Doing it Her Way.

My next interview installment comes to you tonight from our very own Shirley over at BlogCatalog. Although you might know her as "Shiley", she writes and owns Proof Positivity. She is sweet as pie, and I think that her voice in the political arena is a breath of fresh air from the typical political discussion you read on political blogs. It is my opinion that regardless of experience in politics, everyone has a reason and need to have their voices heard. Because politics affects them, it affects everyone. Shirley is the definition of We the People.

Q: I would like a brief description of yourself, and which blogs you write.

A: My name is Shirley. I am a stay at home mom of three. I do a whole lot of community service related things. I have three blogs:

Proof Positivity proving positivity to the world
My Thoughts (self-explanatory)
The Heart of a Mom which is my grandmother's poetry book.

Q: What is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear "politics" "politicians" or "political (anything)"?

A: The first thing that comes to mind is how stupid I was as a teenager. I had just turned 18 and about to vote. The candidates were George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton. I didn't like either one so I wrote in Kevin Costner.

My next thought is George Bush Jr. is an idiot.

Q: What is your overall assessment of the US government, how it works, and Democracy in general? Do you feel this system is the best? The worst? Something in between?

A: I think democracy could be wonderful if you get rid of the electoral colleges and computers that can be rigged or hacked to go republican. I don't believe the system is the best but what is?If we were to overthrow the government we could end up with worse. I do think a lot of changes need to be made.

Q: You mentioned that you've met some politically famous individuals while doing charity works. Tell us about your experiences.

A: This is the fun question for me. My first experience I was 15 and did a beautify community thing. Mayor Terry Williams of Spencer, WV was my boss. He is mayor to this day (19 years later). There is a law for the president there should be one for mayors too.

Mayor Micheal White of Cleveland, OH (I am 5'2' and he is shorter than I am) was playing peek-a-boo with a small child who was terrified of a man just about her height.

I went to a luncheon that Colin Powell was speaking at for a charity organization he was heading up. I don't remember the name of it now but he carried a red radio flyer wagon. I think it may have been for literacy. I spoke with him and Mayor White briefly during this event. Political officials have a thing with patting people on the back for community service who knows if they were sincere or not they are politicians.

I met Reverend Jackson on two occasions. The first time I was with an organization called City Year which is a diverse group of 17-24 year old adults that go out and do community service like an urban Peace Corps. The first time we were discussing civil rights, race, and prejudice. We all began to realize we aren't so different and we all judge each other. We all experience racism and prejudice.

The second occasion he mentioned I look familiar and I explained where he last saw me. This time he was endorsing John Kerry for president. My son had a picture taken with him. I have no clue where it's at.

Coretta Scott King discussed race and her husband Martin Luther King. I'm glad I had an opportunity to meet her before she passed away.

Finally, President Bill Clinton fights for young people. City Year holds a convention called CYZYGY which is taken from the Greek synergy I think is how it's spelled which is the alignment of the planets. Therefore, CYZYGY is the alignment of all the City Year sites. 900 City Year members asked President Clinton to speak at our convention. How can you ignore 900 voices? So, he came and told us what a great job we are doing and I even shook his hand. Here is the URL of the press release President Clinton Speaks in Cleveland.


Q: What is your opinion on the current state of affairs in the US, and abroad?

A: Things don't look good. Everybody hates Americans for this war. I don't think they understand the majority of us hate the government for this war. We are in a war that's none of our business. I think it was a ploy so that people forget about Osama Bin Laden especially since the Bush family and Bin Laden family are friends. The economy is bad we owe money to other countries out the wazoo which in turn makes our American dollar drop in value. Jobs are going overseas so we are forced to let our children play with lead paint. Gas prices are so high that in a place like WV with little or no public transportation you are forced to spend $100 a week because for some places jobs are 70 miles away. It's like we are turning into a third world country.


Q: What would you say are your top concerns for yourself, and other US citizens that you would like to see the presidential candidates address?

A:
a.) Health care for everybody including dental and vision without having to report income to The Department of Health and Human Services.
b.) poverty- people don't choose to be poor. It's a result of bad decisions from the past.
c.)funding needs to go back to the programs they've cut
d.) The war needs to end


Q: Describe how you interpret the presidential races, from primaries to the main event.

A: The presidential races are rat races. A rat will eat it's babies, if trapped in a glue trap will gnaw it's own foot for freedom, and they carry disease. Politicians spread negativity about each other like children pulling each others hair. I wish they would just discuss where they stand instead of throwing mud.

Q: What would you like to see changed about our political system here, in the US?

A: I would love for the electoral college to be removed to truly make your vote count.

Q: What do you think needs to stay the same?

A: I think our system of checks and balances needs to stay. Don't quote me didn't Bush try to pass a law dealing with people saying bad things about the president? That affects freedom of speech which is unconstitutional. What a wussy he must have known people were going to dislike him.

Q: Finally, would you ever run for president?

A: Very emphatically... HELL NO! I would never run for president. That has got to be the most stressful job. Every president that I recall enters with dark hair and leaves with gray hair. Gray hair is a sign of stress.

{Rat Race sketch done artfully by Lily Tomlin over at Sketched Out}

Riddle Me This

My mother and I are political opposites, and we end up getting into a great deal of fights about politics and religion. However, every now and again she has moments of clarity, and actually makes sense.

In a conversation the other day we were discussing the Clinton Obama primary quagmire that has been unfolding for the last ten or so states. With each passing primary, the fight gets nastier, dirtier, and just down right aggressive. The problem here, that I see, is that Clinton is a seasoned politician. She knows the ins and outs of political mudslinging, and campaign debauchery. Whereas Obama is still fairly wet behind the ears with regards to the kinds of primary based hostilities he has been struggling to stay afloat in.

So here is the theory, one that my mother came up with, and I had a hard time arguing....it makes sense, actually.

If McCain wins the election he is a one term president. He is too old to run for a second term, leaving the next presidential election wide open with no incumbent to hamper the process.

If Obama wins, he will run for a second term - this is important, so remember that.

Clinton began losing ground to Obama in a way that made her, and others, fairly certain that she wasn't going to last very long in the primaries. But wait! Over 300,000 republicans miraculously changed affiliation just in time for the primaries in their respective states, and Clinton began gaining ground again. You see, after Coulter and Limbaugh both mentioned that McCain stood a better chance against Clinton than Obama, there was a huge push to keep Clinton in the running.

This worked out to Clinton's advantage, for two reasons. One, there is a chance she could get the nomination, and actually beat McCain. Two, it allowed to her to stay in the running long enough to damage Obama's reputation so badly that if he got the nomination, the country may be turn away from him, electing McCain, a one term president instead of Obama, a strong two term president.

If McCain wins, Clinton will have another shot at the presidency, using this primary as her platform for the next time around. "See? You should have supported me, without division, and not an inexperienced candidate like Obama. Had you elected me McCain wouldn't have won, and we wouldn't be in XYZ situation." It's a strategy that would garner huge amounts of support for her. She would be a shoo-in for the democratic nomination.

But if Obama wins, she will not have her chance, as she will be too old to make the bid.

In summary? Clinton is dividing the Democratic party, and destroying Obama's presidential reputation on purpose as a set up so that she can either win this time, or next time, and become the great uniter. Either way, she's in like Flynn. It's a sneaky kind of strategy, but the way the Clintons operate, I can't help but think that it's something she is capable of.

So tell me, do you think it will work?

Politics and the Philippines.

Tonight I am featuring a Filipino blogger, Praning. I am not overly affluent in the affairs of the Philippines, so this interview was not only tough, but very enlightening for me, and I hope it will be for you as well. Praning certainly knows the inner workings a great deal more than I do, and I suspect she is rather well versed, perhaps better than most, in politics in her home country.
Q: Describe the popular opinion of the Philippine government. What are the benefits? The detriments?

A: Philippines is a democratic country. Basically, laws are made for the common good. Here in the country, we often hear politicians saying the most overused line "... For the People and By the People. But, they are just words coming from the mouth, without much meaning to the politicians.

Devolution is contributing to democracy in the Philippines, as seen in three indicators of democracy on the local level: public opinion, electoral outcomes, and popular participation in the process of governance between elections. On contrary, on top of our democracy has always been a theocracy. On top of our politicians are the theologians with the wealth, power, and glory to determine who amongst our stupid politicians will go to heaven and who will end up in Purgatory. Imagine men and women of this country, with college education, in this 21st century, still believing the claims of ancient superstition from the religious morons.

After more than 60 years of democracy in this country, we have already perceived the evils of democracy,The traditional view of local politics and government in the Philippines is not flattering: elected officials are personalistic faction leaders (or worse, bosses or warlords) interested in parlaying their personal wealth and power rather than promoting good governance.

Q: You stated that you feel the government is chaotic. What are the reasons for this chaos?

A: Whether local politicians were characterized as warlords, based on the use of violence, or as patrons, based on the material benefits and favors distributed by elected officials, the portrait did not depict good governance. In fact, rather than promoting comprehensive or sustainable development, local officials often provided scattered, particularistic benefits. These included small public works projects such as paving sections of roads or constructing basketball courts, barangay halls, and footbridges; providing government jobs, preferential access to government funds, or special exemptions from (or nonenforcement of) government regulations; and favoritism in the resolution of disputes over land, resources, or commercial transactions.

Even social services tended to be discretely distributed. Medicines were labeled with officials’ names before being handed out. Patients brought their doctor’s or pharmacy receipts to politicians for reimbursement. And, most famously, family expenses for christenings, education, weddings, and funerals were solicited. KBL, it was said, stood for Kasal, Binyag, Libing--wedding, baptism, funeral.

The focus on specific benefits eclipsed planning for more general economic development. Development projects were frequently selected on particularistic or personal grounds, leading to faulty implementation. This type of planning, combined with widespread corruption, resulted in many incomplete projects or in shoddy construction and maintenance.

Q: How involved is the average Philippine in both local and national politics?

A: Average Filipino have passive involvement in the local and national politics. We only participate in politics during elections, where, unfortunately, vote buying is very popular. Other than that, we are more concerned of how to earn a living to put something in our children's mouth, on a daily basis. We do care of what is happening in our government, but we are also aware of the fact that belonging to middle and lower class can't give us the power to change our political system, especially that it will take a long process.


Q: With so many political parties, tell us about how elections are run, and how the multi-party system works with regards to representational government seats.

A: Survey data on how citizens view their local governments shows respondents in nationwide surveys more satisfied with provincial, city, and municipal governments than they are with the national government. Significantly, citizens feel more able to influence these lower levels of government.

In the last two local elections, winners typically won with less than half of the vote. This is because votes are split among so many candidates, which is part of the trend noted toward more candidates for each office (a trend caused in turn by a larger pool of middle-class citizens). The result is that less than one-third of the governors reached their constitutionally prescribed maximum of three terms, and fully two-fifths were elected to their first term. (Members of Congress, also elected by districts but less accountable locally, had exactly the opposite profile. Only one-fourth were elected for their first term, whereas two-fifths were on their third and last term.

With respect to disadvantaged sectors, such as women and indigenous peoples, the picture is somewhat mixed. At lower levels of government, women are better represented, but rarely do they form more than one-fourth of elected officials. Indigenous peoples are well represented in areas where they form a majority of residents. But in areas swamped by in-migrants, the representation of indigenous people is low. The Local Government Code provided for sectoral representation (e.g., farmers, laborers, women, and youth) has been postponed by an Act of Congress (the postponement was supported by the regularly elected local officials).

Electoral System

Together with the presidential form of government, the electoral system has set the institutional frame for the development of Philippine political parties. The current electoral system, established in the 1987 constitution, has the following characteristics:

* The president and vice president are elected nationally for six year terms with no reelection allowed. The national legislature is bicameral, with a lower house of 200 representatives elected in single member district constituencies for three year terms, plus sectoral representatives appointed by the President. The 24 member Senate has senators elected for six year terms nationally, half elected every three years. Representatives are limited to three terms, senators to two.
* Local government officials (governors, provincial councils, municipal and city mayors, municipal and city councils) are elected to three year terms, with a three term limit. Senators, congressmen and local government officials are elected in mid-term elections, but during presidential election years, everyone is elected at the same time. During synchronized elections, more than 17,000 positions are filled. Elections for barangay government, the lowest level of government roughly corresponding to rural villages and urban neighborhoods are held separately.
* The system has been "first past the post", whoever wins the most number of votes, wins. Voting in the Philippines has required writing down the names of individual candidates. This has created problems especially during synchronized elections when voters have to write down anywhere from 32 to 44 names on the ballot. Another set of problems occurs as a result of the long period required for counting and canvassing of votes cast. Votes are counted by hand at the precinct level, then precinct returns canvassed at the municipal level, municipal returns at the provincial level, and only then added up at the COMELEC in Manila, a process that can take over a month.
* Elections are supervised by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), a constitutionally mandated, independent body. Although it is supposed to be an independent body, the COMELEC is invariably accused of being pro-administration in nearly every election.
* Parties are required to register with the COMELEC with a verified petition with attachments including a constitution, by-laws, platform, and such other information as may be required by the COMELEC. They are required to have chapters in a majority of regions, and within each region, a majority of provinces, down to towns and barangays.

Cheating is a well-developed art in Philippine elections. Local politicians are adept at manipulating the process from beginning to end. Cheating begins during the registration process when politicians work to remove supporters of competitors and pad the voters list with "flying voters" (those who vote more than once in several precincts). During the campaign "guns, goons, and gold" are used extensively to intimidate competitors' supporters, and to literally buy support. Cheating does not end at the time of the actual election. Election return canvassers, often public school teachers are bribed to manipulate the results. If cheating before and during the election is "retail" cheating, at the canvassing stage it is "wholesale" cheating which occurs.

If cheating is a normal part of elections, so is protesting election results. Politicians say there are only two kinds of candidates in the Philippines, winners and those who are cheated.

Q: How are the some of the more prevalent parties perceived by the general public?

A: The structures of all major parties are almost all the same. The basic party unit is at the municipal level. Party units then go up the ladder to the provincial party committee, then the national convention or directorate. These bodies are made up of prominent leaders of the party, former and incumbent elected officials. Within these bodies there are central/executive committees made up of a smaller number of top party leaders. Except for the ruling party, none have permanent party headquarters or paid staff except during elections. In between elections, party headquarters are usually at the party leader's home or office.

The party candidate for president and the key national players in the party have the most say in candidate selection down to local candidates. The centralization of the process of candidate selection has increased in recent years because of two developments: one, the synchronized national and local elections mandated by the 1987 Constitution, and second, the increasing importance of money in elections. Synchronized elections make local candidates dependent on national candidates and their parties in contrast to the past where local officials, already in place in local elections held earlier, are needed by national candidates in subsequent national elections. Although local candidates still have to have their own campaign resources, the rapidly increasing cost of election campaigns have made national party organizations stronger because they have more access to larger pools of campaign donations.

Candidates are selected on the basis of their performance, political machinery, popularity (name recall/public acceptance), geographical base/support, adequate financial resources. The importance of these elements vary from national to local candidates. For national candidates, it is generally accepted that if the presidential candidate comes from Luzon and its Tagalog speaking population, the vice presidential candidate has to come from the Visayas and its Cebuano speaking people. Popularity, increasingly determined by performance in surveys, is more important for national than local candidates. For local candidates clan/family connections are very important.

Political parties are not very popular in the Philippines. The media and academics are almost uniformly critical. Public opinion is not any less unkind. The popular term used to refer to politicians is trapo (from traditional politician), which literally means "dirty dishrag". While the public continues to be nervous about constitutional reform, witness the widespread opposition to cha-cha (charter change), there is at the same time, a palpable sense of the need for political reform.

As unpopular as political parties are, they continue to be the main political instruments for social mobility. While this is true, mobility occurs within a society that over time has become more and more unequal. While allowing ambitious young, mostly men, from the provinces to move up in the world, such movement is worked out within political parties which remain instruments of a narrow upper class. Attempts to set up political parties representing the interests of the poor majority of workers and peasants have been suppressed or more often, have been unable to survive in a political system biased against such attempts. In the end, it is not that Philippine political parties are not ideological, but rather that because they are all or mostly instruments of the same upper classes, their members share the same conservative ideology. Their political parties, therefore are not distinguishable from each other on the basis of ideology.

Q: Let's talk about the economy for a minute. How are things faring over there, and what has the government done to stimulate, or stall the economy?

A: We are currently facing a great rice shortage and weekly oil price hike, which is followed by increase price of prime commodities.
The Philippines is one of the top importers of rice in the world. Rice is a politically sensitive commodity in this country. It is not surprising that reports of a rice shortage have energized political debate and public concern regarding the economic policies of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

If the global supply of rice is dwindling, what is being done to increase local production? In the first place, why is the Philippines, which is predominantly an agricultural nation, importing rice from other countries?
Something is wrong with an economic policy that prioritizes the planting of cash crops to be exported to other countries over the planting of food crops needed by the people who are suffering from hunger.

Instead of increasing local rice production, the government is dependent on imported rice. Since joining the World Trade Organization in 1995, the Philippines has become Asia's top rice importer with average annual imports of over 1 million metric tons.

Rice lands are also disappearing because of land conversion. The government today, like the Spanish and American colonial governments of the past, has been persuading farmers to plant cash crops and other export products. Big landlords are also converting farmland into golf courses, residential villages, and agro-industrial parks to apply for exemption from the land distribution program of the government.

The rice problem is made worse by rice smuggling. Unscrupulous rice traders collude with politicians and agricultural officials in hoarding rice supplies. This creates an artificial crisis which jacks up the price of rice. Corruption is also to be blamed. In the 2004 elections, President Arroyo distributed millions in fertilizer funds to her loyal supporters. The money could have been used to improve rice productivity.

Rice is the staple food of Filipinos. Remove it from the tables and there will be mass unrest. Blaming the weather and the limited global supply to explain the rice shortage is not enough. The government has to abandon its agricultural liberalization program and its overdependence on rice imports. The government must adopt emergency measures to increase the rice output of farmers. The time has come to implement a genuine agrarian reform.

Q: Does the average Filipino worry about US politics at all?

A: No. Average Filipino have more than what they can handle, so why worry on others? What is clear here in our country is that, our President is a crony of George Bush. She (our president) is more than willing to do whatever Bush requested, even if it will negatively affect the average Filipinos. The way Filipinos see it is that, our president is afraid to stand on her own and that she is very dependable on the US Government.

Q: Let's talk about foreign policy. What stance does the Philippine government take on foreign policy, international aid, or trade agreements?

A: Philippines is very active in taking part on almost anything, if not all, foreign policy. The government believes that if we want support, especially financial support, from World Organizations and other neighbouring countries, we must support every foreign policy and it is really implemented here in our country, without much consideration on how average Filipinos will be affected.

Q: How has the Philippines been affected by the US "War on Terror", if at all?

A: We are very much affected by the US "War on Terrorism". In fact, numerous bombings have occurred here and many innocents have already died. Bomb threats and other acts of terrorism is still evident today. We also have local version of Al Qaeda terrorist groups here.

Q: Finally, I once had an ex tell me that Filipinos reserved a special smile for people they hate the most. Is this true? (Note: He was Filipino, and this is meant to be silly.)

A: Yes, personally, I believe his statement to be true. Filipinos are known for being hospitable that even if we run out of food, for instance, we can still manage to offer it to our visitors.
Being patient, usually, we don't immediately confront people we hate, we just gave them a very special smile, having, of course, negative thoughts at the back of our minds.

I want to thank Praning for her insightful views on the politics in the Philippines, and I would also like to thank her for making me wonder just how many of those smiles my ex was giving me was in fact, the "special smile".

Praning is a physically lazy but mentally active person, who's mind never ceases to contemplate on anything, and she means ANYTHING, that bothers and interests her. You can visit Praning over at her blogs, Praning's Thoughts and Praning's Shoutout.

Revolutionaries Shall Inherit The Earth.

I've decided that it's time to let other people have their voices and opinions heard, right here, on my blog. Ergo, the time of interviews has come! My first interview to be completed is by fellow esteemed blogger Daniel Owen. Here is what he has to say;

Q: Explain your preferred political affiliation of Anarcho - Syndicalism.

A: The German revolutionary Rudolph Rocker once said that anarchism is the product of the two great European social movements that followed one after another: socialism and liberalism. What this means is that anarchism stands for both individual liberty and social equality -- in fact, we hold that you can't have one without the other.

Anarcho-syndicalism, or revolutionary syndicalism, holds that a free society can only come about by the self-activity of working people organised federally and freely to fight the capitalist, commercial classes and the State. Having seen the failures of trades unionism, which organises (or rather disorganises) workers irrationally, working-class militants in England, France, America and other countries developed industrial unionism -- a key part of Anarcho-syndicalism. Industrial unionism means that we're organised by industry, not by trade, and we stand for One Big Union of working people. Solidarity is strength. Recently, America has seen the in-fighting in the working-class movement between Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members and California Nurses Association (CNA) members. Industrial unionism, syndicalism, aims to unite working people, not divide them like the scab unions do.

The "revolutionary" prefix to syndicalist means we aren't content to just fight for a few more crumbs and a longer leash. As revolutionary syndicalists, Anarcho-syndicalists, we believe that the means of production belong in the hands of those who work them and that the fruits of labour belong to producers.

We do not believe, like Marxists, that the State will die a natural death. We believe it must die a violent death -- how violent is up to the ruling class.

Q: As an Anarcho Syndicalist, what immediate changes to society do you feel are pertinent for attaining the ideal political goals of syndicalism? What long term changes are needed?

A: Industrial unionism, resistance to the State, a "culture of resistance", counter-institutions, "friendly societies" that provide mutual aid to members. There was a day when unions provided insurance to members, rather than putting the individual in the hands of State bureaucrats. We need to get back to that practice. We also need to regain control of education by fighting the State-school agenda. We need to fight for higher wages and lower taxes so working people can use their hard-earned money themselves. We need to fight racism and also the cultural plundering of our diverse cultures. We need to fight imperialistic war and domestic totalitarianism. We need to bring power back where it belongs -- with individuals and communities. We need self-education, self-awareness and self-responsibility.

In the long-run, we need to put the means of production in the hands they belong in -- those that work 'em! Like we've seen in Argentina in recent years, I believe direct expropriation of firms by workers is a moral and social imperative. We need to break up the land monopolies, the credit and money monopolies, the property monopolies. We need to fight usury -- the exploitation of capital and labour. And this means not only "firing the boss" and instituting worker self-management, it also means fighting the State. Political power needs to be decentralised, democratised, individualised, and simplified. Free association and federalism is the name of the game.

Q: What problems do you foresee, or have experienced, with regards to Syndicalism? What aspects of it have worked, in your experience?

A: Industrial unionism brings workers together on a much more rock-solid basis and grassroots-control ensures liberty, militancy and moral vigour. And in organising individuals for the overthrow of the existing order, it creates a new morality in the shell of the old -- it creates that social conscience unique to revolutionary armies. Social war will be the flood that sweeps all the accumulated dirt away.

Q: What is your general opinion of Democratic Republics? List what you think is beneficial, what is detrimental.

A:It depends what you mean. The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said, and I agree with the old geezer, that "democracy" in its' true form is just anarchy -- self-rule by the people. "Rule of the people." That is anarchy. But Parliamentary "democracy" is the cruelest lie of all, because it is just that -- a lie.

Looking at history, you can see that "democracy" as we know it is just a flaking coat of paint, slapped onto the oligarchical State to avoid popular revolution. Just look at the history books!

Q: What is your general opinion of Socialism, and Communism?

A: The German philosopher Oswald Spengler once said that, nowadays, everybody is a socialist even if they refuse to recognise it. I know I'm a socialist -- but to me that means I believe in a society based on cooperation, mutuality and workers' ownership of the means of production. To a Marxist, "socialism" means something radically different -- State-ownership of the means of production and distribution in the case of a Bolshevik, and State-interference in the economy in the case of a Social Democrat. Capitalists also believe in State-interference in the economy -- in fact, capitalism is overwhelmingly typified by Statist economic muddling. There could be no capitalism without the State, as anarchist economist Kevin Carson likes to point out. The only people who supposedly don't like the State and also support capitalism are right-wing "libertarians" -- and their utopian idea hasn't yet been seen in history (and also, to complicate things, the destruction of the State means a non-capitalist, socialist, economy). When it comes down to it, these supposed "libertarians" end up supporting massive State totalitarianism -- Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian capitalist "radical", said Nazism saved Western civilisation, while everybody's favorite scumbag Milton Freeman was all warm and cuddly with General Pinochet's ruthless dictatorship.

The great poet Robert Frost once wrote "'Men work together,' I told him from the heart, 'Whether they work together or apart.'" One way or another, by free cooperation or by the State, we are all "socialists", so to speak...

But I believe genuine socialism is working-class, libertarian and populist -- owing nothing to Statist solutions or new class oligarchies. In fact sense, socialism and anarchism and syndicalism are interchangeable words. In this sense, I do not believe that Russia or China or (depending on who you listen to) the USA or Britain were or are socialist -- I would call these societies capitalist and Statist to varying degrees.

Q: If a true Anarcho-Syndicalist society has never existed, what makes you think that it would work in the long term, vs, say Democracies, or other forms of Government?

A:We've seen great anarchist experiments with large numbers of people in the Ukraine, Spain, Manchuria, Hungary, Portugal and currently parts of Southern Mexico (Chiapis) and in Argentina. Also, the "free communes" of the Medieval Ages and the federal structures between them, lasted for a very long time -- sometimes several hundred years, if I'm not incorrect -- and served as a great inspiration for libertarians, specifically Peter Kropotkin. William Morris, the great English socialist, took inspiration from the traditional "folkmoot" egalitarian polities of olden days.

Q: How does Syndicalism address ecological issues?

A:Ecological issues have always been a concern of our movement. Early libertarian socialists, such as William Morris and Peter Kropotkin, were pioneers in ecology. We believe human-scale social structures will also be Nature-friendly.

Q: How does Syndicalism address religious issues?

A:We do not. Libertarian socialists have always believed in freedom of individual conscience -- we believe in total individual freedom except where that freedom impinges upon the freedom of others.

Q: Because economies are now global, and capitalism has seeped into almost every corner, how would a Syndicalist economy work on a global scale?

A:I don't quite understand the question. Free association, federalism, and free exchange can work on any scale. That being said, I believe in national economic economic self-sufficiency and local autonomy in many areas of economic life.

Q: Finally, are you anything like Dennis the Constitutional Peasant?

A:Yes. I personally fucking hate aristocrats. And I tend to be dirty after a day's work in the fields. But I don't shout "Help, help I'm being oppressed." I jab the bastards in the gut with my pitchfork! If I took up whining, college campuses full of Lefties would be out of a profession...

All the Best,

-- Daniel Owen

Daniel Owen is a blogger, a writer, an Anarcho-Syndicalist and a laugh riot, when he wants to be. You can see more about Daniel, and read more about his thoughts on life, government, and Anarcho-Syndicalism at Strength and Freedom As well as English Socialism.