July 27, 2011

Kleptocratic Self-Cannibalism and the Opportunity It Opens Up


The early Marx and the existentialists emphasized the alienation of human beings from their fabricated world. In particular, Marx explored how capitalism, in stealing the fruits of our work, alienates us from our labor. Our communion with our work is one of the core elements of our humanity, essential to our happiness, dignity, and wholeness. This emotional, psychological, and spiritual robbery practiced by economic elites is perhaps a far worse crime than the material deprivation and monetary “value” stolen.
A similar alienation is the result of the same crime in the political realm. Our humanity craves democratic participation. But representative pseudo-democracy, blaspheming the name and the ideal, robs us of our participation and our sense of real political control. This participation and control is part of the definition of true democracy. On a practical level, it achieves the most wise and socially productive outcomes. Far beyond this, it’s a core human value in itself, essential to our felicity, self-respect, and sense of being whole. This emotional, psychological, and spiritual robbery practiced by political elites is perhaps a worse crime than the destructive and evil outcomes their hijacked political system produces.
The result is humanity’s complete alienation from the economy, polity, society only we create at all. This generates a huge amount of potential energy in the mass. Millions of people not only have no constructive vehicle for their most elemental energies, but feel the added stress and tension of the economic and political instability and fear the kleptocracy engenders. Therefore, as Eric Hoffer says, the alienation from the self proceeds amid intense passion. The refugee energy and socioeconomic tension, arising out of our alienation from ourselves, further intensifies this alienation, which in turn generates further tension. Usually, at least at first, this is an inchoate passion. Then it’s often misdirected, hijacked/astroturfed by the very system which produces the psychological crisis. Fascism and innumerable quasi-fascist an co-optation phenomena comprise this category.
The kleptocracy will try to organize all the alienated passion it causes to its own benefit and the further detriment of those confused enough to conform to this plan. What are the chances that it will be unable to do this? One of the things we have going for us is how this system is liquidating its own base, and how it propagates an ideology of atomization, selfishness, and such a totally mercenary way of thinking and being that it will be difficult for it to ever muster real idealism on its behalf. Sure, it can astroturf a surface idealism on the part of pseudo-fascist scum. But these will never be anything more than a rabble. As for the system’s police and soldiers, they’ll never think in terms other than their paychecks and their material stuff at home (maybe their personal families as well). Historically, fascism was strong as it piled up victories, but started collapsing immediately as soon as it sustained losses and faced adversity. A fascist (including the kind of neoliberal pseudo-democracy we have today), individually and systemically, is typically a bully who feels strong as long as he’s winning but runs away as soon as the going gets tough. Mussolini was like that, and that’s why his system (and himself on a personal level) collapsed as soon as the war reached home. That was real fascism which had enlisted a high level of non-mercenary idealism on its behalf. It’s likely today’s purely mercenary kleptocracy will collapse even more completely as soon as it begins sustaining losses and enduring hardship. Mussolini wasn’t very tough, but I bet he was far tougher than today’s bloated, childish, infinitely “entitled” elites.
So who are the groups, naturally the base for political and economic elitism, who are under assault by very kleptocracy which depends upon them for its political sustenance? Who’s the newest and most critical alienation base?
1. Pensions are a linchpin of the liberal welfare state and a core part of the Ownership Society propaganda (“We are ExxonMobil”). For both the liberal and conservative ideologies they’re a key co-optation ploy. But the kleptocracy is now liquidating them. First they came for the manufacturing unions’ pensions, then for the public sector union pensions, and now for Social Security… Anyone who thinks the day of the 401(k)s of white collar workers won’t come soon is delusional.
2. “Home ownership” is a similar joint liberal-conservative ploy. Commentators have often been frank about how the goal is to give a large middle class a stake in the stable propagation of capitalism. So you’d think that after the blowup of the housing bubble and consequent deflation, the system would want to temporarily hit the reset button and retrench. But instead the banksters launched a veritable foreclosure war, enlisting the federal government as collaborator with such frauds as the HAMP. Meanwhile even the most modest prophylactic measures like principal mods and bankruptcy court cramdowns have been fiercely resisted by banks and government. Here too, although it still spews the propaganda, the kleptocracy has clearly renounced even the pretense of its own ownership society co-optation plan.
3. Public sector unions are a major part of the base for government as such, and the Democratic party in particular. But the kleptocracy, including the Democrats, is liquidating them as fast as it can.
4. College grads, if there are system jobs available for them, are always a major part of any status quo base. Instead, today’s grads find that there are no jobs for them, and that instead they were made the victims of a joint bank-government-university debt indenture scam. Historically, this has been a major revolutionary indicator. (The results were mixed. In 19th century Russia, unemployable students and graduates became revolutionaries. In Weimar Germany they became Nazis. Since as a group students are a nihilist rabble at heart, it’s probably just a matter of seizing upon the most radical idea lying around.) I previously devoted a post to this factor.
5. Professionals are also a key system base element, as long as their jobs are protected. This is why even as globalization ruthlessly drove a race to the bottom for all other forms of labor, for a long time it protected doctors, lawyers, journalists, IT professionals, and most others. But today these too are starting to be liquidated. A computer programmer’s already in the same boat as a manufacturing worker. Everyone else will soon be joining us. Again we see the “First they came for the factory workers…” dynamic.
6. The federal government depends upon the states for a vast amount of administration and supplementary enforcement. It has bought this compliance with gravy train of biblical flood size. But now the federal largesse is being rolled back furiously. The states are being cut off. Under these harsh new conditions, will state governments continue to comprise such a compliant power base for Washington?
7. The assault on civil liberties is the kind of petty harassment more likely to drum up resistance than is systematic repression.
8. Economically, here’s the biggest one, the classical contradiction of capitalism which is even more unsolvable today than it was a hundred years ago. Capitalism depends on infinitely growing consumption while it grinds the worker down to nothing. But this worker is also the consumer. Once capitalism liquidates its own consumers, who’s gonna buy? The answer nowadays is corporatism. The federal government buys and tries to force individuals to buy (Obama’s health racket Stamp mandate is the ultimate example so far). In these ways the government coerces markets. By now we have a command economy, corporatist version.
But this is only kicking the can down the road. Forcing the consumer to buy won’t increase the amount of blood you can squeeze out of him. In the end, capitalism will endure for as long as the federal government can run its debt Ponzi scheme. Deficit terrorism is a lie where it claims that deficit spending as such, and deficit spending toward socially productive goals based on real production, is inherently unsustainable. But it will be true in the end that deficit spending toward no goal whatsoever but enabling corporate looting, and based upon no productive base whatsoever but just the lies and vapors of financialization, is unsustainable. In the end this capitalist fraud will collapse of its own rancid yet hollow bloat.
9. I described the psychological contradiction of capitalism above. It alienates us from our work, our thoughts, our friends, our families, our communities, our democracy, and ourselves. Our alienation accumulates as a tremendous force, and no matter how that force is eventually unleashed, it will place the status quo in peril.
10. Part of this alienation, a strategic blunder on the part of corporatist ideology (if we could impute any long-term strategy, as opposed to short-run greed, to them at all), is how this ideology and kleptocratic practice seek to radically atomize the individual instead of trying to provide even a sham sense of belonging. By contrast, classical fascism worked hard at this, and with considerable success.
This has left a void and an opportunity for any movement which wants to fight the kleptocracy.
11. Based on the system’s record so far, we can expect a continuing escalation in the assault which will be malevolent in principle but haphazard in the execution. This is exactly the kind of oppression most likely to generate resistance. The alienations, contradictions, and self-injuring liquidations I just described are both part of this haphazardness and will contribute to it. See also my post, The Limits to Racketeering.
So we see how there’s a big opportunity for anyone who wants to fight and defeat the kleptocracy.
But the existence of the opportunity doesn’t guarantee it will be seized. We have to meet it halfway. We have to work hard to build the democratic movement which can transform all the alienation and disintegration into a coherent vector, which can gather all the festering potential energy and render it kinetic in one direction.
The negative element of this vector is to destroy the kleptocracy. The affirmative element is to build and practice positive democracy.
So part of this necessary work shall be to account for all the factors I described above (and probably others I missed) and learn to speak to them, and then do so relentlessly.


  1. The early Marx and the existentialists emphasized the alienation of human beings from their fabricated world.

    I had not realized that. I never studied early Marx or the existentialists, but I reached a similar conclusion a few years back when I faced my own “existential” moment, as I burned out massively.

    In particular, Marx explored how capitalism, in stealing the fruits of our work, alienates us from our labor. Our communion with our work is one of the core elements of our humanity, essential to our happiness, dignity, and wholeness. This emotional, psychological, and spiritual robbery practiced by economic elites is perhaps a far worse crime than the material deprivation and monetary “value” stolen.

    Again, I never got this deep into Marx, but I’ve reached the same conclusions. As to stealing the fruits of our work, this is done through adding a layer of abstraction– money– on top of the real economy. Steve Keen criticizes basic economic theory– now called microeconomics– because it assumes a barter economy and money is nowhere to be found. I wonder why? Each layer of abstraction you add after the first provides another order of magnitude of fictional wealth to pursue (stocks and bonds weren’t enough, so the banks had to create “derivatives”).

    As to the importance of work to our humanity, it amazes me that so few “progressives” or conservatives get this. On the one hand, we have progressive Robert Reich proposing more handouts (like free museums!) to help buck up the spirits of the jobless. On the other hand, we have conservatives acting as if jobs were a privilege and not a a natural right, which is how I think of jobs. In the meantime, we are losing more and more jobs, there are more and more people trying to get the jobs that are left, and there is no action being taken to bring jobs back.

    5. Professionals are also a key system base element, as long as their jobs are protected. This is why even as globalization ruthlessly drove a race to the bottom for all other forms of labor, for a long time it protected doctors, lawyers, journalists, IT professionals, and most others. But today these too are starting to be liquidated. A computer programmer’s already in the same boat as a manufacturing worker. Everyone else will soon be joining us. Again we see the “First they came for the factory workers…” dynamic.

    I’m glad you brought up the subject of what I call “the working rich.” In many ways, the working rich are the most vulnerable to “downsizing” right now because they pull down outsize salaries, and the first rounds of layoffs focused on easy decisions and raw, topline numbers. The next round of layoffs will require an ROI analysis on a case by case basis, and I anticipate a lot more highly compensated lawyers, etc. to be out of a job.

    So part of this necessary work shall be to account for all the factors I described above (and probably others I missed) and learn to speak to them, and then do so relentlessly.

    You may want to start a wiki. There are a lot of different thoughts in the post.

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — July 27, 2011 @ 10:46 am

    • That was the work of the younger Marx which was unpublished until the Grundrisse (“notebooks”) were published in the 1930s. Then lots of intellectuals (like the existentialists) who hadn’t previously been all that interested in the materialist-oriented Marx became very interested in this earlier, more psychologically-oriented one.

      What you said about the larcenous delusion of money reminds me of Jensen’s Premise 12:

      There are no rich people in the world, and no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something – or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers at hard drives on banks – and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim…Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.

      I’ll add to that, responding to what you said about jobs, that there’s no such thing as “jobs”, there’s just work to be done. We need to do it, and those willing to do it have the right to do it. But the same kind of delusions set up barriers between the worker and the work, and between the worker and the fruits of that work. These delusions are primarily held by those who are excluded by the barrier.

      Regarding your criticism at NC that MMT has nothing to say about financial leverage, I do think that if MMT were enacted, and all of its implications followed through upon, then that would outlaw leveraging because an implication of MMT is that the money supply should concur with the productive capacity of the economy (with perhaps a little stimulative excess; it seems to me MMT still believes in “growth”, which is another criticism to which we must subject it). This would rule out any significant leverage.

      (To put it in Marxist terms, MMT in theory would empower the M-C-M’ cycle and abolish M-M’.)

      But that brings us back to the fundamental criticism, that MMT assumes a political climate which does not and will not exist. If it were ever politically possible to enact MMT (that is, if we broke the power of the banks), then it would be possible to go far further, and break free of top-down centralized currencies as such.

      That’s why I think MMT has no rightful purpose other than as an educational tool.

      Comment by Russ — July 27, 2011 @ 11:28 am

      • Regarding your criticism at NC that MMT has nothing to say about financial leverage, I do think that if MMT were enacted, and all of its implications followed through upon, then that would outlaw leveraging because an implication of MMT is that the money supply should concur with the productive capacity of the economy (with perhaps a little stimulative excess; it seems to me MMT still believes in “growth”, which is another criticism to which we must subject it). This would rule out any significant leverage.

        That’s not my real criticism of MMT, which is MMTers.

        Keynesians, a flavor of monetarists, said they had THE answer. Chicago School Monetarists like Friedman insisted that THEY had the answer, when Keynesianism allegedly failed. And now MMTers proclaim that they have the REAL answer this time.

        The problem is that all flavors of monetarism can only address the forms of debt they recognize as debt. Financial speculators “innovated” new forms of debt to avoid Keynesian limits on leverage by creating things like swap agreements. They did the same thing to avoid Chicago School monetarism by creating “derivatives.” MMT will fail for the same reason: monetarism seeks to contain leveraged speculation through regulation, as if it can ever be benign, instead of criminalizing it outright. Monetarist regulation only seeks to impose limits on certain debt instruments that are strictly defined, and if you change just one molecule of a regulated debt intstrument, it becomes an unregulated debt instrument and creates “systemic risk” through unrecognized leverage.

        I simply can’t stand the self-congratulations MMTers shower themselves (and us with) when we’ve all seen this movie. They’re rationalist idiots being played as fools by power addicted realists.

        Comment by Tao Jonesing — July 28, 2011 @ 12:32 am

      • Yup, the flaw is the same as in all reformist theory, which is that it’s reformist, i.e. it makes invalid assumptions about the kind of world in which the theory is then supposed to function. It’s like a physical theory which can only work if gravity doesn’t exist (but then it’ll work perfectly!).

        I was only saying that if gravity doesn’t exist, then MMT does have an answer for all leverage, if its implications were followed through upon. Both ifs are the political equivalent of physical impossibilities.

        I agree completely on the smug cultism of many of them. (And did you see how that idiot Pilkington evidently confuses inflation and the symptom of inflation? I wouldn’t criticize just anybody for saying “inflation is rising prices”, but that guy claims to be an expert, with hundreds of comments per thread. Pretty funny. I also like how he was accusing everybody of being Downsouth in disguise. It sounds like he’s starting to crack.)

        Comment by Russ — July 28, 2011 @ 2:56 am

      • Pssttt…if you’re not starting to crack, there’;s something seriously wrong with you. 😉

        Comment by Andy Lewis — July 28, 2011 @ 3:25 am

      • Yes, Andy, that’s often our first response. 😉

        We’re joking, but since alot of people probably believe that it’s worth saying that it’s false. On the contrary, real activists keep their heads while all others around them are losing theirs. Not surrendering to defeatism is a good example. Crediting one’s moral intuition and refusing to tolerate the intolerable is another.

        Comment by Russ — July 28, 2011 @ 6:55 am

  2. Exceptional post! This needs to be spread about. Russ, assuming you meant compliant, not complaint?

    Comment by Pete — July 27, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

    • Thanks, Pete, and thanks for the correction. Fixed.

      Comment by Russ — July 27, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

  3. “Since as a group students are a nihilist rabble at heart”

    LOL, ouch. We’ve talked about this before, and I think to an extent you’re right here. The majority of the student base in the West is gunning for a “get-a-job” degree rather than a “get-educated” degree. I recently had a conversation on an economics blog about professional school enrolment- I hadn’t realised this previously (since it often seems that biology graduate students are a teeming, infinitely multiplying mass who vastly outnumber every other academic cohort), but professional school enrolment actually vastly outnumbers enrolment in “regular” scientific and humanities graduate programs. I’m starting to hear reports from aquaintances in medical school that they’re having a hard time scaring up positions, that the older doctors aren’t retiring and so on. We know that only really the top ranked 10-15% of law schools graduate lawyers who go on to meaningfully practice law, etc. So in addition to the top-down squeeze on “professions”, there’s the bottom-up squeeze of huge numbers of graduates coming through and no positions for them. What I hope is that the students coming up through the system start cluing into the ongoing liquidation happening all around them and start casting around outside their narrowly-defined specialties. The one saving grace of academia may simply be the physical co-location of soon-to-be-liquidated nihilists with philosophers, heterodox economists, historians, etc who can provide the intellectual underpinnings for a revival of real critical thought and real humanistic values among the students, and perhaps the professionals themselves.

    Comment by paper mac — July 27, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

    • I didn’t know that about the proliferation of biology students. Now where are they all supposed to go? (I’m not sure, but if there’s an answer it can’t be any place good.)

      I said students “as a group” specifically so that individual students who were exceptions wouldn’t feel lumped in. I myself was only partially an exception. Hopefully you’re right about the best part of the campus environment rubbing off on people. If you know what you’re looking for, a university campus is still one of the best places to be.

      Here’s a promising-looking exception: We have a new volunteer at the farmers’ market who’s currently an undergrad. She said she used to be an accounting major but chucked that when she started learning about Peak Oil and food globalization. Now she’s trying to learn all she can about relocalization. I said I wish I’d had my head on that straight when I was in college. (She did say she thinks Stiglitz is the best commentator, and that she thinks globalization is OK for some things though not food. So she’s got a ways to go, but she’s on the right track.)

      Comment by Russ — July 27, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

      • Yeah, there are so many people graduating with PhDs in biological sciences these days that it’s become the sort of poster-symptom of the failure of the academic system (leading to editorials like this- http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110420/full/472261a.html). Of course, they’ll never shut down or reform the PhD system because it provides the labour required for the productivity-oriented Big Science approach. Its days are numbered, in any case.

        There are about fifty billion things I would like to do in the next ten years, so you can file this one under “paper mac’s blue-sky scheming”, but one thing I think would be great would be to have a kind of agroecology institute on a moderate-sized homestead farm. People would come to study various things, directed at developing genuinely-sustainable, localised technology and methods (eg it could have a Open Source Ecology campus for machinists and welders to come work on ways of making better tractors or CEB presses, a biofuels unit for engineers and farmers who want to work on fueling farm trucks and tractors with linseed oil, various farming participatory-education programs, green building etc). Call it an Institute and maybe it can even siphon off some of the tremendously unproductive gov’t spending on traditional productivist agricultural research.

        I’m glad to hear about your volunteer. It’s encouraging to see that people can be that far into the system, have their eyes opened, and do an about-face with their new knowledge. Building up steam, bit by bit..

        Comment by paper mac — July 28, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

      • That’s a great idea, paper mac. I’ve had similar thoughts. There’s no reason to call it pie in the sky. On the contrary, I call it a goal. So we have to figure out how to realize it.

        In that connection, I’ve been mulling over this article I found the other day.


        It describes the increase in smallholder farming in Massachusetts in recent years, including how training programs (run by the state, colleges, and NGOs) is helping drive the phenomenon. I said to myself we need to expand such training programs, if necessary as a core activity of a movement dedicated to food sovereignty.

        Then I think about how to tie in training with the various land sharing and farm legacy programs (offhand I forget if there’s an established name for programs where a retiring farmer with no familial heir becomes mentor to a younger person who aspires to farm but lacks land, the goal being for that protege to eventually take over that farm) and those with co-production and time banks (and you mentioned open-source) and all those with new ways of building trust and bond as I described in some recent comments and all those with general community-building and relocalization.

        Well, that’s a lot of thinking to do.

        Comment by Russ — July 28, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

      • Those are some surprising numbers about Massachusetts. I need to do some more reading about the economics of smallholdings. I bought some green beans today at a little farmers market on campus from a farmer who grows on 53 acres with 3 people up in Prince Edward county (couple hours northeast of Toronto, a peninsula on lake Ontario). It was $4 for a small container, maybe a 1/2 lb. They’re good beans and all, but there’s no way I’d pay anything like that for produce on a regular basis, and that’s totally out of line with what one might pay to buy into a CSA or something similar. I was trying to talk to the guy a bit about his farm but he was pretty curt so I left him alone and didn’t poke into the finances at all, but I’m wondering if guys who have big mortgages on their land or whatever are jacking up prices at farmer’s markets to cover the bills, while more established farms with not much debt can afford to do CSAs or sell food at prices that the poor and working class can afford. In any case, this guy had a not-too-happy looking employee that he was keen on me knowing didn’t have an ownership stake in the farm, which I was a little taken aback by. I guess smallholdings and democracy don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.. well, the democratic ones will have a competitive advantage, anyway.

        I’m going to have to bust my ass to put this degree away, but with any luck I’ll have it polished off by the end of 2012. After that, I’m pretty sure I’m going to apply for an intership at one of the farms in this regional group:
        They’re an alliance of farms that trains new organic farmers, seems like a good place to start for 2013. I figure if I can make it through two harvest seasons, I might be able to make a start with a farm of my own by 2015. Fingers crossed for no major apocalyptic breakdown in western civilisation before then!!

        Comment by paper mac — July 29, 2011 @ 12:35 am

      • The farmer himself was not only brusque about talking about his farm but made a point of bragging about being an exploiter? That’s surprising. A big selling point of farmers’ markets is how the customer can get to know the farmer, talk to him directly, learn about his operation. Indeed, that’s a key part of the “value-added” which is supposed to justify the often higher prices than at the supermarket.

        Although this price difference is actually much less than people often assume. And in many cases farmers’ markets are less expensive. Here’s some evidence:



        So while sometimes particular products are relatively expensive, like the beans you bought, or some of the things our vendors sell (part of the reason we added a second egg seller was that the existing vendor who previously had a monopoly seemed to charge an unduly high price), on the whole farmer’s market prices are competitive with the supermarket. And as you say, CSAs are the best value of all. (Some of our vendors also have CSAs, but we’re not involved with that. But we have some ideas toward integrating a CSA-like program into our own projects.)

        It also sounds like that particular vendor isn’t really a good fit for farmers’ markets in general.

        Your plan sounds good. I’ve read about organic internship programs like that.

        Comment by Russ — July 29, 2011 @ 2:16 am

      • Thanks for those links, Russ, that was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to read about. It’s good to see that local production can undersell the supermarkets. I don’t know what was going on with this guy, but the market was just a few stalls, so I guess he figured he could do whatever he liked. It’s too bad, because it’s the U of T farmer’s market, so it would be nice if there were some better selections for the students on campus. If I ever get a market garden type operation going I’ll definitely set up a stall of my own to spread the word and sell things at reasonable prices.

        Comment by paper mac — July 29, 2011 @ 4:06 pm

      • You’re welcome, paper mac. I like all these plans you have.

        Comment by Russ — July 29, 2011 @ 4:11 pm

  4. Russ, thanks for the quote in a previous post from Lawrence Goodwyn’s “The Populist Moment.” I got the book from the library and can’t put it down. Great book.

    A critical feature of the Populist movement was that lien farmers had a choice once the visionaries got to work. “Stop being a lien slave and join the Alliance.” And join they did!

    I’d say we’re still in the education stage, deconstructing the accumulation of lies and indignities — but we don’t have anything yet to say “yes” to, we don’t have an Alliance to join. I don’t, at least. (What rattles around my brain are (a) leave the U.S. immediately for just about anywhere or (b) cash out and buy five acres on the California coast and quadruple my gardening output.)

    You get what I’m saying? People around me understand what’s going on, and some would withdraw support of the system in a heart beat — if only there were an Alliance to join after they walk away from their corporate or government job.

    Comment by Paul — July 28, 2011 @ 12:48 am

    • Building that movement which provides the Alliance to join and the actions to undertake is our task. (By contrast, Goodwyn considered the evidence to prove that forming an alternative party with any chance of sustaining itself as a real alternative can only be done on a strong movement foundation. It’s Movement and Action first, electoral politics second. You can gauge how childish and indelibly elitist many of our “activists” are by their flat-earth obsession with “third party” as the only possible goal, to be built Right Now, on sand.)

      I don’t think there’s anywhere on earth to go. You’d just find the same struggle. On the other hand if you could expand your farming, and in the process help build food relocalization structures, it would be a good step.

      Comment by Russ — July 28, 2011 @ 2:54 am

  5. indonesia is the most corruptive nation in the universe . they accept and practize kleptocracy intentionaly even in religion institution .

    Comment by buddy — August 19, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

  6. […] on its own and therefore unable to sustain itself? We already saw the many ways in which kleptocracy fails to look to its own base, and indeed liquidates it.) On the other hand, is the fact that the system is starting to attempt to impose forced markets […]

    Pingback by Democracy vs. Consumerism, Movement vs. Movement « Volatility — August 21, 2011 @ 2:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: