Congress

Meet the Left-Wing Extremist Running for U.S. Senate

Amanda Curtis seeks to replace plagiarist Democrat John Walsh.

|

Did you hear about the Republican candidate for Senate out West who wants to overthrow the entire American economic system? The one who, when asked about his view on the situation on Iraq, said he needed more time? Who said he couldn't answer questions about the situation at the Mexican border because "only 11 days ago I was painting my storm windows"?

Of course you didn't. Because he is a she, and a Democrat. Her name is Amanda Curtis.

You certainly would have heard about a Republican candidate like that, though. He would have been banner-headline material on The Huffington Post, Salon, and other liberal redoubts. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert would have given him the business. Op/ed columnists around the country would have held him up as an example of how radical wingnuts had seized control of the GOP.

After all: Any time some random Republican somewhere says something idiotic, you can pretty much count on it making national news. If he or she says something especially stupid (see: Akin, Todd) it's likely to launch a national debate, in the sense of "debate" meaning "weeks of discussion in which everyone agrees the comment was heinous and keeps saying so, over and over."

This happens with such regularity there's even a term for it (coined by Slate's David Weigel): the Republican Lawmaker Principle. There is, however, no corresponding Democratic Lawmaker Principle—though not because Democrats never say outrageous things. They do, and the conservative blogosphere delights in raking them over the coals for it.

But the broader media generally don't pick up on Democratic inanities because, viewed through the filter of unconscious liberal bias, the comments are just unfortunate isolated incidents, rather than what dumb Republican comments are seen as: yet more data points supporting the thesis that Those People Are Swivel-Eyed Lunatics. This is true of every dumb Democratic remark, no matter how many occur.

This brings us back to Curtis, a state lawmaker in Montana. Democrats chose her to run for the Senate after the six-month incumbent, John Walsh, was busted for plagiarism.

Curtis has said some unflattering things about gun rights, and Christians, and her desire to punch other lawmakers in the face—all of them in YouTube diaries she broadcast as commentaries on the Montana legislative session. Nothing terribly far-out there. The far-out part is her association with the Wobblies.

The Wobblies are the Industrial Workers of the World, a hard-left union of historical vintage that let the 20th century pass it by. "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common," the group proclaims. "Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth."

Nothing says "modern, forward-thinking progressive" like warmed-over Lenin.

Curtis' husband is more active in the IWW than she, but her admiration for communist economics doesn't stop there. Not long ago she replaced her Facebook profile picture with a photo of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, the former chairwoman of the Communist Party USA.

Question: If a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate signified his admiration for the president of the American Nazi Party—or even the John Birch Society—do you think the media would find that at all newsworthy? Sure they would. What if a Republican had written for a newsletter of the Ku Klux Klan, as Curtis has written for the IWW? Ditto. Yet on the rare occasions when news outlets have seen fit to mention such details, they have done so in terms of conservatives "pouncing on" them. Man, those critics have some nerve, don't they?

Curtis might be a fallback candidate, but that did not stop Montana Democrats from nominating her at a convention—just as Virginia Republicans last year nominated E.W. Jackson, a fire-and-brimstone minister, to be the state's lieutenant governor. Jackson's off-the-wall ravings about the sickness inherent in homosexuality, the satanic peril of yoga and so forth turned him into an object of national sport—and he wasn't even seeking national office.

Curtis, however, is. Will she wind up getting the Jackson treatment before November? It's possible—but don't sit on a hot stove while you wait.

NEXT: Michael Sam Update: Off to Texas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Crypto republican hacks have completely take over reason!!11!1

    /botard

  2. “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.”

    Next stop, UTOPIA! All aboard!

    1. Umm, hasn’t that been tried before? What has happened, did we burn all of the history books, or what?

      1. A few recalcitrants were not up to the glorious changes needed.

        They were gently corrected.
        https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

      2. “Umm, hasn’t that been tried before? What has happened, did we burn all of the history books, or what?”

        Yep.

      3. As the actual Soviet Union fades from memory, I’ve seen a resurgence of Progressives willing to defend the Grand Old CCCP in terms I’ve not seen since 1983’s issues of World Marxist Review.

        “It wasn’t so bad, you could get food if you were just willing to wait in line, unlike the USA where they let you starve on the streets”

        And the old classic: “It was a good idea, they just were unlucky in not having the Right People to run things.”

        1. Those weren’t TOP WOMYN!

      4. Yes, it has. In Revolutionary Catalonia. And it worked, at least until Franco took over.

        Because the Wobblies are syndicalists, not communists, you massive retards. Do you faggots do ANY research yourselves or do you just let articles like these do your thinking for you?

        1. Which is just a new name for a “proposed economic system to replace capitalism” where the industries are owned by the workers. It is the same thing and would have the same result – massive starvation and bloodshed. And some of them are Anarcho-syndicalists. So AFTER the workers take over the government and economic system – the govt. will just magically go away – leaving this wonderful new economic system in place with no one (except the workers) running it. Just like it was supposed to happen before. It is just repackaged communism with a few new terms so they can say they are not just doing the same thing as before. After all, who would want that?

          They are for BIG govt. and NO govt. at the same time. I guess this falls under the thesis becoming the antithesis. It’s hard to be logical when you are allowed to change your definitions half-way through the syllogism. No wonder it results in starvation and violence.

    2. This time it will work!

    3. All aboard! Just get into these boxcars, where we will whisk you away to your new home. Before we get to Utopia, you’ll have to prepare for it. We’ve got some materials we’d like to present you with. But, you’ll need to concentrate. So we’re sending you to a “concentration camp” where you can really focus on Utopia. All aboard!!

      1. FUCK UTOPIA!

        And Ohio.

        1. Fuck Michigan!

          And Va Tech.

          1. Fuck Cali!

            And Washington, DC

            1. You guys are abusing that word. Fuck “fuck”! And fuck the fuckers who fuck “fuck”.

  3. It’s not extremism when progs do it.

    1. That’s exactly right. “Extremist” is little more than a relative and subjective term used to portray an opponent as looney, out of touch, and unreasonable.

      Pro-gun people are often called extremists for wanting to eliminate restrictions on the 2A. Here’s a fun activity: next time a progressive calls you an extremist on any issue at all, ask them if they would favor some “reasonable restrictions” on gay marriage. Ask them if they would support “common-sense control” of abortion. Watch them blush and panic as they try to maintain the narrative that you are an extremist nutcase while simultaneously trying to excuse themselves from that label.

      1. I dunno, they have really mastered doublethink.

        1. the word prog and think should not put into the same sentence.

  4. I posted a link to a video of her about a month ago. She’s batshit insane.

    Will she wind up getting the Jackson treatment before November? It’s possible?but don’t sit on a hot stove while you wait.

    The answer is no, this woman is a perfect example of where the Democratic party is headed. She’s what they want, a batshit insane leftist. I mean, let’s face it, Lizzie Warren isn’t much to the right of this crazy and they want to nominate her for POTUS.

    1. But Warren isn’t an extremist, she has already sworn fealty to Israel. Just like as President she will get on board with the CIA’s endless war against oceania. I mean Iraq. Or Syria. Whatever.

      1. We are allied with Syria! We have always been allied with Syria!

        I’m afraid we will need to cut your gin ration until you complete your reeducation. But don’t worry – we recently raised it from 50 grams a day to 30 grams!

  5. Whining does not become libertarians. Yet, it’s all you do.

    1. Awww, look, it’s Tony come to defend the batshit insane lady. Isn’t that so cute.

      1. I’d love for a reason article defending industrial authoritarianism over industrial democracy. But that might make too many people think. So best to whine about media bias and those darn libruls who control everything.

        1. What the fuck is industrial authoritarianism?

          1. Tony’s word for free-market capitalism.

            1. “industrial democracy”

              What the hell is industrial democracy?

              1. Syndicalism is probably what he means, but he doesn’t even know the word.

              2. where the workers own the means of production.

                Interesting choice of phrases. I guess that is what the left has now decided to call capitalism and socialism.

                1. You mean like when they own stock in their own company and any others they choose to invest in?

                  1. By their company I meant the one for which they work.

              3. It’s the self-run workplace of the Syndicalist ideology.

                Which is what the IWW actually is, Syndicalist, not Communist.

                In Capitalism, companies are run like dictatorships or oligarchies, where one or a few people basically run everything. In Syndicalism, decision and promotions are voted upon. Workers chose their managers, lower management elects the upper management.

                It’s based (somewhat loosely) on the old medieval guild system (syndicalism basically being the modern variant of guild socialism). No one “owned” the various guilds and merchant leagues of the middle ages.

                1. Have you heard of the stock market?

          2. It’s like authority… that comes from the power of industrial might!

            *takes a long drag from a joint*

            1. I’m a factory – Obey me!

              1. You’re a towel!

                1. You’re a beaner towel!

                  1. How spicy would you like your Chang sauce?

          3. It’s where the people who took all the risk to build a company have the audacity to tell their employees how to do their job.

            1. They have to pay for that street in front of the company and the education that afforded them the ability to do so somehow.

              1. YOU DIDN’T BUILD PAY FOR THAT!

            2. Don’t forget the part where those employees have dozens of other employers to choose from.

              1. Don’t forget the part where those employees have dozens of other employers to choose from.

                Story time: In first-year constitutional law, when we discussed Lochner v. New York, I was the only person to point out that a city the size of New York might have more than one bakery. The entire class fell silent.

                1. That’s because most lawyers are idiots.

                2. Ah, 1L stories…

                  I remember when we discussed Wickard v. Filburn in first year constitutional law. I was mystified that no one else in class seemed to care that the federal government could order you to destroy the wheat you grew for your own consumption and then fine you. Luckily, there was one girl in class who agreed that the case was insane. I married her.

                3. I think I was the only one in my class who wasn’t horrified by Lochner, which in turn horrified my classmates more than the actual decision. And btw, Fuck Holmes.

            3. By people who took all the risk you mean the ones who could afford to build a company, as opposed to those who can’t afford jack shit? Yeah no risk for the latter. Just endless goodies handed down.

              1. Yeah no risk for the latter.

                In creating the company? Yeah, you’re right; there was no risk for the latter. Glad we’re in agreement.

              2. You do realize how many people start companies in this country who don’t have jack shit right? They’re called entrepreneurs.

                1. You do realize how many people start companies in this country who don’t have jack shit right? They’re called entrepreneurs.

                  Another progressive told me that that’s just a right-wing myth.

                2. You do realize how many people start companies in this country who don’t have jack shit right? They’re called entrepreneurs.

                  And Tony is working feverishly to stamp that out via crippling regulations. He’s the old man trying to shut down that kid’s lemonade stand.

                  1. agreed

                3. They’re all infected with false consciousness. Don’t worry, though. Tony has plans to show them to the fumigation chambers.

                  1. he is a good little fascist isn’t he
                    Tony thinks it would be better if the government ran everything – as if “they” wouldn’t exploit the workers the way that the capitalist owners do.
                    Actually they would be far worse off – just ask anyone who lived under a socialist system.

                    1. Actually, in the Progressive Socialist country I grew up in, those who don’t feel like working exploit the dwindling class of people who are told (and believe) it’s their duty to work. All those who don’t produce can be counted on to show up at every single election to keep the gravy train rolling.

                      Slavery encouraged by the moocher class, enforced by government.

                      I’ve offered Tony a letter of recommendation before, so he may move there. He’d fit right in.

              3. I work for a corporation and I can afford a lot. That’s what happens when you develop a useful skill that benefits other people. There are, of course, some people who are too selfish and short-sighted to have ever done that, and they only get to afford more 99% all the people who ever lived previously.

                1. Yeah, largely thankful to sophisticated welfare states. As if “we’re better off than shit-living plague-ridden ancient people” were any kind of defense of a kleptocratic system. I thought you people were supposed to have principles.

                  1. Sophisticated? Or a grab-bag of poorly organized, top-heavy, over-lapping programs put in place UNREAD by the idiots in congress (from both parties) who needed something with which to buy votes and reward their cronies?

              4. *By people who took all the risk you mean the ones who could afford to build a company, as opposed to those who can’t afford jack shit? *

                They can afford cell phones.
                And iPads.
                And 55″ Televisions.
                And rims.
                And Coach bags.
                And motorcycles.
                And fishing boats.
                And microwave instant meals.
                And seven year loans on new cars.
                And neck tattoos.

                It’s too bad they are all too stupid to pool their money and start their own companies or something. Gosh, maybe we ought to start some sort of government-controlled schools where they could learn such things.

                1. Thread winner!

              5. “By people who took all the risk you mean the ones who could afford to build a company”

                If you can pull your head out of your ass for a while, research the story of the guy who built the Chobani yogurt business. Maybe you’ll learn something useful and quit being such a tool.

              6. Tony…I lived in 18 different places by the time I was 18. Both my parents, nice people in many ways, were raving alcoholics. I used to go to the lost and found when school began to get shorts and runners that fit me. I went to University in my 40s. I had kids young(ish). I worked two jobs, sometimes three, and supported my wife and kids.

                Now I live in a very nice waterfront home and drive a Porsche, and have a pretty solid net worth.

                Because I worked hard, and took chances.

            4. It’s where the people who took all the risk to build a company have the audacity to tell their employees how to do their job.

              Risk? What risk? Those bourgeois bastards just stole the means of production from the generations of workers that came before them. Nothing is truly “theirs” by any right! They’re just freeloading on the social contract! All would be well if they were stripped of their false authority and made servant to the poor, huddled masses of noble workers!

              1. Seriously, that is the kind of thinking that leads to…that kind of thinking. Many people think that once you have a large enough amount to invest, your risk effectively becomes 0, because people have been taught to diversify one’s holdings. They don’t look particularly at individual investors & investments, and more or less think of enterprise as “capitalism”?effectively rule by capital, because it’s a gravy train. They may hear of investors going bust but dismiss that as the result of the foolish gambling that the rich are prone to do as sport, when they could be simply riding the backs of the workers to easy moderate riches.

                1. They tend to look at successful businesses after the fact and think that it was obvious all along that they would make money. They more or less look at enterprise and progress as a given. Hence the IWW, etc.: If only the accident of who had $ at the beginning can be overturned, we’ll all just “work” and make more $. Because the jobs will just be there, it’s obvious. Because we all know what people need.

          4. It’s a word that some looney toon prog made up and so now Tony, who has no idea what it means, needs to use the word because in his feeble mind, he thinks someone will think he’s smart for using it. Poor sad Tony.

          5. It’s when evil corporations force goods, services, and jobs onto society.

            1. Yes, I hate it when they make me buy products that I don’t want and then steal my money at the point of a gun and spend it on shit that I don’t want, and…

              Oh wait, that’s the government that I was thinking of…

          6. The system you likely work under and accept without question. But you love freedom!

            1. That’s not an answer. I’m genuinely curious what you think it means.

              1. Don’t expect an answer. It’s talking points and fallacies all the way down.

              2. he would not know freedom if it bit him on the ass

            2. Damn, Tony, you’re adorable!

              Isn’t he cute, folks?

              So cute when they manage to eke out a few words here and there.

              Come back again soon, Tony, we need anotehr text bomb.

            3. Your problem is that you think everyone else sees freedom as an absence of responsibility too. Real individual freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility.

              I’ve lived and worked in the system you advocate as an alternative, and I reject it thoroughly as viable. You’re welcome to take my place there.

          7. I would have thought it was a system in which the government determines how to allocate economic resources, so that the economy produces those goods and services that are determined to be in the public good, not those that serve private preferences (which is another word for greed). In other words, the kind of system Tony salivates for.

            I would also have thought that the free-market system would be the best example of “industrial democracy,” because every dollar spent in the economy is a vote in favor of the production of the good or service being purchased.

            But I suspect that Tony applies other definitions to those terms. (In other news, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.)

          8. What the fuck is industrial authoritarianism?

            The gay bar he likes to frequent.

        2. Yeah, those corporations suck! I mean, the produce goods and services, and they give people jobs! It’s terrible! They must be stopped! If not, then we’ll all have cool shit and jobs! Stop the corporations!

          1. Did I say that? I merely suggest that perhaps corporations could be run democratically and be more useful for more people, as democratic societies are compared to totalitarian ones.

            1. They are run democratically. Only they’re ruled by the consumers they serve, and the consumers that make better choices get more say, correcting the major failure of democracies.

              1. That’s the opposite of democracy.

                1. You do realize, with publicly traded companies, that each stock holder has a vote on who the Board of Directors are at the annual stock holder meeting right? That if they don’t like the direction the company is going they only have to get a simple majority (51%) of the stockholders to agree with them and they can replace the entire board right?

                  No, I’m sure you didn’t know that because you don’t want to know anything of how the real world works.

                  1. i’m sure you know that all the stock/votes are distributed evenly so that it is -you know- like all small-dee democratic and shit…
                    right ? ? ?
                    i mean, its not like a handful of board members or other major stock holders effectively dominate the vote to go pretty much their way…
                    i mean, you do know that, right ? ? ?
                    i mean, its not like its a huge circle jerk where you serve on my board and jerk me off, and i serve on your board and jerk you off…
                    right ? ? ?
                    no, its all just pure as the driven snow infallible kapitalist imperialism, and who could object to that…
                    *snort*
                    you kids are ridiculous…

                2. No, the opposite of democracy is monarchy, which nobody supports. That’s why we’re the centrists. Capitalism is a republican system, where the economic power of the elites is directed and constrained by the people through their choices as consumers. Democracy is a system whereby whomever controls the flow of information rules with an iron fist (or, perhaps, a silver tongue).

            2. Why should workers who have risked no capital in the company have a say in how that capital is used?

              1. Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital? Which moral philosopher came up with that one, Genghis Khan?

                1. Capitalists dictate nothing. They provide goods and services to voluntary customers. If the customers don’t like the products then they don’t buy them. No force involved. Or do you mean the workers who are free to quit at any time and go find someone else to pay them money for their labor? Oh yeah, that’s fucking tyranny alright.

                  1. oh, so i can get a COMPETING ISP whenever i want to ? ? ?
                    oh, you mean they have ‘non-compete’ agreements so they can ALL screw us over ? ? ?
                    huh, i don’t get it, *obviously* unrestrained capitalism is perfect and the ‘non-compete’ agreements are *somehow* to the benefit of all us sheeple…
                    amirichtig ? ? ?
                    dick

                2. Ah, right, I forgot that corporations conscript their labor, rule by fiat, and imprison dissenting subjects. Now it all begins to make sense…

                3. Determining under what conditions you admit someone to your property is not dictating their life.

                4. Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital?

                  I wondered the same thing while driving my Imperial to E. J. Korvette to buy some New Coke.

                  1. Those bastards at A&P won’t allow me to buy New Coke! They force me to pay them for Tab.

                5. Why should anyone be spending any effort on a worthless sock such as yourself that spews pseudo-intellectual sewage onto his keyboard?

                  HM owned you over the weekend. I thought you might be too ashamed to show your face around here for a while, but i guess not.

                  1. Oooh, what thread was that on? I’d love to see it.

                6. Capitalists don’t dictate anybody’s life. Firstly, because “capitalists” aren’t some united consortium of devils, all of one mind and opinion, distinct from everybody else’s like your insane pathology imagines them. And secondly, because all they’re allowed to do is offer choices, unlike the state which makes demands under the threat of violence. They, on the other hand, do have their lives (or rather, their working lives) dictated to them by consumers.

                7. Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital? Which moral philosopher came up with that one, Genghis Khan?

                  They aren’t *dictating* anything.

                  Capitalists buy *labor*. If they don’t think your labor is worth at least as much as the money they’re willing to pay for it then they don’t buy it.

                  Workers *sell* labor. If they don’t think that your money is worth at least as much as the labor they’re willing to pay for it, then they don’t buy it.

                  Fucking free markets man, how do they work

                  1. “Fucking free markets man, how do they work…”

                    they don’t…*

                    *disclaimer: they work just GREAT for the 1%, not so great for the 99%…
                    now, who do YOU love better ? ? ?

                    1. The 1% as evil tyrants is such a ridiculous fallacy, right out of the socialist agitator playbook.

                      It only works if you’re 6 years old and think all rich people have money vaults like Scrooge McDuck.

                      In reality the money of the supposedly evil 1% pay the majority of taxes, the majority of jobs, and the majority of new innovation.

                      Even their sometimes opulent life styles fund businesses and jobs creating nice cars, expensive watches, and luxurious yachts.

                      Where the wagon falls off the hitch, is when government is given the power to regulate all of this, opening the Pandora’s box of corruption, cronyism, and favoritism. THIS is the source of your discontent and happens to be the antithesis of a free market economy.

                    2. Free markets work quite well for about 97% of the population actually. Admittedly a few people make more money than others but for the most part there is a place for everyone in a capitalist system, with rewards to match.

                      If all you care about is money, which is true of most socialists, then that fact, some have more, kills them. Because it isn’t them.

                      This idea, that only 1% of the population is being served is so absurd as to make me think, ‘is art guerilla all there’. Which, of course, you aren’t.

                8. Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital?

                  They shouldn’t. And they don’t.

                9. “Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital?”

                  Why should government get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the power? At least with businesses, you have a choice whether to participate in the exchange.

                10. “Why should capitalists get to dictate the lives of everyone else just because they have acquired the capital? Which moral philosopher came up with that one, Genghis Khan?”

                  Why should someone who is too stupid/lazy to be able to save enough money in order to be a capitalist themselves have any fucking say over how others run their businesses?

                11. Tony…do you actually think this? How can you possibly think such a thing?

                  If you don’t want to purchase something from a corporation, don’t. What power do they possibly have over you that forces you to buy something, own anything, do anything?

                  Corporations grew large because it is a reasonably efficient system for doing big scale commercial activity.

                  Let me explain how they work to you:

                  This is with reference to large corps, and not Mom and Pop corps, which are simply set up as ways of collecting income tax for the government. When groups of people wish to do something, and it is too large a project for one person, they form a cooperative venture. This cooperative venture is a legal entity called ‘a corporation’. The corporation which usually consists of the energies and activities of many people produce products, which we voluntarily buy. If we don’t buy these products, the corporation disbands.

                  These corporations hire people, use people’s creativity, give opportunities for many small income people to invest and receive a reward for doing so, and so on.

                  This is what you would like to bring down? Why?

            3. I merely suggest that perhaps corporations could be run democratically

              FFS man, have you never heard of a coop?

              Fucking *tons* of companies are run democratically, owned and operated by their goddamned workers. In this country even.

              *NOTHING*. Nothing is topping anyone from running a worker-owned company in the US. Not one single law. Not one single regulation.

              Unless by ‘democratically’ you mean run by people who have no ownership stake in the company. Brits tried that with a coop bank – funny, it didn’t work out so well for them.

              http://www.china.org.cn/world/…..071731.htm

              1. “FFS man, have you never heard of a coop?”

                He must think they’re illegal, since he doesn’t see that many of them. It can’t possibly because it’s a horribly inefficient business model with convoluted incentives that doesn’t serve consumers anywhere near as well as traditional corporations.

                1. The only successful coops I know of are either really tiny startup companies (which will change to a more traditional model if they’re able to survive long enough to expand) and businesses where, as a customer, you have to buy a share in the company – and that’s almost all specialty grocery stores.

                2. It’s not uncommon for large engineering firms to be “employee owned.” The votes are weighted by income, so the top management retains a lot of clout, but it’s still far more “democratic” than, say, Bechtel, which is a dictatorship.

                  I know Parsons and Gilbane are both employee-owned, probably others as well.

                  1. Law firms are the same.

              2. Fucking *tons* of companies are run democratically, owned and operated by their goddamned workers. In this country even.

                *NOTHING*. Nothing is topping anyone from running a worker-owned company

                This. So much.

                I actually have some sympathy for the idea of worker-owned companies. But in a free society people should be free to choose how they use their property. Both people that like to run a top-down fully self-owned business and people preferring a bottom-up business with collectivized assets.

            4. I merely suggest that perhaps corporations could be run democratically

              They are run democratically. You buy shares and you vote your shares; one share one vote.

            5. Then why don’t you start a democratic corporation and make a pile of money, which you could use to seed other democratic cororations?

              After all, you say yourself it’s better than authoritarian corporations.

              Put your skills to work, son. Be even more adorable.

              1. It never occurs to you to try to overcome them, of course, because without scapegoats you wouldn’t have a reason to exist.

                Tony, literally, in the next set of comments below this.

            6. I merely suggest that perhaps corporations could be run democratically and be more useful for more people…

              So, why should we stop at corporations, Tony? Why shouldn’t we run your sex life democratically? Or what books you read. That should be decided by popular vote too, shouldn’t it? Or maybe your spiritual practices. Yeah, let’s insist that be decided democratically. If we decide those things democratically, we can ensure that your existence will be more useful for more people. That is, unless the opposite of totalitarian isn’t democratic.

              1. Now you’re just being unrealistic.

            7. Democratic and totalitarian aren’t opposites. Democratic and autocratic, yes (although plenty of people have a definition of “democracy” that begins and ends at voting for which elites rule). Limited-government and totalitarian, yes.

              1. Exactly, and that was kind of my point. Totalitarianism is the condition of total control by the state. Whether it is the product of popular vote or singular ruler is beside the point.

            8. they are run democratically.
              everyone can start a business if they want to and run it the way they want to. Workers can work for the company that they choose to work for. If you want to have partial ownership in a company, you can buy stock.
              – what is more democratic than that.

            9. Anyone who buys anything from a corporation does so because they feel the product is useful. Or, they wouldn’t buy it.

              What I suspect you really mean is, the corporation should be run by the workers, and it must product products the state says are useful.

              That’s a great model, come to think of it. I wonder why no one has tried that before? Oh wait! They have. It is called, depending upon the details, fascism, or communism. And, it fails catastrophically every time.

              Other than that though, your post was really reasonable.

        3. It isn’t whining. Reminding the public from time to time that the information they’re getting from the MSM is no more accurate or legitimate as Pravda is a valuable public service.

          1. No, it’s whining. If you’re such industrious entrepreneurial supermen, you would think you’d be about to outwit those pea-brained liberals and take control of the media yourselves.

            But there’s always some nefarious obstacle for you guys. It never occurs to you to try to overcome them, of course, because without scapegoats you wouldn’t have a reason to exist.

            1. The projection in the above comment is utterly delicious.

              1. It is so strong, I wish we could bottle it and use it somehow.

                1. Someone already has…and put it to good use. 🙂

                  http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-…..rs+gun+oil

            2. “But there’s always some nefarious obstacle for you guys.”

              Yes, there is. It’s called the violent power of the state, which we refuse to use because it’s antithetical to our cause. Traditionally, however, when capitalist proponents have dipped into that power, they’ve been wildly more successful than their parasitic counterparts, though it usually corrupts them in the process.

            3. It never occurs to you to try to overcome them, of course, because without scapegoats you wouldn’t have a reason to exist.

              And yet here you are, bitching about ‘industrial authoritarianism’, despite the fact that you, yes *you* could, right this very second, go out and start the process (that will take 6 months, thank you regulators) to open an ‘industrial democracy’ based business.

              You could do this thing that you say works so much better than mainstream capitalism (yet somehow is *not* successfully replacing it) right now. Really.

              Its not forbidden here in the US.

              Get some of your buddies together to pool their money and start a worker-owned collective.

              Share the work, share the profits.

              You could be the vanguard of a new era od economics – BECAUSE THERE’S NOTHING STOPPING YOU FROM RUNNING A COOP.

              1. This. ^^^ especially this. (that will take 6 months, thank you regulators)

              2. Aggie…I feel the same when I hear people pleading with everyone to stop supporting oil companies and use green energy. I tell my greenie acquaintances, the idea is great, and all they have to do is go out there and harness tidal power and they’ll become billionaires and save the planet. I say, if you want it done, do it. And, if you aren’t willing to put your energy into it, and risk your money, then stop whining.

            4. Fox is not a libertarian news outlet, but they are countercultural to the rest of the alphabet soup of news networks. As such, they are wildly successful because they offer an alternative to the extremely biased cabal of left-wing news outlets.

              I guess that’s why your team, team leftist, wants to run them out of business.

              You’d think it would be easy, you know, since all the news agencies run by your team have a stranglehold on the rest of the market.

              Go figure.

              1. “You’d think it would be easy, you know, since all the news agencies run by your team have a stranglehold on the rest of the market.”

                Which is why it’s easier to work on a government solution, where Fox can be forced out of the market. For the good of the people of course.

            5. Tony
              If you don’t like American Capitalism move to North Korea or Cuba.

              You won’t have to make any choices any everone will be as equally miserable as you are (except the ruling class of course)
              Then you can live in a workers paradise full of stagnation, poor working conditions and pathetic products and no incentive to improve

            6. You mean like Fox News being the most watched news channel?

            7. Also Tony…the MSM is going the way of all corporations that don’t serve the public well – one by one they are going broke.

              Another win for capitalism.

        4. Everybody should note how badly Tony is getting his ass handed to him in this thread. This is what ALWAYS happens when progs actually try and make positive arguments in favor of their preferred alternatives, rather than sitting back and criticizing the peripheral failures of free-market capitalism like they normally do.

          1. In this case its doubly insane.

            Bitching about the lack of ‘industrial democracy’ in a nation that allows you to run a business in that manner without interference?

            Its simply obvious that his real complaint here is that people are not making the choices *he* thinks they should – even when those choices are (and have been) demonstrably inferior.

            I mean, there’s a reason capitalism is the mainstream form of corporate organization – it works really well for those who are putting there capital at risk.

            Coops tend to go under because its hard to tie up both your capital *and* your labor in the same venture for multiple decades. People have lives, running the cash register at your coop sounds good in your 20’s but if it doesn’t take off a better paying job at a capitalist firm starts to look real attractive once the kids show up.

            1. “Its simply obvious that his real complaint here is that people are not making the choices *he* thinks they should”

              Yep. As I said below, Tony wants to rule.

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4745697

              1. Yes and no. There are some remarkably successful agricultural cooperatives – Ocean Spray, Welches, Land-O-Lakes – and, of course, mutuals are pretty common in the insurance industry.

                1. In one sense a great deal of capitalism is just cooperatives, in one form or another. Almost all ventures require capital, energy, and creativity from many people, especially if it is a large-scale project. What Tony wants, is what he is getting. But, as someone else has posted, his real desire is to make everyone do what he thinks they should do.

          2. agreed
            Do they actually think that we are stupid enough to change our beliefs to socialism ?
            I don’t go to liberal blogs and fight with them because I know they are too indoctrinated and stupid to bother with

      2. “Awww, look, it’s Tony come to defend the batshit insane lady.”

        By defend, do you mean jerking off on her photos? If so, then you are no doubt correct.

        I came to read this thread thinking I would be amused by shreek defending her. I should have known our commie troll would be here.

    2. Whereas, it’s actually expected from you. So no surprises here.

      1. When batshit insane is all you got, you gotta ride that batshit insane to the bitter end.

    3. I’ve always found it amusing, if not depressing, to read or listen to progs and liberals claim other ideologies as being whiners when they’re the biggest fucktoid complaining whiners and excuse makers out there.

      They whine and then call YOU a whiner the second you’d defend your point.

      They’re basically condescending assholes.

      1. “I’ve always found it amusing, if not depressing, to read or listen to progs and liberals claim other ideologies as being whiners when they’re the biggest fucktoid complaining whiners and excuse makers out there.”

        It’s more than that. The system they prefer elevates whining to a virtue, and sets up pity as a form of currency. The more you whine, the more successful and respected you are. Victimhood becomes the meaning and motive for life.

    4. So when progressives whine about everyone else…then what?

  6. I just assumed she was a crazy cunt. I’m glad to see I wasn’t selling her short.

  7. Yet, it’s all you do.

    And you have binders full of examples.

    1. Ahem:

      prolefeed,

      You are actually missing Tony’s main point: We libertarians aren’t envious enough!

      Haven’t you noticed all the digs about people starving so that a billionaire can drive a Bugatti Veyron?

      We say “keep your mits to yourself!” But when one does that someone might amass alot of wealth! To an envious person this is a big problem. To a libertarian, it’s not a problem at all – so long as the wealth is amassed through production and/or voluntary trade.

      Now serious students of economic history recognize that in the presence of free markets, you get a large middle class, some rich people, and a shrinking pool of people in poverty. It wasn’t the existence of unions, for example, that ensured that a poor woman had access to stockings that 100 years previously were only available to the very wealthy. It was the expansion of production prompted by the opportunity to get rich off of one’s own labors.

      But to the envious, the very existence of the wealthy is the problem. To them it’s as much a crime as a mugger taking someone’s baby’s milk-money is to us.

      1. I think this is the cause of Tony’s frustration. A very envious person thinks it’s OK to take stuff that other people has because it’s intolerable that they don’t share their good fortune. Or, if they are opposed to taking, using force to prevent someone from getting more stuff.

        Consider Paris Hilton, for example. Now, I think we can all stipulate that Paris Hilton will consume far more than she produces. And her consumption is so frivolous as completely revolt my half Scotch-Yankee love of frugality.

        However, the wealth she consumes was amassed by people who loved her and gave it to her, and to a libertarian the fact that her dad and granddad wanted her to have that wealth they had worked so hard to produce is sufficient reason for her to have it.

        Someone filled with envy, though, looks at Paris Hilton and screams she doesn’t deserve that wealth, decent people do! They view her as being the beneficiary of a natal lottery, and rather than seeing her wealth as a gift of love, view it as a theft from their pockets.

        This is why I don’t think Tony will ever accept all the evidence thrown at him that he is wrong. Because to admit that forcible redistribution of wealth away from the halves would require him to confront the envy & greed that is the core of his being. Far more comfortable to repeatedly type out the same jingoistic slogans and to close his mind to reason.

        1. Not giving is taking and not taking is giving.

          If you do not take from the rich and give to the poor, then you are taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

        2. See, I think he has completely embraced his envy and greed. Someone who hadn’t embraced that wouldn’t be able to admit that they would line up their opponents and give them one shot to the brain pan.

        3. The short answer to why Tony is the miserable little troll he is: he spends his day counting other people’s money.

          As George Will once said, it’s curious, the degree to which progressives embrace envy, as it’s the only one of the sins that doesn’t give the sinner even momentary pleasure.

          1. Do not underestimate the pleasure that having something to hate brings.

            The man who has nothing can still hate.

            1. Only if one is a masochist.

              The man who has nothing but hate still has nothing, unless he can find a way to put that hate to a productive purpose (which is rare). Those are the kind of people who go out and shoot up schools.

          2. Maybe George Will should figure out that envy is not the motivation, then.

            Envy is more noble than obsequiousness to the rich in my book.

  8. I find her ideas intriguing, and would like to receive her newsletter.

    1. She’ll get right on that, as soon as she AND HER COMRADES TAKE OVER THE PAPER FACTORY AND FAIRLY DISTRIBUTE THE MEANS TO PRODUCE A NEWSLETTER TO EVERYONE WHO NEEDS THOSE MEANS!

      GLORIOUS!

      1. I’m reminded of the communists who distributed leaflets while standing in the road between Harvard Yard and the Union (cafeteria).

  9. Are you sure she isn’t a fake Democrat just trolling Fox News for the lulz? Zenon Evans warned us about these fake Democrats who show how gullible and inaccurate the stupid lying right wing media is.

    1. Poe’s law. It’s possible for fake outrageous candidates to exist alongside real outrageous candidates. And yes, it’s still stupid to give the fake ones airtime (if only because it harms your credibility for when you go after the real ones).

    2. Dude, the guy is a troll. There are lots of candidates on official ballots (especially in primaries) who are just doing it to fuck with people. While technically they are actual candidates, they really just aren’t.

  10. I give us 20 years before someone like this is president.

    1. You’re way more optimistic than I am.

      Every day it seems more and more people are subscribing to the idea of “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need.”

      1. “from those according to their ability, to those according to their need.”

        Gimme’ ‘dat!

        1. Looks like Ima need a mansion and a Lamborghini.

          Let’s get on it, people! Chop chop!

          1. *begins studying mansion plans and drawings*

    2. I don’t know. In 20 years Venezuela will look like North Korea and we’ll have another glaring example of where this woman would take us.

      1. “Sheet of toilet paper for your thoughts…”

      2. Venezuela is really getting weird. The Chavistas have already created an new Lord’s Prayer to Chavez, and a new sign of the cross in the Name of Chavez, and Maduro, and the People.

        “Our Chavez, who art in Heaven, in earth, in the sea and in us the delegates, Hallowed be Thy name, Thy legacy come to us to take to the people, give us today your light, guide us all days and lead us not into the temptation of capitalism, deliver us from evil, oligarchy and the crime of smuggling, for centuries of centuries. Amen.”

        http://latino.foxnews.com/lati…..apitalism/

        http://daniel-venezuela.blogsp…..ittle.html

        1. This time it’s different?

        2. This has to be made up.

    3. I give us negative 6 years.

    4. 20? Is that the incubation period for Lizzie ‘Little High Cheek Bones’ Warren?

    5. there already is – he is called Obama.

      Same beliefs just hides it better

  11. “abolish the wage system”

    Because working is so much better when you don’t get payed for it.

    1. and replace it with what?????

      Do they ever bother to consider what they are proposing.

  12. Believing that the workplace should be a democracy instead of a totalitarian society is the basic tenet of the IWW. Does this count as a radical idea? Yes, in the current context, it does. In the exact same way that democracy for society as a whole was a radical concept when monarchy was the norm.

    But since we’re whining about the unfairness of it all, let’s note that these “extreme” leftist ideas get absolutely no play whatsoever at the state or national level, ever. On the other hand, the belief that government is evil, taxes are theft, Jesus is lord, poor people shouldn’t vote, and oil companies deserve welfare is HALF the national conversation. Rightwing radicalism is half of our national politics and completely controls many states. So talk about unconscious bias.

    1. So, why shouldn’t your property be a democracy as well?

      1. It is. I live with one other person. We each get an equal vote on things. If there were children involved, well then there’s the practical utility for some amount of authoritarianism. Curiously, libertarian means of doing stuff never seems to even come up as a possibility, being without any practical use.

        1. I don’t believe that your mommy let’s you help decide how the money is spent, that would be foolish, seeing as you have no clue about economics.

        2. Why doesn’t the gardener get an equal say on things? The A/C repair man? The plumber?

          1. Perhaps he should, at his gardening company.

            1. But when you hire him to work on your property, why shouldn’t he get an equal say in how it’s run?

              1. I mean, I thought you were all about “workplace democracy”?

              2. Interesting and good question. I wouldn’t personally want my meals decided by democratic vote either. Perhaps complexities like these are why I favor mixed economies.

                1. Tony, we *have* a mixed economy.

                2. You’re an idiot.

            2. You are a moron. You just contradicted your initial argument. Dipshit.

            3. The gardener has provided his labour for your property, ergo by your own logic and argument he should have a say in how that property is managed. There’s no middle ground here, either your labour gives you an equal say in the use of your property or it does not.

              1. Actually there are lots of middle grounds possible. See for instance the early scene of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World where the accountant played by Sid Caesar comes up with all sorts of formulas for dividing the loot based on presence at the scene, proximity to the gangster, provision of a vehicle, etc.

            4. And Tony, realizing he stepped in his own pile of poop, pulls the French exit from the argument. Stay classy, douchebag.

          2. If Tony were straight, I’m sure he’d gladly let the plumber bang his wife. For democracy.

            1. Marx and Engels actually did fantasize about “the community of women”; i.e., that women would be communized.

              1. That’s probably because they were wildly unsuccessful as playas.

                I mean, Marx was covered with carbuncles for pete’s sake.

                1. yep doubt that Marx ever got laid.

                  1. As I recall he had seven children and they starved often as Marx couldn’t support them. Three survived to adulthood.

                    I keep reading you guys hand Tony his ass and yet. like a little Energizer Bunny of Bullshit, he remains undeterred and uncorrected. He hasn’t a clue and I doubt ever will. Unless….he’s a libertarian who is simply playing the part of “Moronic Progressive Liberal Loon” just to give you guys someone to play off of.

                    I’ve handed a few liberals their asses out in the real world and have found precious few you could pay to come back for a second helping. Why would this guy, who so obviously loses every argument, want to keep coming back for more?

            2. All your wives are belong to us?

        3. Btw Tony, this sounds exactly like the sort of “democracy” that companies are: ones where the members who’ve contributed to the ownership of the asset get a vote in how things are run. We call them shareholders in the corporate world.

          1. agreed – made that observation myself. Our system is (or perhaps was until the socialists took over) the most free, and most democratic in the world.

            The whole point of the American Revolution and the continental congress was to build a system where people had as much political and economic freedom as possible.
            Socialism is a system of top down control over both, so it negates economic and political freedom -the exact opposite it claims to provide.

        4. “I live with one other person. We each get an equal vote on things.”

          Me too. It works well so long as you’re not trying to organize more than a few people. Thanks for proving our point.

        5. “We each get an equal vote on things.”

          What, everything? What to wear, what to eat, when to troll, when to pee?

          The fact that you take any action without consulting means you’re at least a little libertarian in your personal relationship.

          1. agreed – that kind of situation only works (and not that well) in small communities.
            Anything larger requires representatives, administration and enforcement.

            As libertarians we know that is true, we just want to have the maximum amount of freedom with the least amount of control and still have an orderly and safe community

    2. I vote for big raises, free lunches, and a 2-hour-work-day.

      All in favor?

      1. Only if the 2 hour day is one day a week and I get free healtchare, cell phone, a company car, the biz pays my mortgage and all my other bills, and if during that one 2 hour day, I don’t actually have to do anything.

        1. You have management potential, H.

          1. Im holding out for a nice per diem during my work day.

    3. You see, Tony, you don’t know anything about how a workplace works, because that requires actually having a job and working.

      1. agreed – good one

    4. On the other hand, the belief that government is evil, taxes are theft, Jesus is lord, poor people shouldn’t vote, and oil companies deserve welfare is HALF the national conversation. Rightwing radicalism is half of our national politics and completely controls many states. So talk about unconscious bias.

      What fantasy land do you live in?

      1. Tony rejects rational thought! Tony rejects logic! Tony rejects reality!

        1. Tony must live in a land where Obamacare never passed and Obama and the Democrats never owned the Senate. Because if half the country was like that the whole power-structure would be headed over by Lindsay Graham.

          1. Like Stalin managed to convince people that the evil kulaks were running the show the whole time.

            That’s what can happen when you control the media so thoroughly, and exactly the reason why articles like the one we’re commenting on are so valuable.

    5. Believing that the workplace should be a democracy instead of a totalitarian society is the basic tenet of the IWW. Does this count as a radical idea?

      Can I drag you, John Q. Woobly, into court and hold you personally liable when one of your widgets blows up in my face through no fault of mine?

      You did vote on it all democratic like, after all.

    6. Tony said. “Believing that the workplace should be a democracy instead of a totalitarian society is the basic tenet of the IWW.”

      Tony there are companies like this. Bob’s Red Mill comes to mind. Though the workers OWN the company.

      The irony is that people like you Tony support politicians,regulations,and government wage controls that hinder people from starting companies with that model.

    7. Oh, Jesus Christ. So, just because someone has the nerve to pay you for your labor, you should have a say in how his company is run? That’s insane.

      1. Actually workers do have a say in how the company is run. They can quit and take their labor elsewhere.

        Unless, of course, they’re a perpetual victim, in which case they’ll just stay at their job whining about it until management wises up and fires their toxic ass.

        1. I suppose whether or not a particular employee works there or not might have some small thing to do with how the company is run.

      2. My company subcontracts to other companies. Should we get a say in how those companies are run? After all, they’re paying us for our labor…

        It just illustrates how shallow their “thinking” on this stuff is.

      3. actually that is how it is already done- workers and management negotiate and contract for wages, hours, etc……

        Workers also make suggestions on how things might be done better, faster or cheaper.

        So I’m not sure what Tony is pissed off about.

    8. There is nothing unlibertarian about the workers peacefully acquiring ownership of capital and managing it as they see fit.

      In libertopia, the workers are free to buy the fucking company, and then they can make it as demo-fucking-cratic as they want.

      There are examples of this. United Airlines, for one. All sorts of failed communes, for many more.

      The track record of IWW-style industrial democracy is pretty poor. Most of the Israeli industry has abandoned the idea of kibbutzim (even the kibbutzim themselves), and there could never be more favorable ground for IWW-style industrial democracy than there.

      In every working instance of industrial democracy, an elite manages the enterprise with every bit as much authority as the ExxonMobil CEO.

      You can fantasize all you want, Tony, but an individual worker at an IWW-organized enterprise will have about as much say in the way it is managed as a truck-driver has in the way the Teamsters Union is run: nil. The 1980s workers at the Gdansk shipyard are a fine example of this.

      1. What if it’s a small biz? Having 1 of the 15 votes at a 15-employee outfit could be significant.

    9. “Believing that the workplace should be a democracy instead of a totalitarian society is the basic tenet of the IWW. Does this count as a radical idea? Yes, in the current context, it does.”

      Curious. What do you mean by ‘current context’? As far as I knew, it always was ‘radical’ because it’s a fucking stupid dangerous bull shit idea or ideal.

    10. Believing that a workplace is a totalitarian society is.. fucking insane.

      Unless of course your employer has goons armed with submachine guns, forcing you on the trains in the morning at gunpoint so you can endure a grueling 18 hour work day.

      But what do I know, I don’t work for the USSR or IWW.

  13. What the fuck is industrial authoritarianism?

    I think it involves a lot of moustache twirling and sinister cackling.

    Also, the guy who owns the factory has the unmitigated gall to tell the people who work in it how much they will be paid.

    1. Oh, so it’s what we all do when we are at our diamond mines and monocle factories.

      1. This comment wins the internet.

    2. If “a guy” owns it, then we’re not talking about workplace democracy, are we? And we’re not talking about communism by definition.

      Let it be known that this is an anarchist-sympathetic worldview. In fact, workplace democracy isn’t exclusive of libertarianism in any big way.

      1. As if we needed confirmation, “workplace democracy” = “communism”. Got it.

        1. If the workers peacefully acquire the company and install “workplace democracy”, it is not communism.

          However, the IWW does not propose peaceful acquisition. Instead, they propose the revolutionary seizure of the company, which requires coercion and violence.

          They also propose one big IWW that controls all industry. Under any reasonable fascimile of genuine capitalism, I can select where and for whom I want to work. In the IWW utopia, I can only work for IWW-controlled enterprises.

          IOW: IWW = communist

          1. I suppose Tony and IWW knuckleheads would argue that I get a vote in their industrial democracy. That’s important to them because they think that all workers have the same class interests, and would therefore all vote for the same thing.

            To them I say: “Fuck you! I don’t want a vote; I want a choice. And I get a choice under the status quo.”

      2. Now you’re just babbling. Don’t you think it’s too early in the day to start drinking? What do you think the world would be like if everyone lay about the house all day getting stupid drunk by noon?

        1. That’s no way to go through life, son.

        2. Tony lives in a world where he wants certain people to assume all/the majority of the risk of a venture, but then demands through violence that the people who assume very little risk have an ‘equal say’ in company policy. It’s just doublethink all the way down, Orwell, despite his flaws, nailed the mental gymnastics Tony’s breed uses to justify their unearned privilege perfectly.

          1. If Tony had ever worked at a job in the real world, he might have some grasp on reality as far as these things are concerned. I know that it differs from organization to organization as to how ‘democratic’ the decision making is. In my job, I have a lot of say in how work is done. I don’t decide what work will be done, that’s up to the clients, as it should be. I also sit in on interviews and there is a pretty democratic process in deciding who we will hire, or won’t hire.

            I don’t decide how grounds are maintained or how benefits are given because those things aren’t my job and shouldn’t be.

            Tony is completely ignorant about how organizations function. He has not a clue, it’s very obvious. He’s babbling on about things that he knows nothing of. He may as well try to give us a lecture on quantum mechanics, it would have just as much relevancy.

            1. Tony is probably a government worker, works in a non profit or is perpetually unemployed. Therefore, he has no concept how the real world operates

      3. If “a guy” owns it, then we’re not talking about workplace democracy, are we? And we’re not talking about communism by definition.

        Nah, we’re talking about the concept of property and ownership.

      4. If a “guy” owns the company its his private property. If the “workers” own the company its their private property.
        You are so full of shit.
        http://www.nceo.org/articles/e…..ership-100

        1. Directed at Tony.

      5. if he bought the company, he owns it and rightfully so. If you don’t want to work for him you don’t have to. If it is owned by shareholders they own it (including workers).
        If you want to own a company – buy it or build it yourself – you are free to do it or do you lack the courage to do so?

        More than likely that is the rub- you know you don’t have the ability or courage to do it so you denigrate those that do.

  14. Believing that the workplace should be a democracy instead of a totalitarian society is the basic tenet of the IWW.

    Where is the vast industrial might of this democratic business model on display? Why has it not steamrollered the inferior autocratic model, and thrust it ignominiously onto the trash heap of history? Could it have been tried, and failed, Shirley?

    1. Well, we don’t know because communism has never really been tried. Every time we get a chance to try it, a bunch of assholes get into control and turn it into some type of dystopian dictatorship. But that won’t happen next time because the RIGHT assholes will get in charge.

      /derp

      1. You realize that business model is perfectly compatible with capitalism, right?

        1. This…

          Also, could you imagine what life would be like if a company like Apple^and Google were run as coops?

        2. You realize that business model is perfectly compatible with capitalism, right?

          In his mind, it’s unfair for the workers to have to own the business in order to vote on running it.

          Because that’s not democracy or some bullshit.

        3. That’s what I’ve been saying.

      2. Coops make sense when people don’t have access to an external source of capital, but are inferior methods of organizing a business because they stagnate very readily.

        And your link bears that out nicely Tonykins:

        In industrialized countries, consumer co-ops vastly outnumber other types of co-ops; 92 percent of co-ops in the United States are consumer co-ops. But globally, nearly one-third (29 percent) of the largest 300 co-ops are agricultural. This could mean that farmers in a community share the use of tools and machinery to save on overhead costs, or that they use their collective strength to negotiate higher prices for their goods at market.

        In a free economy, coops tend not to play a large role, since other models tend to do a better job of serving customers, and once capital becomes available to those other models they tend to attract away the people who previously dealt with the coop. In a free economy, the coops show where there is a demand that is not being met. In a free economy. that zone of unmet demand is constantly being eroded by the expanding capital structure.

        1. In a free economy, coops tend not to play a large role, since other models tend to do a better job of serving customers, and once capital becomes available to those other models they tend to attract away the people who previously dealt with the coop.

          But the purpose of industrial enterprises isn’t “serving customers”; it’s providing non-totalitarian workplaces for the workers. Jeebus, next thing, you’ll be saying fascist things such as that it’s a *bad* thing that worker cooperatives are more likely than consumer coops or investor-owned businesses to tolerate employees who loaf instead of work.

        2. “Coops make sense when people don’t have access to an external source of capital”

          Which is rare, given that laissez-faire capitalism produces vibrant markets for venture capital (unlike highly-regulated capitalism, which tends entrench existing firms and dry-up those markets).

      3. Caption of the pic:

        A member of the cooperative Self-Empoyed Women’s Association, a trade union that provides support for women entrepeneurs.

        Entrepreneurs! WTF?

    2. Mostly its because people like Tony support state controls that keep people from voluntary association.

      1. He wants to rule over all. It just so happens that democracy presents an easier path to create that kind of totalitarian infrastructure than liberal capitalism, where minorities can always make choices according to their preferences.

        1. He sure is a Turd Burglar.

  15. Thus it is and has been at least as long as I’ve been reading newspapers.

    If Marion Barry were a Republican, a European-American, or both, the media would have spent the past several decades calling for his head on a silver platter. But since he’s neither, the media treat him with kid gloves.

    When an ad criticized Paul Sarbanes, no one in the media deigned to question either the accuracy or the relevance of the criticism; instead, they said that any criticism of the anointed one was a smear campaign.

  16. “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.”

    I can sort of forgive 19th-century socialists because of Benjamin Tucker, and I have a scintilla of forgiveness for old socialists like Chomsky who had one foot in the grave when actual socialism–the movement to which he gave his life–keeled over in the most dramatic way possible and left people like him with nothing better than the democratic welfare state.

    But young socialists are idiots who need to be bawled out the first time they begin their arduous journey toward the utopian high ground.

    1. I have a soft spot for Chomsky. He says a lot of ridiculous and wrong shit, but he is one of the people that got me thinking about anarchic ideas and considering that some of the things we are generally taught might be bullshit.

      1. Every time I think there might be a chance for the two putative anarchist schools to have a dialogue, I’m reminded of the thousands of times he’s slurred libertarians as evil (and, he’s quick to point out, not really libertarian because America has perverse values). He’s said that Objectivism is the most evil philosophy he’s ever encountered, and that the tyranny of corporations under a libertopia would be far worse than the tyranny of states because corporations are democratically unaccountable. And he never misses a chance to slander Ron Paul or libertarians in general in his typical bomb-throwing form.

        Between that and his insistence that the real Adam Smith was an egalitarian b/c he spoke of “perfect equality” once and that we’ll have it made once we eliminate the division of labor, he comes across as someone who’s never given a moment’s thought to economic questions without first working himself up into the high dudgeon typical of utopians who see their opponents as morally inferior. Which is not really how great economic thought begins.

        Anyway, he was a socialist before everyone was convinced that socialists were economically incompetents who murdered tens of millions, so he’s not quite as bad as those who became socialists because of rather than in spite of the history of real-world socialism.

        1. Hasn’t he also accused libertarians of being corporate stooges yet admitting that these same corporations hate libertarianism?

  17. Am I the only one who read the headline as Left-Wing Excrement?

  18. God, I just had an Elizabeth Warren flashback. This article should have a trigger warning for people from Massachusetts.

  19. “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common,” the group proclaims. “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.”

    “Workers of the world UNITE!” and destroy any means of measuring one’s productivity and the intrinsic value of what they produce!

  20. take possession of the means of production

    You know, you could, oh I don’t know, make your own?

    1. What, and take on the risks and expenses associated with starting a business? No, no, let others do that first and then claim it was yours to have all along, just because you showed up for work on time and did not abuse your sick time.

      1. And you didn’t build that, anyway.

  21. I don’t. Understand how taking over the means of production and abolishing the wage system leads to living in harmony with the earth…. Oh wait, by “harmony with nature” she means forced field labor because nobody is paying Mexicans to do it.

    1. It’s a holiday in Cambodia.

  22. “Curtis’ husband is more active in the IWW than she, but her admiration for communist economics doesn’t stop there.”

    Referring to “communist economics” is like referring to “Christian satanism.” If doesn’t make any fucking sense.

  23. What exists today will still exist no matter the economic system because humanity is naturally a species that is both inquisitive and always finding way’s to improve upon things of the past. It’s who were as a fundamental part of our overall species and that would be no different under any kind of political/economic system.

  24. The Wobblies are the Industrial Workers of the World, a hard-left union of historical vintage that let the 20th century pass it by. “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common,” the group proclaims. “Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.”

    Nothing says “modern, forward-thinking progressive” like warmed-over Lenin.

    *****

    The quotation comes from the Preamble to the Constitution of the IWW, adopted in 1905. Nothing says “warmed-over Lenin” like something pre-Lenin.

  25. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $74 /hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her check was $12917 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    find more information========== http://www.jobsfish.com

  26. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $67 an hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 9 months but last month her pay check was $13171 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see here….

    ============ http://www.netjob70.com

  27. Not all communists are Stalinists, but all Nazis are Nazis. That’s a stupid comparison that undermines your point.

  28. Every libertarian who reads this article should read this takedown from the Center for a Stateless Society:

    http://c4ss.org/content/31395

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.