heterochromatic—Yes.

heterochromatic—The question is which way the profit motive would push.  History is not silent on this question.  One might look at Roman mining and shipping practices in the ancient world, at the 18th-century British West Indies, or the use of slave labor, and the fate of the slaves, under Nazi Germany for an answer.

Wealth is created by “human activity”, be it physical or intellectual.

We lose most of the time because we (workers) are only guests in someone else’s game. How can one collectively bargain when the human beings on the other side reduce one of your most valuable assets (your labor) to the level of the cost on a balance sheet?  If democracy provides a desirable model for society in general, why is it not practiced more in the free-market?

Cooperatives like the Mondragon Corporation in Spain may serve as a basic model in creating a more democratic free market.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/14/1026374/-Mondragon-a-possible-way-out?via=blog_744899

gerard—-is there supposed to be a connection between
privately-run prisons and prisons being humane?

Please go to:

http://occupywallst.org/article/f18-international-day-action-we-are-all-greeks-now/

and cruise around. Find information on OWS action to de-privatize prisons and do away with dehumanization behind bars

and on other #OWS actions nationwide

Hey, it’s a brand.

“This caught us completely by surprise,” said Bill Csapo, an activist affiliated with the Campaign to Occupy Wall Street in New York. “I don’t think any of us would agree that a super PAC is the right way to go.”

“communications for the the campaign, said he has contacted Thornton to change the name of the Occupy super PAC or else disassemble it completely. “Thornton has no connection whatsoever to Occupy Wall Street or the New York General Assembly,” insisted Csapo.”
—from a report by John Hudson in The Atlantic Wire

@vector56 or they could follow the lead of our actual neighbors across the border: Form new, radical political movements to win elections while keeping the street movements intact to apply pressure when needed. Spain is a disastrous example, the “indignados” huffed and puffed without any organized, clear alternatives and now the ultra right-wing won the elections.

Well, it seems that this idea has absolutely no backing from Occupy Wall Street and the guy who
started it has no connection to the movement and is not known among them. Denials and refusals can be found at:

//www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/02/occupy-organizers-call-super-pac-change-name-or-disassemble/48869/

and elsewhere.  Look around.

An interesting, if false when spelled out, take on
super-pacs was revealed this morn when a campaign
worker for Rick S. said that there was absolutely no
connection between the people who donate to super-
pacs and the candidate.

Specifically, he was asked to comment on the aspirin-
between-the-knees guy by a funder of Rick’s campaign.
Does that mean that the ‘funder’ in this case is
throwing his money down an empty rat-hole in that
Rick has no intention of reciprocating the favor? 
What a waste of money if so.

I am not sure of Thornton’s motives, but at some point the Occupy Movement is going to have to “have a bowel movement or get off the pot!”

If the so-called 99% want to change the way our political system works, they will need to directly engage that system. 

A parallel strategy might be to form “Cooperatives” like those of the Mongragon Corporation (Spain);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Socialism within a corporate shell.

and I’m glad that you’re not one of them what’s telling
OWS to take it to the mattresses.

had you said “always eschew investment opportunities
usurious”

I would have said, sometimes “why?”

I

What, was OWS supposed to eschew usury?

The police wouldn’t let them keep mattresses in the park, so they couldn’t use them to stuff all their piles of money in.  That’s the problem.

I think besides a SuperPAC they could consider a mutual fund.

But anyway, thanks for giving me an opportunity to say ‘eschew’.  My day has not been entirely wasted.

heterochromatic: Just why the 99% should trust any particular new so-called “99%-PAC” is of course quite a question. Who would choose ITS purposes? But assuming the 99% DID trust it and did fund it, it could receive money from anyone, even BIG-BANKSs, BIG-OIL, etc.,  and m/billionaires. Why not? The issue is not the source of funds but the CONTROL of spending the funds and the political decisions about which candidates to back.

and if the OWS superpac is backing a candidate likely
to win and wield influence, it’ll draw big chunks of
money from Wall Street firms.

just like a lot of the money donated to OWS in NYC got
put in an interest-bearing account.

Well, the movement is officially dead if this becomes the norm. Wasn’t OWS a rebuke of the current political system? OWS, another victim of postmodernist fantastical thinking.

Hmm, $5 per person for 99% of Americans (or $10 for 25%) would be a big chunk-of-change. Would THIS PAC understand banking law enough to REALLY and VALUABLY oppose BIG-BANKS?  would it understand BIG-OIL’s regulatory and tax breaks well enough to REALLY and VALUABLY oppose them?

Etc.  Hope so. He can have my $10.