There's a statute of limitations in history? I've never heard of that in any history book I've come across. Something is so old that it never happened?
And of course there's a statute of limitations in law. The law was the one who stole the land. Of course the law has the limitation that it can never be enforced equally. So, I have an idea. How about we just pass a law to appropriate the property of all of the Capitalists, and to give it to the workers? We won't have to call it Socialism. We'll just ignore the demands of the Capitalists for their property back until "the statute of limitations" has run out. And, of course, a dishonest interpretation and program of social change could never lead to anything but real social change, right? Sure, sure...
Oh, yes, tribal wars -- of which, probably, there was most likely fewer casualties than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone counting the concentration camps built by the US, the UK, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. Do you really think you're more civilized because your governments kill people with the atom and the germ instead of the spear and the stone?
As far as "exhausting the resources in one area," I'd like to see an anthropology book back that up. It's true, that humanity wherever it has spread has eaten up the local resources. But the Native Americans in North America, for example, have lived in compatibility with nature for more than 30,000 years. Tribes have lived almost exclusively off of the buffalo for this entire period. But where are the buffalo today? Where are the fish, the forests, etc.? Almost entirely wiped out. And the extinction did not begin with "Native Peoples." It began when the native peoples became colonized by a vicious, merciless, European power. In the Amazon or in the Outback, this has always been the trend. Otherwise, how is it possible that these people have lived off the land for thousands of years, and only now, with Capitalism, they are starving?
If you've never heard of the British author Thomas Spence, you ought to take a look at it. It applies well to today, even though it was written around 1775... "I began, Sir, to look round to know the cause of this piercing grievance, and I found thousands rioting in all the abominations of luxury and dissipation, as if there had been no being in heaven or earth but themselves, and as if they had been created for the sole purpose of destroying the fruits of the earth; and again, I beheld myriads in a much worse condition than my own family. Then I began to read, and I found the savages in Greenland, America, and at the Cape of Good Hope, could all by their hunting and fishing procure subsistence for their families. Then I enquired whether men left the rude state of a savage voluntarily for greater comforts in a state of civilisation, or whether they were conquered, and compelled into it for the benefit of their conquerors."
It would be pretty amazing if these 10,000 year-old cultures were just about to starve to death when the white colonists came, and that they were saved by this "invasion." Sounds quite absurd, that every people, from South America to India to China to Australia to Africa, were just moments away from starvation -- when the white settlers stole their land. It's just a coincidence, right? And they were actually saved by the colonists, because it was the colonists who brought the food, right? Actually, this is the exact opposite almost everywhere: from the colonies of New England to those of Australia.
Easy. Abolish law, state, and Capitalism. Every factory, farm, business, industry, shop, warehouse, etc., is now owned, operated, and controlled by the people who work there. These cooperative businesses voluntarily cooperate with each other for wider social schemes, such as civil defense, public education, international diplomacy, and the like, forming an industrial congress. But the industrial congress is only made up of cooperatives that want to participate voluntarily, and the cooperatives, too, are only made up of workers who want to participate voluntarily. In this way, the people make society, according to how it fits their needs -- instead of having a government, that tries to fit people according to the needs of the state.
Towns and bigger regions would form their own neighborhood associations, where every geography would be able to represent its interests on equal terms to the power of other associations. A type of equilibrium, or pure anarchy, results. Every person, possibly belonging to some oppressed group, stands on equal footing toward the other powers of society. On the first day of anarchy in Spain in 1936, 30,000 women joined together to form the largest, militant Feminist organization that Europe had ever seen. Condoms, contraception, and abortion were made freely available to all. Even the oppressed, racial minorities were wholly accepted in an otherwise conservative nation -- the editors of Anarchist newspapers declared themselves "Murcian," "Moroccan," etc., "by principle" though not by fact, simply because these were violently oppressed, racial minorities in Spain.
Catalonia Spain and the Ukraine, Korea and Paris -- there have been a handful of places where this type of Anarchist organization has been implemented. But, I am only drawing from the experience of history in making these judgments of Anarchist-Syndicalist territories. Are you familiar with George Orwell and the anti-Soviet book he wrote titled "Animal Farm"? Probably. What you probably are not familiar with is his pro-Anarcho-Syndicalist book, based on his experience fighting with the Anarchists in Spain in 1936: "Homage to Catalonia." The details of these societies are widely open to any student who wants to research them.
What I meant by the statute of limitations in history is that most tribal people are so intermarried with their white "colonisers" that it is impossible to disentangle who has a right to the land or compensation. In Australia very few Aborigines are "full-blood". Okay, so his white grandfather married his Aboriginal grandmother, so who does the mixed blood grandson sue? If it were not for the white grandfather, the grandson would not be here.
I am pleased to note you have a plan, even if in my opinion it is not a coherent one. Now publish it as we do our policies and see how far you get. And if you don't get very farm admit it does not appeal to the public or the workers you purport to represent.
Fine, I have a new plan. We just take all the land, money, and food from the rich, and make them so poor that they have to have sex with us just to live. And then one or two thousand years later, we'll mourn about how we can't pay them back, "because the statute of limitations has run out."
If it were not for the white grandfather, he would have his ten brothers and sisters, because his land would not have been taken by those who exploited it and destroyed the ozone. And if it were not for the white grandfather, the grandson might be the sole agent determining their own life -- instead of being a helpless pawn to Capitalism, without land, liberty, or bread.
It has been published. And, for destroying millenia-old ignorance, such as church, state, and property, it has made decent progress. In fact, compared to Liberalism and Conservativism, the mainstream ideologies, it is the only idea to have made any progress. The fact that it is unheard-of and rare does not concern me. The theories of Galileo and Copernicus, for a time, were regarded similarly.
After all, I can turn the tables on you with the same argument. Over the past 500 years, there has been a mass exodus of Catholics to Protestantism (simply by looking at the numbers). The conversions that do happen are almost never from Protestant to Catholic, and almost always the reverse. So, if the public seems to be abandoning the international church for the local church, why not abandon promoting Catholicism and the Catholic point of view? Most Christians today would ignore the Pope's commands, but half a millenia ago, they would have burned alive any person the Pope indicted. Of all ideas, the submission of the individual to the power of a religious "interpreter" has lost the most credibility over the past three centuries.
Catholicism could only take Paris by killing 50,000 Socialists and Anarchists. Sounds like the people have rejected your idea in favor of mine plenty of times. Perhaps we Anarchists are too meek-hearted, and we only convince people by the goodness of our ideas and actions, while Catholic armies have resorted to the bomb and the bayonet.
My belief in Anarchism, though, is not dictated by what is popular. It is dictated by a passionate, undying search for truth inside of me. As long as slavery and murder are wrong, I will not let slavers and murderers live without becoming involved somehow. But Anarchism is very different from Catholicism. We believe in the supremacy of the individual to be their own arbiter in life. Catholics must justify a religion where god ordered the kidnapping and rape of 32,000 children (chapter 31 of Numbers). So, of course, today it may only be the Anarchists who critique the state and Capitalism; Catholics obviously have no problem with it, because they'll lay down and take it even if it means mass child rape.
You apparently know little about biology if you think the mixed-blood grandson would exist with ten brothers/sisters if his white grandfather had not married his Aboriginal grandmother. The mixed-blood grandson could only exist because of this marriage/sexual encounter. This is the reality now, not the mythical brothers and sisters (who would they be siblings to?) who might have existed if the world was different. I repeat, who does the mixed-blood grandson sue?
It is quite a reality for me because I am Indian by birth, married to a white Australian, so who do my 23 descendants sue? They would not exist but for my marriage.
Protestantism exists because of corruption in the Catholic Church at that time. In S. America it is making inroads because of liberation theology in the Catholic Church. These aberrations are slowly correcting themselves, and the churches will one day unite again.
Exactly! I'm not arguing with you, Babette. I think it's an astonishingly good idea. We need to physically take the property of the rich, deny them food and land, and then when they're about to starve, we might give them something -- if they pretty much submit to being our sex slaves. And then a few centuries later, they won't be able to take back their property, because we'll be too mixed. Awesome idea. Let the rape and pillage begin!
Oh, I don't know, maybe the possessors of the land, like I've been saying?
You mean the one Catholic Church and the fifty thousand, independent, strongly anti-Catholic, Protestant Churches? Yeah, and you say I'm a dreamer for believing in Anarchy.