Radical Realities

7/28/2019 Radical Realities

1/15

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed

Open

Societies

Heather Mar

Keynot

Speake

John Hilary

G8

overview

R AD ICALR e a l i t i e s

i f you wan t objecti vi ty get CCTV

MichBauwe

OPE

GOVERNMEN


2/15

INTRODUCTION

Radical Realities is bought to you by the Alternate Collective.

The frst issue selects transcripts o speakers rom the AG8Conerence hosted by the Collective in Birmingham, UK on June

22nd 2013.

The ollowing issue will include urther transcripts rom theconerence.

Individuals quoted here retain copyright o their work withother contributions made under Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs3.0 unported.

For all enquiries contact: [email protected]

Follow us on Twitter @AlternateG8Find out more here: www.alternateg8.com

First Edition
http://alternateg8.com/http://alternateg8.com/


3/15

www.WarOnWant.org

Radical Realities | Issue

p

age 4

To go back to the origins of the G8 gives you abit of a sense of why it was set up as a bodyand what its identy is. If you look back to whenit rst held its rst ever meeng which was in1975, at that point it was just the G6 becauseRussia and Canada hadnt joined yet, and thebackground to it being set up was at a me ofincredible economic crisis and turmoil and reallya sort of last gasp of certain forms of imperialismaround the world. So if you think that in 1975 youhave the US being forcedto pull out of Vietnam so areally important momentwhen peoples strugglemanaged to overthrow thetmost powerful superpowerin the world. Youve got thecountries of the global Southcalling for a new internaon-al economic order, and that had just been passed

through the United Naons that they had wantedto see a new global polical economy so that theycould get what they considered to be their righulshare of the worlds prosperity. And at the sameme youve got the big oil shocks, the rst shockof 1973 where as a result of Israels parcipaonin the Arab Israeli war and then the Wests back-ing of Israel, youve got this massive movementof OPEC and the Arab countries to cut o the oilsupply.

So the G8, originally the G6, the G8 was theresponse of the old colonial powers to that chlenge on all those dierent levels; energy, economics and war, and thats been the sort of lemof for the G8 ever since, looking to try to, athey put it, guarantee access for the old colonpowers to the oil and the natural resources oother countries around the world, without reon, to idenfy the countries they would laberogue states which was usually a prelude to w

ing war against them.

You think obviously of Iraq ofLibya, you think now of Syria potenally of Iran as well. Bualso of reinstung and reaing their brand of free marketcapitalism as the model, the lalong which the global polic

economy would be run. And the G8 basically

nued like this all the way through to the cris2007 2008 when it became clear that thereso much rot at the centre of the system that tcouldnt deal with it themselves.

And instead what they did they called up the Gso this expanded G8, which now sits in an unecoexistence with the G8, and the idea there wthat the G20 would bring in countries like ChiBrazil, India but also Saudi Arabia, Argenna, donesia because they considered to be impor

War on Want ghtspoverty in developingcountries in partnershipwith people aectedby globalisation. Wecampaign for humanrights and against theroot causes of globalpoverty, inequality andinjustice. Poverty is

political. The decisionpoliticians in rich coucan mean life or deafor people in develocountries. We have thpower to reshape theglobal landscape - tensure that peopleacross the world canin justice and peace.

G8overview

JOHNHILARY

What has been clearis that they representa fundamental attackon the decent society
http://waronwant.org/http://waronwant.org/


4/15


p

age 6

brought together by all of the aid agenciesand big NGOs which said we need to makecommon cause with David Cameron, hosngthe G8, we need to make common causewith him and all the other G8 leaders tosee if we could get our parcular bits of theagenda to be sased, dealt with, at least tobe recognised.

So they pushed very hard for more workon nutrion, a bit on hunger, on tax havensand things like that, but ulmately, as faras we saw it, they were just legimising theG8 and perpetuang this power imbalancewhereby these eight unelected people getto dictate to the rest of the world how theeconomies are going to be run. For us thatwas deeply wrong because it led to a farcicalsituaon where you got David Cameron be-ing able to wrap himself up in the ag of so-

cial jusce. As if David Cameron of the Toryparty was leading the ght for social jusceacross the world is just preposterous. At ame when we have got the Peoples Assem-bly meeng today, thousands and thousandsand millions of people are protesng acrossthe world against Austerity policies of ourgovernment and parallel governments, andtrying to mount a genuine ghtback. Thatfor us at War On Want was the real sadnessabout all the big NGOs geng into bed withthe government, they were basically provid-ing cover the government to connue theirpolicies rather than standing up to it andconfronng it.

Perhaps the nal thing to say about the G8and the G20 is that in the past there hasbeen a lot of good and fruiul discussionabout how you take the ght to the G8 andthe G20. All of the stu around whether itshould be following in their summit or whatused to be called summit hopping, you goto summit to summit, you have a lile dem -onstraon outside, it makes you feel good

about yourself and you go home.

Or much more importantly to connue thesymbolic confrontaon so that they cantclaim legimacy, to keep on coming back and say-ing they have no legimacy, but at the same mebuilding alternaves. Building alternave policalstructures, building alternave economic structures,that can challenge the runaway train of free marketcapitalism.

Thats the double task that we have, is to yes, con -nue to challenge the G8 to challenge the G20 to

remove any aempts of them having legimacthen at the same me to be building alternavto be connuing the polical work, the awareraising the mobilising and organising and to being for something dierent in the long run. So where War On Want sees the future, to try to nue to have those confrontaons but sll be ing towards a beer, another world which is pfor the future.

if there was to be any chance of restarng capital-ism as the sort of dream of globalizaon. And whatthey did was the G20 took on from the G8 and reaf-rmed the neoliberal free market capitalism wouldbe the lead manner in which the global policaleconomy was run. They also rearmed the instu-ons of control and discipline within the global po-lical economy; the IMF the Internaonal MonetaryFund which had been a dead man walking and hadbeen completely discreditedthe years up to 2007 2008. Itwas given this massive shot inthe arm of around $750 billionto bring it back as a disciplinarytool.

And also the World TradeOrganisaon , the WTO whichwas there to try to prevent anyslide toward proteconism, as

everyone was saying it could belike the 1930s, you could endup with a situaon where all thecountries of the world shut upshop and stopped trading witheach other, brought the WTO into prevent any backsliding whichwould limit the opportunity for capital to expand in -nitely across the globe. And this saw therefore theshi from the G8 to the G20 that you were no lon -ger talking about the old imperialisms, the old colo-nial powers of Western Europe, North America andJapan, but you were now talking about these newimperialisms from the South, so you have China,Brazil, India seeing their big rms, their big naonalchampions, as they are called, sent out acrossthe world trying to gain an access to the naturalresources of other countries and trying to take overmarkets around the world. This has led to the mostincredible inequalies in their own countries just aswe have those inequalies here. It means that theold disncon between North and South has preymuch been eroded. What you have is the corecapitalist economies of Western Europe and NorthAmerica, you then have at the other extreme the

periphery of the capitalist system, all the hundreds,well 150 countries lets say, which have no part atall in any of this global economic governance, andthen youve got the semi-periphery, the countrieswhich are emerging, like China, Brazil, India, Russiawhich are challenging those at the core.

Thats a massive moment in world history. Youvebasically see the last 500 years, the peoples ofWestern Europe, and their descendant that movedover to the United States ruling the roost, andall of the other peoples of the world dependentupon them, in hoc to them. Now you are seeing

the changing of the guard right at that top level ofglobal economic governance, so the G8 is eec -vely looking to be replaced by the G20, but whatthe G8 does do, it sll rules the roost in terms ofidenfying what countries are going to be seen asthe rogue states, who is going to get legimacy inlaunching wars against other countries, even if itsfor resources such as oil, so the G8 is sll impor-tant, even though it remains unclear how the G8

and the G20 are going to coexistin the future.

What has been clear is that theyrepresent a fundamental aackon the decent society, the socialmodels that we would all aspireto. We have a situaon wherecapital is reigned in, is shrunkdown to size, its power is com-pletely removed and instead of

that you have common ownershipyou have popular sovereignty,social producon and you havea system which can deal not justwith the few but the needs of themany, and thats the basic divideas to what the G8 represents and

what everybody else in the world represents.

How do we as cizens groups and people, as societ-ies and trades unionists and whatever may be, howdo we respond to that type of challenge? How dowe relate to the G8 and G20 as unelected repre-sentaves of global economic governance which dohave a lot of power? They set terms under whichgovernments of the world but also the transna-onal instuons, like the World Bank and the IMFfuncon.

When you say how are we going to respond tothem it basically comes down to two opons. Op-on A is that we confront them, and we say that wedo not believe in your legimacy we do not believethat they have any soluons and we believe thatthey are the cause of the problems of the world

and we want to see them washed away and insteadmuch more democrac, plural bodies set up whichwould represent peoples needs not just the needsof capital. So Opon A confront them.

Opon B, collaborate with them, work with them,try to see if by a lile bit of lobbying a lile bit ofcajoling we can get them to do more of the thingswed like to see in the world. And thats been oneof the big divisions perhaps in civil society this year.When the G8 having just been in the North of Ire -land, so they were ocially on UK territory for therst me in eight years, there was this big campaign

As if DavidCameron of theTory partywas leading

the fight forsocial justiceacross the

world, it's justpreposterous.


5/15

Dr. Nafeez Ahmedhttp://www.nafeezahmed.com/

The focus of Ahmeds work is tocatalyse social change in the

public interest by harnessing

radical, systemic approaches to

understanding the interconnec-

tions between the worlds biggest

problems, while developing and

highlighting holistic strategies for

social transformation.

Co-producer, presenter, TheCrisis of Civilization (2011). Author of A Users Guide to theCrisis of Civilization: And How toSave It (Pluto/Macmillan, 2010); The London Bombings (2006); The War on Truth (2005); Behind the War on Terror(2003);

Nafeez Ahmeds understanding

of the post 9/11 power game, its

lies, illusions and dangers, is

no less than brilliant.

-John Pilger, Emmy and BAFTA

award-winning journalist


p

age 8

same playing eld in terms of planning fowar. Which does lead one to ask to what did they orchestrate and manipulate a coin order to pursue their own very narrow ests, which clearly do not match the interthe Syrian people?So its quite worrying and clearly, you looall the contexts in which we hear the talk now its arming the Syrian rebels that has become ocial government policy,I meanonly recently become ocial public policyits been unocial, but very real, covert pfrom more than a year ago and, again thisbeen conrmed by a number of sources. been reported in the American press andthe Washington Post, New York Times etcthen we had reports from the CIAs fundiarms, large amounts of weapons throughArabia and Qatar. We had other reports MI6 was also involved. This is not, you knsome strange bizarre thing - we know thisits kind of disingenuous to have this suddthing - the decision had already been madthats the worry there clearly is a decisionramp up this support.

You know it leaves us in a conundrum, bein reality, the le here has been in disarraover what, over how to approach things. know we like our black and white conictTheres the good guys and the bad guys. Tthe west in the one side and the evil whaton the other side. Or the West is evil, andgood guys are on the other side. And herthere arent really the good guys or the b

downplay the reality that Assad is an extremelybrutal dictator and he has been running a sec-tarian regime for decades. The reality is that wehave got a lot of quite credible circumstanalevidence now, some of it from places like hisemails from the Straor archive Straor is theprivate American intelligence company wherethey talk about the Americans deliberatelyfostering elements of the rebels, the rebellion.You know, you have got the French foreign min-ister who says that Britain actually, you know,several years ago was planning on somethinglike a war, or something, in Syria. All of this isquite surprisingly revealing in some ways, notsurprising in some other ways, but its certainlysurprising to see that both the American andthe Brish governments are very much on the

As with all G8 conferences, foreignaairs always comes at the top of theagenda, for one reason or another, andthis year Syria got its way up to the topof the agenda, with interesng, dierentresponses in the press, albeit verypredictable responses from the Brishmedia, and much more varied overseascoverage. What did you think of what thecommuniqus said, and what are theirdierences and what do they present uswith aerwards?

Are you talking about the decision to armthe Syrian rebels?

Yes, and the whole idea of the peaceprocess when it is quite obvious that theSyrian side have a posion, they refuseto have talks where there is no realopposion, which is credible in their eyes,as the chance of a military soluon looksremote.

Yes, I mean, I think the whole thing isvery convoluted. I think the problem wehave got is that we now have a massiverecordthat the Brish Government andthe American government have speci-cally played a role, a key role, in foment-ing conict in Syria. And thats not to

It doessuggest thawe clearlyare on theverge of apolice stat

kind ofsituation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretarys-statement-on-syria-arms-embargohttp://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_print.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0http://www.livestation.com/en/press-tv/en/on_demand/8fcc0dc61a3b93ef13e5bfcc1a91a1c8-uk-preplanned-war-on-syriahttp://www.livestation.com/en/press-tv/en/on_demand/8fcc0dc61a3b93ef13e5bfcc1a91a1c8-uk-preplanned-war-on-syriahttp://www.livestation.com/en/press-tv/en/on_demand/8fcc0dc61a3b93ef13e5bfcc1a91a1c8-uk-preplanned-war-on-syriahttp://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/whistleblower-al-qaeda-chief-u-s-asset/http://www.livestation.com/en/press-tv/en/on_demand/8fcc0dc61a3b93ef13e5bfcc1a91a1c8-uk-preplanned-war-on-syriahttp://www.livestation.com/en/press-tv/en/on_demand/8fcc0dc61a3b93ef13e5bfcc1a91a1c8-uk-preplanned-war-on-syriahttps://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrian-rebels-get-influx-of-arms-with-gulf-neighbors-money-us-coordination/2012/05/15/gIQAds2TSU_print.htmlhttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretarys-statement-on-syria-arms-embargo


6/15


p

age 10

specically sets out thisstrategy. It talks aboutthe strategy of bothfunding solitary jihadistgroups, as well as pingsolitary Jihadist groupsagainst Shia policalgroups, and even solitaryJihadist groups againsteach other. Its not aboutwhats right and wrong,its about what works.And this is what theythink is working. So this isgoing to have a knock oneect. Its going to endup destabilizing Iraq alot more. Iran and Russiaare not going to stand forit. They are going to bepung in more arms andmore troops. There is areport from Fisk, actually,that Iran has apparentlybeen thinking of sendingthousands of troops asa result of the decisionsto arm the rebels, whichis extremely worrying.You are looking at a longprotracted conict, and Iam actually worried thatthis could just spiral outof control, and become....You know in a way thecold war never reallyended - in many ways...This could really get, thiscould be on the verge ofbeing a hot war. All of thatis worrying. I havent evenmenoned Israel.......It is worrying me.

Iremember reading

something from HenryJackson Societyin around2011 which says that Syriais the gateway to Iran, andit doesnt seem to be thatmuch dierent from theiranalysis then, and that iswhat really frightens me,I think, because it wasntreally a great analysis.It didnt really see anyreal problems ensuing, ofcourse.

So where do you see that the realisc chancesof this being resolved where could any sort ofpeace process lie anywhere within the next veyears even?

Well to be honest with you - you know Igenerally call myself a long term opmist,and a short term pessimist - and I have to say

things do not look good forSyria at all. I do not see aprospect of a resoluon insight. Even if, by some slimchance the West manages totopple Assad, which is very,very quesonable, and theyhave the military successthey had in Libya, even ifthey did that, they would sllbe le with a quagmire, andthis quagmire would be tenmes worse that what theycreated in Libya. What wevegot in Libya is a bit of a mess.You know, we have reportsevery month, every coupleof weeks of Islamist miliasaacking government andthings. These are people thatwe funded and supported,as part of that intervenon.Again, very short sighted,not thinking long term, notthinking logically, just very,very shortsighted, withcertain narrow levels ofinterest, the same as we areseeing repeang in Syria. Idont think that Syria is goingto resolve, I think if we lookat the trajectory that we areon, we are very likely to seean escalaon of sectarianconict that will spill overinto the wider region. We arealready seeing it happening

actually. For the last few yearsthere has been a decision

by the US, since the Bush administraon, todeliberately orchestrate sectarian violence as ageo-polical tool.

This was something that was reported bypeople like Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker,but is actually corroborated by various ocialand semi-ocial documents. There is a Randreport that was funded by the US Army in2008 called The Long War, which actually

guys, but there are the Syrian people. I dorespect their right to resist. I respect their rightto rise up but I dont, I dont endorse the wayin which the Brish and American governmentsare, you know, fostering resistance in such away, that they are hijacking it. I think there is agenuine grass roots resistance movement there,but once you are geng into your physicalinvolvement ofSaudi Arabia,Qatar and otherplaces, and Iranon the other side,and Russia on theother side, youknow its gengvery very messy,and you knowit is a proxy warand everybodysusing it for theirown interests,and thats whatsreally worrying.Ulmately theSyrian people arebeing le out ofthe equaon, andthe resistancemovement itselfhas become deeplycompromised.

My fear actuallyis that peopleon the le herewho should becalling for, youknow, a resistancemovement whichis more strategicin its thinking thathas clear visionand is going tobasically have an

ethical dimensionand is not goingto engage in atrocies. Unfortunately wevehad a lot of leie commentators here whohave downplayed deliberately some of thehorrible things that elements of the rebelmovement have done in order to say, Thisis the resistance, and this is ne. We have tosupport the resistance. And again, it is a messyand dicult territory. Yeah, it is a dicult one.

oto Credit: Fabian Bromann, Creative Commons
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britains-problems-with-a-veto-on-syria-go-right-back-to-yalta-8680386.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britains-problems-with-a-veto-on-syria-go-right-back-to-yalta-8680386.htmlhttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/libya-mali-islamist-violence-tripolihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/libya-mali-islamist-violence-tripolihttp://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/31/seymour_hersh_on_syria_calling_thehttp://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/31/seymour_hersh_on_syria_calling_thehttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1247.htmlhttp://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/31/seymour_hersh_on_syria_calling_thehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/libya-mali-islamist-violence-tripolihttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.silviacattori.net/IMG/pdf/SyriaIntervention.pdfhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britains-problems-with-a-veto-on-syria-go-right-back-to-yalta-8680386.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html


7/15


p

age 12

Yeah, it has really been worr ying me. Ivebeen actually surprised. I mean, I guess I amsomeone who talks a lot about semi-grandstrategies - they say that grand strategies =But in the eyes of a lot of people who havebeen studying US and Brish foreign policy,people are aware that there are certainparameters in that there is connuity in thenature of foreign policy thats objecve, andthats not to conate. There are obviouslydisncons and dierences from governmentto government, but there are also connuies.Ive been quite surprised at the extent to whichthe Obama administraon is carrying throughwhat are tradionally seen as neo-con policies,and in fact he has accelerated the basis forthem. I think I was among several other kindsof crics who said that Obama will connuethe pracces of the Bush administraon, andhe will accelerate them. But this is kind of

surprising and is troubling - to see the extent towhich the road map that appears to have beenplaced even before the Bush administraon,which was discussed in these new conservavecircles such as you menoned the HenryJackson Society.

There was a strategy document by theJerusalem-based think tank, the Instute forAdvanced Polical Studies, or something,called A Clean Break, which actually sets thisstrategy out as well, and referred as well toSyria being the gateway, and all the rest of it,and the need to break apart the Middle East.We can gure the region. Its quite surprisingto see so much of that actually being playedout now, when you have supposedly so muchdistance between the current administraonand the previous administraon, and this issupposedly a democrac government etc. It is

surprising, actually, and maybe it shouldnt be.But it is a lile bit. It is deeply worrying to seethat level of connuity and then you to have toask yourself what is really driving it? Where it isgoing? What is the agenda?

The next queson I wanted to put to you is......What is strikingly obvious to me, and to manyother people, is that there is a downplaying ofenvironmental issues in the G8s agenda thisme, and how that ts in the conservave andthe coalion agenda, and how they downplaythat. Not only is it a missing opportunity, butI also wanted to hear your thoughts on that.About the damage that does, really.

Well, again, its not really surprising,parcularly, that environmental issues werenot on the agenda, because this has been aconsistent trend over the last several decades

of connuously de-priorizing environmentalissues and de-priorizing climate change, and Ithink it has got worse recently, almost becausethere has been increasing evidence that actuallyclimate change is a reality, and is actuallyaecng the world today. It has been dicultto ignore that for the last few years, when youlooked at the extreme weather events, whathas been happening with the droughts, theheat waves and the way its aected global foodproducon.

The United States has been really badlyaected by climate change in the last few years,and its kind of unavoidable, but I think in away, its made it even more imperave thatthe governments recognize that dealing withclimate change eecvely and dealing withthese environmental challenges eecvelyrequires radical changes to the way that we

organize our sociees. Radical changes. Youknow, emissions reducon is great if you have atarget for reducing emissions, but why is it nothappening? Because we need to have cer tainstrategic changes in order to stop our emissions.You know, we are fundamentally dependingon hydro-carbon energy and fossil fuels, andall that is part of an overall structure, a globalpolical economy dominated by a small minorityof transnaonal companies who are ess enallydominang the fossil fuel sector. So there is aclosed cycle there, and that cycle unfortunatelyalso has a hold over lobbying on government,on states, and this really is the fundamentalproblem of the G8 - that you have a situaonwhere governments are too heavily inuencedby these lobbies, and I think that really explainswhy there has been these insistent decisions thathave been increasingly determining our lives.Even though actually the evidence [Of climate

change] is increasing. That is reected in theshiing popular opinion over the last few years.I mean, you go back 6-7 years and opinion waskind of divided on whether it was a myth or ifyou believed climate change was real, is/wasa human-induced issue, and now most of theopinion polls actually shows that we have quitecomfortable majories in Britain, the UnitedStates, across Western Europe, who accept thatclimate change is a problem, and governmentshould be doing something about it. Yet, despitethat and you know, I think it is because of thatlevel of awareness, its a case of, Just take it othe agenda and hope people wont even noce!

I do think thats a part of the problem of theirthinking. Its starng to become another issueto add to the list of grievances that are buildingup, you know, in the terms of the Obamaadministraon and the Cameron government.There are clearly simmering grievances in whichI think the vast majority of Brish and Americanpeople feel that something is deeply wrong inthe way our economies are running, and theyare feeling the burden of what the workingclass is having to deal with, the brute realiesof austerity. And that, I think, is what they areafraid of. They dont want to have to go into thatvolale cocktail, and they know it is a volalecocktail. You know, environmental issues ontop of that. I think theyd much rather keep thatunder wraps as much as possible. Thats the wayIm thinking about it, it might be much morecomplex than that.

Following up from that...... What has beenreally apparent is that people have tried to

tA Clean Break:

A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanesesoil. An eective approach, and one

with which American can sympathize,

would be if Israel seized the strategic

initiative along its northern borders by

engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as

the principal agents of aggression in

Lebanon, including by:

striking Syrias drug-money and

counterfeiting infrastructure in

Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi

Qanan. paralleling Syrias behavior by

establishing the precedent that Syrian

territory is not immune to attacks

emanating from Lebanon by Israeli

proxy forces.

striking Syrian military targets in

Lebanon, and should that prove

insucient, striking at select targets in

Syria proper.

protest, against climate change in parcular,have been really subjected to, in this country,but perhaps wider aeld, to some of the mosdraconian police measures and state interfermeasures, related to the G8, and probably awhole lot more. So how do you see that proteand any pro-acvism, has it got any real opat the moment?Well, I mean, I have a mixed view of protestsI think that convenonal protest alone, on itown, is clearly..... Well, it isnt going to workisnt going to change anything. It has a certakind of limited objecve which is valuable. Ithink thats a weakness of the arsenal of tacstrategies, mythologies and whatever you cathem, that people who are calling for changeuse. Weve been limited to that. Mass proteLets get people onto the streets. But wherthe vision? What is the point of geng onto

the streets? What are you actually calling fomean - thats what missing from that. ObvioI think that protest is also change. And thatsnot to downplay the reality that protest, direacon, is sll an essenal component of anykind of meaningful social acon. We do needhave direct acon we do need to have proteAnd we do need to have things like Occupyin public spaces, and whatever kind of otherlegimate measures that we can think of whare peaceful, and which are ethical, groundesome kind of clear strategy of change.

The problem is that this is precisely whatgovernments are afraid of. You look at it,increasingly over the last few years - there hbeen a tendency to classify protesters; classpeople who are a part of these movements, domesc extremists; as in terrorism.

We have seen this both in the United States Britain, the police, the FBI - the Metropolitanpolice here, and the FBI in America and so foBut actually they have specically associatedthese social movements with terrorism andextremism, which juses surveillance, juscounter-intelligence and all that, and it is ververy worrying, and it does suggest that weclearly are on the verge of a police state kindof situaon. But I see that as being almostan inevitable result of the way in which ourgovernments thinks about things. You know,its an ideological problem, because its the win which they calculate risks, the way in whiccapitalism looks to these issues. Its extraordthat you have large companies and corporaheavily involved in security industries, and n
http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/19/activism-climate-change-grasp-the-nettlehttp://boingboing.net/2011/12/16/city-of-london-police-class-oc.htmlhttp://boingboing.net/2011/12/16/city-of-london-police-class-oc.htmlhttp://boingboing.net/2011/12/16/city-of-london-police-class-oc.htmlhttp://boingboing.net/2011/12/16/city-of-london-police-class-oc.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/19/activism-climate-change-grasp-the-nettlehttp://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm


8/15

they wont be; because they work in defense orsomething, what they are not told, is to assessthe problems and lets look at what we canactually to avoid them. Theres no prevenon.Theres no migaon. And that really is a kind ofodd reality that we are in. Thats something thatwe need to look at. What it boils down to, I thinkis linking up what we do, in terms of direct aconor protest, with vision.

I really think that its about, which is why I amreally excited about what you guys are doing, inbringing people together to start talking aboutvision, and start talking about alternaves.Talking about what kind of sociees we want tocreate, here and now, rather than waing forthe government, or waing for someone elseto do something. We need to start creangthose visions ourselves. The people, the public

- taking ownership of that, and having thosediscussions, and start doing something. And I amthinking of direct acon with concrete acon tocreate change as well. Its something I am quiteexcited about, which I think we saw the seeds ofthat, maybe, with Occupy. It didnt necessarilyblossom completely, but I think that theres agrowing recognion amongst acvists that theydo need to link up acvism with actual concretemeasures they can take here and now, to movetowards some kind of a dierent vision.

#Agit8 #Investig8 #Educ8 #Innov8 #Communic

Alt. Reality Issue #1

14

page

they have come out with the NSA revelaons.

So very clearly - but we have known this foryears, even here - domesc extremism stuis inuenced by thousands of companieswho basically have beef with potenal socialmovements who they think might challengethem. Ive seen a number of reports in theGuardian, I wrote about this recently, thatthere were the naonal unions that trackeddomesc extremists here in the UK, as advisedby thousands of companies which they liaise withregularly which tell them, they say and they evenadmit that in all these environments protestersarent even engaged in violence, and there is noprospect of them engaging in violence. So this issomething you see - that the security industryhave been heavily inuenced by the corporatesector; in fact you can see that they are one and

the same, and this has created this problem oflooking for, of externalizing the risk and lookingfor problems. Its also related to the way climatechange is seen as a security threat, rather thanlooking at the deeper structural issues drivingclimate change. Because we cant do thatintrospecvely, we have to end up securizingas a way of saying climate change is a threat outthere, and we have to deal with this problemas a result. So we hear now, we have to dealwith angry people, angry countries, chaos inthe streets, chaos on the oceans, whatever it is.Which requires more and more securizaon ofmilitary and police powers. So there is that logicand a need for us to somehow break that logic bydrawing aenon to the realies of what climatechange is, and what it is doing to us.

I think there is scope there. One of the thingsI try to do is actually get people in the securityindustry, people who are just normal people,just paid to do this kind of analysis, people whowork in the military, to start realizing that theycant, they arent the ones that can come upwith soluons to these problems. They need to

be lobbying governments to say, You need todo something to reduce the pressure on us torespond in a military and police fashion. And itis interesng, when you speak to some of theseguys. They are actually really disturbed by thestu that they end up coming out with. They areshit scared about stu, you know; the shit hingthe fan in the next 10-20 years, because theyare told, You have to do this assessment andlook at the risk factors, and what we might needto do. What they are not told is, and obviously
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prismhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prism


9/15

Michel Bauwens

When the government fears the people, there is liberty.When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Radical Realities | Issue #1

16

For more technical information

on the differences between

IP rights and peer-to-peer

methodoligies, check out

the wiki book The World of

Peer-to-Peer the World Trade

Organisation also has further

legal definitions: Creators

can be given the right to

prevent others from using

their inventions, designs or

other creations and to use

that right to negotiate payment

in return for others using

them. These are intellectual

property rights. For critical

analysis, we suggest you click

the first link . (ed.)

Intellectual PropertyOne of the things I wanted to start with - you

wrote an arcle recently in Al jazeera. In

April, you were talking about Open Democ-racy, basically, and how the Pirate Par ty. they

are having a huge inuence on the debatearound many aspects which touch on IP

rights, and the eect it has on the economy.

Could you explain something of your ndings,please.

MB Well, theres 3 dier-ent things.

The rst thing is of course,

that the Pirate Pares,

whatever you think of

them and the rst expres-sion of this new culture.They come straight from the le-sharing

communies, and you know, I see a kind ofa logic, whereby sub-cultures form without

caring much about the rest of society, they

just do their thing and the legacy systems

and the interests that are threatened by

them, their new behaviour, - and thats whenthe start policising, and I think, in a way,

that this stage has been reached, with the

Pirate Party, who sociologically, you know,

represent the young knowledge workingclass, the young precarious workers between

18-25, which are a really big part of the

populaon, in the west, at least in the youngpopulaon. So that is the rst aspect of proxy

vong, so everybody has a voice, but once itgets discussed as a policy, you can delegate

your vote in real me, to somebody you can

trust, on that parcularsubject or proposal.

And this is interesng, be-

cause in our representa-

ve democracy we have

now, we choose every

4 years from our rulingclass, and prey much

leave them to the inu-ence of lobbyists and the money launderers.

But you prefer this party or person to theother that you only like 10%. But there is noway of fully expressing who you are and the

complex choices that you would make. Andthis becomes possible through systems like

the liquid feedback system and proxy vot-ing, to this is an interesng innovaon, andit is being tried now in Germany in a revision

called peace labs so we have to wait and see

Would you likeopen-source withthat governance?

more and moreinnovation comesfrom non-marketcollectives, ecosystems, and thisis increasing
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_%28P2P%29/Print_versionhttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_%28P2P%29/Print_versionhttp://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htmhttp://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htmhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012416102253184145.htmlhttp://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012416102253184145.htmlhttp://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htmhttp://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm7_e.htmhttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_%28P2P%29/Print_versionhttps://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_World_of_Peer-to-Peer_%28P2P%29/Print_version


10/15



18

how that does, but that is an interesng step.

The basis of the arcle is infrastructural trans-formaon; Knowledge helps you to make

things, and soware is executable and design isdirectly related to making, and to producon,

so we have to stress that, you know, knowl-edge is not just immaterial it is directly related

to how we do things in our physical life.

And so, what I was proposing is that the noon

of the commons can serve as a basis of a newprogressive majority, and I was saying that to

have the Pirates represenng the young knowl-edge working class - you have the Greens -who have a natural anity with nature and for

the physical world - are transformave. I amnot sure Social Democrats that are just doing

counter-reforms just to please neo-liberalism -

they are pares that really want to change thestructure of society.

Then I also argue that we should include pro-

gressive social entrepreneurs, like people, the

people who make the fair phone, and fair trade

electronics, because they are changing theproducve system. And this is also important

And a lot of young people today, you know,they are cras people, they are producers they

are arsts, and these people can work for an

employer one year, create their own start-ups the next, go bankrupt aer that, become

a freelancer, and get a job again. So they arevery exibility regarding their structural situ-aon within the labour market, and they see

entrepreneurship, not as a liberal vision, butas a striving for autonomy, so I want to include

those people in a new type of alliance for infra -structural change.

N One of the big issues that is really not beingproperly brought to the fore as it should be

at the G8 conference to me is the role that IPrights have had in causing nancial problems,

and that might seem very strange to many

people, but so does the idea of what the com -

mons is, and therefore any idea that it is free

compared to IP rights. which are expensive and

increasingly made longer and longer terms,beyond the life of the original author.

MB Well there are 2 things and one is a nega-ve crique that which is about patents, forexample, research clearly shows that the more

patents you have the slower the innovaon,

so that we know that these strong IP rights arenegave for innovaon, as they are basically

to strengthen the patents, but it is basically,I suppose suicide, and there are studies both

contemporary and from histor y, that show, for

example, that the UK, the Brish Empire wasway ahead of Germany, and they introduced

copyrights and patents and innovaon startedgoing down, and then Germany who didnt

have IP took them over, and there is a whole

book showing this. But there are many con-temporary studies showing about IP not being

innovave in their eects, but more and moreinnovaon comes from non-market collec-ves, eco systems, and this is increasing, and

you know, there are charts showing how muchof these are coming from these non-market

environments.

And so, you know personally, I am not an ab-solust, that means I am not necessarily for anabsolute abolion of IP, but to bring them back

to reasonable levels - so that even people whoare for them and see some merit in them, They

can only work by either pung people into jail,

so legal repression, or by technological sabo-tage of DRM and things like that, so you un-derstand that moderates can see that people

dont have a reason to sabotage and then we

can have hyper-innovaon and because reallywhat if you observe the eld, like I do with theP2P Foundaon, you take care, you know, of

your culture. You know there is a revoluonin urban farming, theres even a revoluon in

rural farming, and the reason things are hap-pening is because these people are now talkingto each other, who may not be up to date, but

they are being renews, their being profoundly

transformed, the cizen sciensts, and farmer

working around networks, and improving theipracces.

I just want to say that, as an example, and you

may know this beer that I, because I thinkyou Brish, there is every Friday, the agrichats

in twier hashtag agrichat, which trends everyFriday because the farmers are exchanging

communicaon through twier. It is just one

example of how this is happening. And theydont need copyright. They dont need Patents

They just want to advance their own praccesall together.

Liquid democracy is a fast,decentralized, scalable,collaborative question-answeringsystem, which works using chainedanswer recommendation. It liesbetween direct and representativedemocracy, distinct from otherpolling methods and vote proxying.- http://ldem.sourceforge.net/

Liquid Democracy
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111106020921/emergingeconomy/images/4/42/Emerging_Economics_Chart.001.jpghttp://ldem.sourceforge.net/http://ldem.sourceforge.net/http://ldem.sourceforge.net/http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111106020921/emergingeconomy/images/4/42/Emerging_Economics_Chart.001.jpg


11/15



20

Heather Marsh

Keynote

Hi everyone my name is Heather Marsh, I am honoured tohave the opportunity to talk to you today. This wont bemuch of an interacve conversaon with me here and you

there, unless you want to nd me online and leave comments

on anything Im saying, you can nd me HeatherMarsh or @GeorgieBc on Twier or wherever you like and we can talk

further, if you have any feedback.

If we are not to connue to be carried along by the vision of

the G8 leaders, we need to dene a vision of our own. TodayI want to talk about the type of economy we live with and

the impact it has on our sociees. Society is a connuum ofdependencies; each of us is dependent at the beginning of our

lives and again in old age and probably many mes in between.

In todays economic structure, society with its dependenciesand relaonships has been converted to a completely monesed

system of dissociaon. For the rst me in human history,people have been eecvely disassociated from each other and

we are living in a state of no society.

Everything we require, all of our most basic needs, have been

removed from our control and placed in separate, isolatedsystems. Anything you can think of, including food, housing,

healthcare educaon, lifes work, somemes even family;

anything intangible or tangible, these essenal resources areseparated from the people and held in a space not accessible to

them. If the resource is healthcare, members of the public arenot able to review the work of the health professionals, they

do not have access to the pharmaceucal studies, they cannot

choose the remedy they wish, they cannot assist others all the

Author, Binding Chaos andformer editor of WikiLeaksCentral
http://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/binding-chaos/http://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/binding-chaos/


12/15



22

resources are funnelled through a leech.

So, Im talking to a UK audience, youprobably all know what a leech is, but a

leech is a parasite, that aaches itself toa host and drains the host, contribung

nothing.

Our leeches are the nancial instuons;

the old style media and PR instuons,that dole out informaon to us; regulatory

bodies, training and licensing instuons the

distributors of goods and services, insurance

agencies all other bodies set up to regulate

the ow of resources to the people. None ofthese leeches contribute to society, they control

access to resources. In the food system, dutyrestricons and trade treaes control access

to food. You cannot contact a rice farmer and

arrange a shipment to your village in Englandwithout including the leeches. Youre prevented

from having that level of human connecon.Even locally, government regulatory bodies

control both producon and distribuon, even

requiring chlorine bleach to be poured over foodin dumpsters to ensure that nothing escapes their

control.

In the educaon system, the universies control

who can learn, they control what they learn,and they produce a credenal that allows

the person to perform work. The freedomto learn and the power of peer promoon is

removed to an outside regulatory body for

almost every profession. In science and arts,

intellectual property laws prevent the study

and use of prior work. They encourage secrecyand informaon hoarding so your thoughts are

also under the control of this leech; even sportsand entertainment the games of society in

our leisure me, are strictly controlled by bye-

laws and insurance and are largely replaced byprofessional organisaons, with access funnelled

through leeches.

Every conceivable resource has had accessremoved from the society and placed in control

of leeches. This system of disassociaon is soentrenched in society that it is very seldomquesoned. Money for healthcare is equated

to money for insurance, even though insurancecompanies do not provide healthcare. Banks

need to be propped up to provide housing

even though banks do not provide housing.The almighty economy must be saved, even at

the cost of untold lives or life on earth itself,

but we cant eat the economy. Educaon and

informaon are controlled, not produced bythe exisng instuons. Both could and should

be provided by transparency and open access.Distributors could be replaced by farmed data

(?) imporng with (?) every trade between the

consumer and the producer. Informaon wantsand needs to be free.

Choosing ones own lifes work is a basic right.

In this system of dissociaon, people are not

protected by their society, each is dangling fromthe leech by their own lile veins with limited

access to the resources. There are no directrelaonships or dependencies between people.

Even if the access allows the person plenty

of everything, there is a built in awareness ofshortage and reliance on the vein that strongly

discourages sharing. If one persons vein isbroken, their need is met with hoslity from the

other.

To rescue another is to weaken yourself so,

predictably, rescuing those in need requires thecreaon of more leeches in the form of NGOs and

government regulatory bodies. All the NGOs andregulatory bodies do is distribute and control the

generosity from the rest of society but people

are condioned to believe that the NGOs actuallyprovide the support. This allows society as a

whole to not spend any me considering thosewho their society failed.

When a person has had their access to theleech for some reason broken, they are referred

to themselves as leeches. The taxpayer wasinvented to assert moral control over other

members of society such as children, anyone in

crisis, anyone who dares to work outside their

corporate-approved role.

The taxpayer is encouraged by relentless

propaganda and enabled by the nancial system

to consider themselves both the backbone ofsociety, as evidenced on monetary owcharts

and nowhere else, and personally robbed byall others. When people look for the obvious

problems in the systems of dissociaon, they

are always pointed to those not acng as the

taxpayer, seldom do sociees look past thepropaganda to the real leeches.

When people complain that workers in

Bangladesh are working in inhumane condion

and their lives are endangered, they are told thshould pay more for their clothes. No one thin

to ask why the money that is paid for clothes isnot going directly into the pockets of the peop

sewing them. Surely, in these days, there is no

need for Walmart to choose our clothes for us

The current nancial system funcons as a meto e the work that is done for corporaons

to basic essenals such as food and housingin an enrely arcial relaonship. Despite anabundance of basic essenals, individuals or

enre countries can be deprived of them, baseon the labour or rights (?) they are providing to

corporaons. By providing a complete disconn

between the work required to produce basicessenals and ownership or access to them,

the system also ensures gross over-abundanceof resources to those who do no work of value

at all. The nancial system enables inequitable

distribuon of resources.

Wages are commonly described as the movato work, we are told no one would work if they

were not paid. This is belied by the amount

of people raising their children, cleaning theirhomes, tending their gardens volunteering

for re departments and wring open sourcesoware and it is belied by cultures in many

mes and places which survived happily witho

a nancial system.

Women in all cultures are expected to do verydicult, me consuming, laborious and high-r

unpaid work to give birth and raise children buin many cultures they remain an almost enre

unpaid foundaon of slave labour that the rest

the economy is built upon.

Last September, an arcle appeared in a

If she was raisinglivestock, she wouldbe compensated. Shecannot sell her

children, thereforeher work for them hasno value it would,however, be illegalfor her to let themdie, therefore she islegally slave labour.


13/15



24

Canadian newspaper, the Star, it told a story of a

very young woman in Uganda raising six children,all the product of rape, aer being abducted at

13 to become a child soldier. The photojournalist

wring the story gave her a camera and sold thephotos she took with it. When he gave her the

money he said this isnt a handout, this is moneyyouve earned. Consider that, for one minute;

raising six children, that she did not ask for,

while sll a teenager herself; being pregnant orrecovering for six years, breaseeding all of these

children for however many years; providing food,shelter, clothing, safety, medical, educaonal

and other care, all 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

while in extremely dangerous and uncomfortablesituaons and recovering from severe trauma,

with no societal support and, in fact in dangerfrom her society, was not worth payment. She is

expected to sacrice her health and risk her life

for a job that was not worth payment. Survivingall the trauma of her life did not entle her to

support from her society. Trading a picture wasconsidered providing something of value and

contribung to society.

This is society conducted as a trade relaonship.

If she was raising livestock, she would becompensated. She cannot sell her children,

therefore her work for them has no value itwould, however, be illegal for her to let them die,therefore she is legally slave labour.

Slavery of care givers and others in this and many

other instances is the only reason capitalism cansurvive. What is referred to as a womans right

to work is really the right to do paid corporate

work. All of the work that benets society is,

has been, or could easily be unpaid while pay isonly required for work that is harmful to society.

Valuaon of work rests with corporaons and

governments which ensure that workers willengage in pointlessly dangerous and immoral that

they would never do otherwise. People are paidto kill people. People are not paid to give birth to

people. Is it now more socially acceptable to killpeople than to give birth to people? Or is it justmore immediately valuable to corporaons?

Wages were created, not to movate us to

work, but to control our work. The jobs that

corporaons and governments have chosen tovalue are almost enrely busywork coercive

jobs that would not exist in an open system; jobs

like everything in sales, nance, management,

polics and more. The end result of corporatework is far too much products and products and

services that are detrimental to society and theenvironment. Any aempts to stop corporate

work are met with the cry that to do so would

cause job loss. This is promoted as a great evil

because, under the current system, jobs equalbasic essenals. Jobs are always treated as beingin short supply, valuable and dicult to obtain,

especially the good jobs that pay the most

money.

Jobs are, of course not remotely scarce anychild can nd hundreds of things of value to do at

any me but these valuable jobs have not had an

arcial monetary value associated with them

On an internaonal level, the nancial systemserves to arcially control which countries

are wealthy and which are not. Many of the

most resource-rich countries in the world havedestute populaons and the mulnaonal

corporaons which own the rights to theirresources remove the wealth to other countrie

At a naonal level, the nancial s ystem allows

banks, who have no need of housing, to hoard

millions of houses while the children who used

sleep in them sleep in the streets. At an individlevel, equang lifes essenals with the nanci

system, can control life or death, fullment orwasted potenal, contentment or misery. All

of sociees problems which could be solved by

money were caused by money.

Paid work creates poverty. Anyone not enablinthe corporaons and doing their work lives in

fear of the legal system and societal persecuo

that comes with poverty. Poverty is the hardeswork of any available today. It is a very expens

lifestyle; containing nes, charges and feeslevied by the corporate and government world

it leaves no me to achieve any fullment, is

a life-threatening health-risk and is ex tremelydamaging to personal relaonships. It is natura

almost universally dreaded. Poverty is alsoregarded as a moral failure the very word

unemployed states idleness although anyone

whos been poor knows how much work isinvolved.

Wealth is used synonymously with success and

achievement, paid work arcially values one

above the other and, subsequently the persondoing that job above another, regardless of

individual preference. While manual work migbe considered more enjoyable by most people

since it provides exercise, social interacon

and purpose, the assigned values teach us tovalue pointless execuve work instead. Paid

work occupies all of our me and when wereoutside the nancial system, poverty is a

full-me job. This cripples all volunteer work,

such as community gardens and open-source

At a national level, thefinancial system allowsbanks, who have no needof housing, to hoard

millions of houses whilethe children who used tosleep in them sleep in

the streets.


14/15


p

age 26

projects that would otherwise be done for free andmay undermine the system of wage control over

people. Volunteer work is also subject to the same

moral scruny as poverty, especially in recent yearswhen a requirement of being poor is frequently the

oxymoronic compulsory volunteer work associatedwith receiving basic essenals. Previously the domain

of the rich and idle and therefore commendable,

work had now become tainted with the stench ofpoverty, further liming willing parcipants.

The current nancial system is necessary to control

our work, to control our me, to create poverty,o create division and to force people to do work

which is harmful to society. If there is any nancial

ystem there will be coercion outside of the benetof society, if there is demand for a house and

omeone is paid to build a house, that person will

be elevated above someone helping the mentallyl or gardening. Building houses will then be seen

s the more aracve choice of work, regardlessof personal anity or the needs of society. Where

people are paid to build houses, houses will bedestroyed instead of preserved; people will be

ondensed in these newer, bigger houses and all the

rappings of capitalism will connue. The moneylessystem is unlikely to appear any me soon in its

pure form but it could exist to cover at least basicessenals or expiring currency could be distributed

as a guaranteed periodic income which would cover

basic essenals.

These opons would at least ensure a society doesnot condemn a child to starvaon because a parent

cannot provide for them and it would relieve the

pressing need to obey the corporate authories. Itwould allow people to follow the path that for them

provides the greatest sasfacon without being heldto corporate slavery while we create an alternave

system.

A great fear associated with abolishing wages or

providing anything for free is that some peoplemay not work, this completely disregards the fact

that there have always been people who will not

work under the current system and they includethe people receiving the highest monetary rewards.

Nobody worries about those who are rich notworking, just the poor. This seems to indicate a fear

of shiing social status, not a fear of people not

working. Because of the arcial monetary valueassigned to some jobs, people who elect to do

demanding and valuable work with no associatedcorporate wage are sneered at and made to

believe they are acng as parasites on society while

corporate execuves who provide no societal valueare hailed as a great success.

In a system where all work was directly ed to the

product or service produced, there would be far

more societal pressure for people to do somethingof direct value and the people contribung

nothing would be exposed. With the more opensystem it would also be far easier for people with

current dicules geng work in the corporate

environment to produce something of value.

While it is doubul that freeing people to obtainbasic essenals outside of corporate bondage would

result in more people than usual not working, it is

very likely that the increase in art and innovaonwould be dramac. It would also change the

percepon in society of the value of volunteer

work if it were necessary and open to everyone

to parcipate in it and the type of work produced

would be valued by society not corporaons.

Financial independence is really our term for beingable to survive without society, what follows is theidea that if we are independent, our contribuons

to society are voluntary and charitable. This

independence is part of the system of dissociaonthat stands in our way of creang a real society. It

was once considered inconceivable that the worldcould run without slavery for the exact same reason

people are not pung forward for retaining wages

or modern slavery.

To benet all of society, an economy needs to based on service to all of society. A trade econ

rewards only the work that benets the powe

Economy ought to be based, not on exchangebetween trading partners but on approval from

society. Societal approval and trust then entlmember to receive benet from that society t

immediate and living social contract. An appro

economy is the economy people rely on whendo not use direct coercion, the one typically se

families and unfunded cooperave and voluntgroups. We need to remove the leeches that a

interrupng our direct relaonships and we ne

change the economy based on trade to an ecobased on societal approval.

Now I have used all the me I have here, so we

dont have any more me to talk about approv

economies or anything else, but I am very excithat this gathering and others like it exist. We

debate and we need to move beyond the debaviable alternaves. It was great talking to you,

you for listening and do get in touch so I can heyour half of the conversaon. All the best to al

you.


15/15

SUBSEQUENT articleS MAY praise the prod-

uct shown in

glowing terms. If you spray the device

silver and stick a Mac logo on it even

your nan will want ONE SOON. WE LIKE It

SO MUCH THIS AD IS FREE.

03/29/12

VALUE: PRICELESS

ADVERTISEMENT

Documents

Radical Realities