take corporate money because we don\u2019t like corporations \u2013 we\u2019re Free Market activists, for christssake!! Let me help you out here: \r\n\r\nFree Market = No government intervention into the economy\r\n\r\nCorporation = A business that has purchased \u201climited liability\u201d protections (in the form of a \u201ccorporate license\u201d) from THE GOVERNMENT. They\u2019re government-created entities. They wouldn\u2019t exist in a free market.\r\n\r\nNow I realize you\u2019ve all fallen for the Republican doublespeak, which has somehow managed to convince people that their mercantilist, regulationist economic policies are \u201cfree-market\u201d, but c\u2019mon \u2013 that\u2019s ridiculous! Think about it: What the hell is a \u201cfree-trade agreement\u201d? Its rules! Its regulations governing trade (527 pages-worth, in the case of the \u201cFree\u201d Trade Area of the Americas agreement). If it\u2019s regulated, then it\u2019s not true free-trade. (Regardless of what you call it.) \r\n\r\n>> It's an interesting pamphlet.<<\r\n\r\nThank you. And, FYI, I wrote it long before Bureaucrash was around. There\u2019s no connection between the Social Pacifist\u2019s project & Bureaucrash, except for the fact that the booklet\u2019s author is now a Bureaucrash activist.\r\n\r\n(From the linked article):\r\n\r\n>>The IPN espouses free-market libertarian views, which conveniently seem to corespond with those of ExxonMobil and other sponsors<<\r\n\r\nDo you hear how absurd that claim sounds? (Never mind the misspellings. I\u2019m talking about the substance.) The author is trying to make us think that IPN only promotes the views it does because it\u2019s funded by Exxon. Why wouldn\u2019t 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\u2019d written in the booklet I published?! Would it be any less-valid if I started using that Exxon money to publish it? \r\n\r\n\r\nLook: I have absolutely no idea about this article\u2019s claims, and who funded what. I\u2019m assuming it was written by one of the activists who \u201cjammed\u201d the event it\u2019s covering \u2013 as no one else would have any idea that it happened\u2026but I don\u2019t hear you yelling \u201cbias\u201d there. \r\n\r\nIf you don\u2019t agree with IPN\u2019s ideas, (or Bureaucrash\u2019s ideas), then why don\u2019t you focus on telling people why it is you think they\u2019re wrong; instead of trying to pull some character-assassination crap that doesn\u2019t have anything to do with whether they\u2019re right or wrong? That might be worth reading.\r\n\r\nSocialPacifist\r\n","author":"SocialPacifist","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 09:28:35","modified":"2013-11-11 00:38:10","fileurl":""},{"id":146545,"heading":"Strange Irony","article":">>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.\r\n<<\r\n\r\nGee, 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...\r\n\r\nThe fact that you've posted this comment to a website of this kind makes your critique really really funny. You realize that, right?\r\n\r\nSocialPacifist -- sh(A)ne","author":"SocialPacifist","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 09:35:52","modified":"2006-02-07 09:35:52","fileurl":""},{"id":146549,"heading":"A more thorough reply","article":"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:\r\n\r\nhttp:\/\/la.indymedia.org\/news\/2006\/02\/146548.php","author":"SocialPacifist","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 10:10:03","modified":"2006-02-07 10:10:03","fileurl":""},{"id":146552,"heading":"I said I was not sure","article":"I said I was not sure. The article linked mentioned it. Why are you denying it so strongly?\r\n\r\n>>>If you don\u2019t agree with IPN\u2019s ideas, (or Bureaucrash\u2019s ideas), then why don\u2019t you focus on telling people why it is you think they\u2019re wrong; instead of trying to pull some character-assassination crap that doesn\u2019t have anything to do with whether they\u2019re right or wrong? That might be worth reading.\r\n\r\nYou didn't read the first several paragraphs? There I criticized the content of the pamphlet.\r\n\r\nMy alleged "character assasination" was two lines long, and it was even casting doubt upon the original association.\r\n\r\nYou're going nuts over nothing, and ignoring my main point.","author":"johnk","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 12:38:57","modified":"2013-11-11 00:38:10","fileurl":""},{"id":146569,"heading":"damn English language!","article":"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. \r\n\r\nIt'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.\r\n\r\nsh(A)ne","author":"sh(A)ne","parent_id":146530,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2006-02-07 23:59:50","modified":"2006-02-07 23:59:50","fileurl":""}]}