On Aug 22, 2017 7:07 AM, "Umair Chachar" wrote: <SNIP> You guys need to read "On Revolution" by Hannah Ardent. Revolts by the working class or lower are often extremely bloody and last a very very long time. And "Capitalism & Freedom" by Milton Friedman to actually understand that Capitalism isn't all that bad if you have a small government. <SNIP> Thanks for the bibliography, Umair. I do love books and reading suggestions are always welcome. <3 Never read "Capitalism & Freedom", and I confess I didn't read all the books of Hannah Arendt. "On Revolution" didn't make my heart beating stronger, didn't give me so much inspiration. Certainly my bad, sorry. Read it when I was only a teenager dreaming with revolutions and a new, better world... :)

From: Umair Chachar

I mean. I agree it's pretty strong (I guess). However, there is so much wrong with this manifesto. It's crying out for absolute chaos and a new world order, Don't forget that "anarchy" does not necessarily imply "chaos".  I solved that problem 22 years ago.  https://cryptome.org/ap.htm       which is very paradoxical to itself and the anarchist part. The only thing more confusing than anarchy is anarcho-socialism lol THAT doesn't make a bit of sense.  

You guys need to read "On Revolution" by Hannah Ardent. Revolts by the working class or lower are often extremely bloody and last a very very long time. My solution should be far faster.  How bloody it will be, it's hard to say.  People have grudges, in many cases for excellent reasons.  

And "Capitalism & Freedom" by Milton Friedman to actually understand that Capitalism isn't all that bad if you have a small government.  I have long objected to the way people use the term "capitalism".  Capitalism is merely the 1800's term for "crowd-funding" of business.  Great advance, then.  Problem is, people use that term when what they really mean is "free market".  And no, we don't have anything close to a free market today, in America or other Western nations.                 Jim Bell

-------- Original Message -------- On Aug 21, 2017, 14:42, Cecilia Tanaka < cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote: Received this text today.  Really appreciated the ideas.  You can detest the post, but must admit it's pretty interesting and provocative!  :D Kisses, hugs and tickles!  <3 Ceci ==========                                        (A) CyberClassWar Manifesto 2017 (A) First and foremost we are anarchists. The world is split into two camps: the working class and the ruling class. We the workers will wage a class war against the ruling class and the current  social order, and bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old.  We seek to destroy capitalism, the state, and all forms of hierarchy  such as racism, patriarchy, abelism, homophobia and transphobia. In turn we seek to create a united world, free of borders and nationality, where all people live united by solidarity and love for their fellow human being. We shall know no domination, no hierarchy, no oppression. We shall abolish wage labor and have workers' self-management. Surely there will be mistakes, and surely there will be problems, but  the world will be incomparably better than how it exists today. We do not see this vision as some pipedream distant utopia, but rather as the only viable option for the survival of humanity. Climate Change and environmental degradation have ravaged our planet to a horrific degree, so we must act for the sake of the future. Make no mistake, we do not believe in a vanguard. The liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. A small portion of the working class cannot stand as a representative for the rest of us. We do however believe that CyberClassWar can be used as a weapon against the ruling class. But what exactly is CyberClassWar? It is merely the practice of using the tactics of cyberwarfare to advance the aims of the working class. Instead of limiting ourselves to the workplace, community, and home,  we are upgrading our strategy to the information age so as to encompass the virtual realm. We live out an increasing portion of our lives in the place known as the internet, so why not extend the fight. Hacktivism already exists but it hasn't been leveraged to the full degree it could. We will not go into detail, but we shall say that we want do expropriative acts via the digital realm.

From: Umair Chachar @Jim: ""THAT doesn't make a bit of sense."

I'm just saying that anarco-socialism is very paradoxical to itself since the idea of socialism depends on some form of government in itself (usually with extended powers over production, distribution, etc). And that anarchy doesn't fit with it properly.

I was agreeing with you, that "anarcho-socialist" makes no sense.  Generally, the "left" cannot be left without advocating for a big government that forces people to obey.  

...

"My solution should be far faster.  How bloody it will be, it's hard to say.  People have grudges, in many cases for excellent reasons. "

Your solution is in the link above? Yes, it is a concept that I called "Assassination Politics".  It will get rid of all government (certainly as we know it), thus producing "anarchy", yet not allowing the "chaos" ordinarily imagined by people.  

...

"I have long objected to the way people use the term "capitalism".  Capitalism is merely the 1800's term for "crowd-funding" of business.  Great advance, then.  Problem is, people use that term when what they really mean is "free market".  And no, we don't have anything close to a free market today, in America or other Western nations. "

That's true, free market/enterprise has been corrupted in every nation on this world. I personally see a free market system to yield good results for the well-being of a country it is allowed to stay free. The source for the Whisky Rebellion in America, shortly after the American Revolution, was the biased way the government taxed alcohol.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion    Today, that's called "Crony Capitalism".   This shows why the existence of a "government" cannot be tolerated.                  Jim Bell From that article:  Western grievances The population of Western Pennsylvania was 17,000 in 1790.[13] Among the farmers in the region, the whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that it unfairly targeted westerners.[14] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their incomes by operating small stills.[15] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.[16] Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.[17]Small-scale farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay (as low as 6 cents, according to Hamilton). Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon (9 cents), which made them less competitive.[18] The regressive nature of the tax was further compounded by an additional factor: whiskey sold for considerably less on the cash-poor Western frontier than in the wealthier and more populous East. This meant that, even if all distillers had been required to pay the same amount of tax per gallon, the small-scale frontier distillers would still have to remit a considerably larger proportion of their product's value than larger Eastern distillers. Small-scale distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[19] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[20] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them and they supported it.[21]Other aspects of the excise law also caused concern. The law required all stills to be registered, and those cited for failure to pay the tax had to appear in distant Federal, rather than local courts. The only Federal courthouse was in Philadelphia, some 300 miles away from the small frontier settlement of Pittsburgh. From the beginning, the Federal government had little success in collecting the whiskey tax along the frontier. Many small western distillers simply refused to pay the tax. Federal revenue officers and local residents who assisted them bore the brunt of the protester's ire. Tax rebels harassed several whiskey tax collectors and threatened or beat those who offered them office space or housing. As a result, many western counties never had a resident Federal tax official.[22]In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government, chief among which was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the residents living in western frontier.[22] The Northwest Indian War was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned Louisiana) from using the Mississippi River for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that the government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier.[23]

@Jim: I'm gonna have to get back home to respond properly to your email. It's annoyingly tedious on the phone lol I should be getting off work soon (hopefully). V/R, Umair -------- Original Message -------- On Aug 22, 2017, 14:00, jim bell wrote:

From: Umair Chachar @Jim:

""THAT doesn't make a bit of sense."

...

I'm just saying that anarco-socialism is very paradoxical to itself since the idea of socialism depends on some form of government in itself (usually with extended powers over production, distribution, etc). And that anarchy doesn't fit with it properly.

I was agreeing with you, that "anarcho-socialist" makes no sense. Generally, the "left" cannot be left without advocating for a big government that forces people to obey.

...

...

"My solution should be far faster. How bloody it will be, it's hard to say. People have grudges, in many cases for excellent reasons. "

...

Your solution is in the link above?

Yes, it is a concept that I called "Assassination Politics". It will get rid of all government (certainly as we know it), thus producing "anarchy", yet not allowing the "chaos" ordinarily imagined by people.

...

...

"I have long objected to the way people use the term "capitalism". Capitalism is merely the 1800's term for "crowd-funding" of business. Great advance, then. Problem is, people use that term when what they really mean is "free market". And no, we don't have anything close to a free market today, in America or other Western nations. "

...

That's true, free market/enterprise has been corrupted in every nation on this world. I personally see a free market system to yield good results for the well-being of a country it is allowed to stay free.

The source for the Whisky Rebellion in America, shortly after the American Revolution, was the biased way the government taxed alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion Today, that's called "Crony Capitalism". This shows why the existence of a "government" cannot be tolerated.

Jim Bell

From that article:

Western grievances

The population of Western Pennsylvania was 17,000 in 1790. [13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-13) Among the farmers in the region, the whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that it unfairly targeted westerners. [14](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-14) Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their incomes by operating small [stills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Still). [15](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-15) Farmers living west of the [Appalachian Mountains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Mountains) distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers. [16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-16) Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, so whiskey often served as a [medium of exchange](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_of_exchange). For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an [income tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax) that wealthier easterners did not pay. [17](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-17) Small-scale farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay (as low as 6 [cents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(currency)), according to Hamilton). Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon (9 cents), which made them less competitive. [18](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-18) The [regressive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_taxation) nature of the tax was further compounded by an additional factor: whiskey sold for considerably less on the cash-poor Western frontier than in the wealthier and more populous East. This meant that, even if all distillers had been required to pay the same amount of tax per gallon, the small-scale frontier distillers would still have to remit a considerably larger proportion of their product's value than larger Eastern distillers. Small-scale distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians. [19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-19) However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document". [20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-20) Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them and they supported it. [21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-21) Other aspects of the excise law also caused concern. The law required all stills to be registered, and those cited for failure to pay the tax had to appear in distant Federal, rather than local courts. The only Federal courthouse was in Philadelphia, some 300 miles away from the small frontier settlement of Pittsburgh. From the beginning, the Federal government had little success in collecting the whiskey tax along the frontier. Many small western distillers simply refused to pay the tax. Federal revenue officers and local residents who assisted them bore the brunt of the protester's ire. Tax rebels harassed several whiskey tax collectors and threatened or beat those who offered them office space or housing. As a result, many western counties never had a resident Federal tax official. [22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-Hoover-22) In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government, chief among which was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the residents living in western frontier. [22](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-Hoover-22) The [Northwest Indian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Indian_War) was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned [Louisiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_(New_Spain))) from using the [Mississippi River](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River) for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that the government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier. [23](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion#cite_note-23)