Like u/thedignityofstruggle, I've been toying with the idea of starting a fitness collective/cooperative once I've paid off my debts.

r/bodyweightfitness is very good. They have a routine linked in the sidebar.

r/fitness also suggests the 666 bodyweight fitness routine

The most important part of physical fitness is nutrition. Eat more. More calories = more mass. If you're exercising, that mass becomes muscle, if you're not exercising, it becomes fat. And if you want to lose fat, eat less calories while exercising. If you're losing weight, you won't gain much in the way of muscle, but working out will help to preserve what muscle mass you have while dieting. There are calorie calculators you can google to find how much you should be eating based on your level of activity and what goals you have.

Eat healthy. Eat more vegetables and some fruit, make them a part of every meal. You don't have to be a vegan or vegetarian, although there are a lot of health and environmental benefits to a vegan diet, but Americans in particular need to eat more vegetables. If you eat meat, try to make it lean meat and in general, avoid red meat. Google is your friend for finding recipes.

I know you said you want to avoid gyms, but lifting weights is one of the best ways to strengthen muscles. Starting Strength is a routine that I use and it works really well for me. I used to think weight lifting was for big, dumb meatheads until I gave it a try and loved it. I've tried both bodyweight exercise routines and barbell exercise routines and I got much stronger and leaner much more quickly through weight lifting. (But maybe that's just me) Also, weight lifting won't turn you into a giant, muscle-bound ape. The people who look like that are either genetically inclined to gain lots of muscle mass, doping on steroids, or have been working out for years and years with a very strict diet. Regular people like you and me will get strong and put on some muscle, but it won't turn you into Mr. or Ms. Olympia.

r/fitness has much more to choose from in the sidebar for bodyweight and other fitness routines. Regardless of what you decide, the most important part of your workout is the warmup. Warming up before you start your workout prevents injury. Always do it. Warmup is very simple, just do your workout at half intensity. Plan on doing 3 sets of 10 pushups? Do a couple pushups before hand. Plan on running sprints? Jog and do some high-knees before hand. Cooldown by stretching after you've finished your workout to help prevent soreness, stiffness, and probably injuries.

Bicycling, swimming, martial arts, rock climbing, and soccer are all fantastic activities as well. Yoga isn't just for sorority girls either, it's a great way to increase flexibility and strength.

As for not getting hurt while exercising, this may sound weird, but listen to your body. If you feel a weird tweak or pain that doesn't feel like muscle soreness but something else, take a break. When you first start exercising, start slowly and progress your way up gradually to more strenuous activity. Depending on where you're starting, it will take months if not years to get into the level of fitness you want to achieve, so enjoy the journey. The first few days in particular will be difficult as your body gets used to the new work load it's being asked to perform, but it's just temporary. Remember to start slowly and ease into it.

They were probably referring to the wikipedia page on Employee Democracy which refers to the Employee Ownership Act of 1999.

> Every bit of evidence that exists (there isn't much) seems to show, for example, that workers' control increases efficiency...

It seems intuitive that workers would be more motivated to play a more active role in a company that they had a direct stake in, and such a company may very well be more efficient and streamlined as well, as well as having the ability to attract greater talent with higher wages and greater labor protections than their traditional counterparts. That's why I would definitely like to see them co-exist, as sort of a experiment or trial. I'm not sure that I would support trying to subsidize one type of business or another, but it's interesting that Ron Paul supported that bill, it surprised me too.


On a related note, there's an interesting book called The Box that tells the story of the shipping container. What an idiotic inefficient absurd idea, right? Everything gets shipped in the box: If you have box-shaped things, they go in the box. If you have motorcycle-shaped things, those go in the box too. It was obvious to everyone that it was a terribly inefficient idea, and yet accepting the inefficiency of standardization led to far greater efficiency. And history is rife with such examples of where people had educated guesses at best as to what would work best, and sometimes the counterintuitive option won out.

I honestly don't know whether traditional business models or worker-owned collectives would fare better. I'd like to see them both co-exist to give people options.

(Sorry for the delay in responding, I have been pretty sick lately)

I would say that there is quite a lot of effort, but then again I am really enmeshed in the literature so my view of it is totally skewed. Still, as far as medieval research goes, peasant studies is one of the more vibrant and active areas of research.

That being said, the leftist viewpoint that I apply to it is not necessarily the default for the field. For example, my advisor (who is an incredible scholar), is definitely an economic Liberal in the traditional vein of things. He writes about the expansion of markets and how family economic units interacted with them to better their own lifestyle.

While I don't find fault in either his research or his conclusions (there was definitely a rapid expansion of monetary circulation in the 11th century onward which had a direct and noticeable impact on the wellbeing of England's peasants), I disagree with him on the way he frames the debate.

For example, during my oral exams (a test where I was grilled by a panel of scholars about my field; it was a machine gun fire of really in-depth questions), I got into a really heated, yet friendly, debate with my advisor over whether we could call the king's courts "public" or not.

He kept calling Charlemagne's court system "public," as opposed to the "private" jurisdiction of lords. I vehemently opposed him on this point, because to me just because Charlemagne said he had public legitimacy for his court system did not give him claim to it. This argument was rooted in the fact that we have different definitions of what constitutes public and private, and whether public institutions can be imposed via fiat.

Obviously, I (and I'm guessing those in this sub-reddit) would argue that it is impossible. He disagreed.

So, while he has a very real interest in peasants and peasant history, he approaches it from a dramatically different lens than I do.

His own advisor (Ambrose Raftis), for example, revolutionized our field by introducing liberal economics into the discussion. This counter-acted the Marxist scholarship that had dominated the field following the works of Rodney Hilton.

Subsequent to Raftis' work, which was truly breathtaking in its scope, the more Leftist and Marxist wing had to readjust their own arguments. Although he remained a steadfast Marxist Hilton himself published articles that were clearly influenced by Raftis' works in his waning years.

Hilton's most influential student, Chris Dyer, took Hilton's work and Raftis' work and synthesized them into a truly Peasant-centered, Marxist-informed, yet not-Marxist constricted, view of history. If you want to learn more I HIGHLY recommend checking out Making a Living in the Middle Ages. It is a scholarly book, but I think it is amazing.

In addition to my advisor and Dyer, there are a slew of other people working on peasants. Some of it approaches the question from a decidedly liberal viewpoint, while some of it is still influenced by the Marxist tradition left behind by Hilton. At present, there is a push (by myself and others) to synthesize these viewpoints and bring the viewpoints of the peasants to the forefront of the discussion. Basically - what did they think and how did those thoughts influence their decisions?

It's a REALLY hard question to answer, but I think it's worth asking.

tl;dr:

Yes, but it's complicated.

>That's a rather simplistic, and incorrect, view of both animals - who can behave in a manner where they "only care about themselves", but can also live in a much more cooperative setting, depending on the species, and humans; pre-agricultural humans weren't busy "defending property".

Again you are completely misunderstanding what I am stating here. Human beings had to work with non-kin to become "human". That's in fact what separates us from animals and made us capable of becoming greater. So that's really the birth of human species. Read this book if you actually want to learn it. It is well researched and makes the detailed argument for it. I am not going to be able to simplify and say whats in it with a paragraph, because there is a lot you need to know about human beings to understand why that is and how that came to be. It is not "selfishness" as in caring for themselves (although Western societies are leaning to that even worse extreme), but rather the idea of only caring for kinship. Seriously do look into the kin selection and Hamilton's rule on wiki. These are not ideas that I am just making up, but actually ideas that are well supported and studied in biology.

>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7269/full/nature08366.html http://www.pnas.org/content/104/19/7786.full.pdf

Quote from your first source that supposedly refutes my claims, but doesn't:
>Firm evidence of reciprocity in animal societies is rare and many examples of cooperation between non-kin probably represent cases of intra-specific mutualism or manipulation.

The second study you shared is more interesting. However, the reason why it is that way, is different from what you think.

>Although rhesus macaque and baboon females bias their behavior significantly more to their paternal sisters than to nonrelatives, such biases are not nearly as strong as those displayed toward
maternal sisters (21–24)

The primates tend to only have stronger kinship bias towards maternal brothers, over paternal brothers. This is because they are not good at identifying them:
>This point, our finding that male
chimpanzees do not preferentially interact with their paternal
brothers, and the lack of a reliable paternal sibling identification
mechanism in primates suggest that paternal kin effects may
arise as a byproduct of individuals maximizing their own fitness
by cooperating with age mates, who only sometimes happen to
be paternal siblings. [...] A second potential explanation is that male chimpanzees do not preferentially cooperate with their paternal brothers because they cannot reliably recognize them.

So now the test they did to support the idea that they are equally likely to cooperate with kin and non-kin, is based on the paternal brothers, rather than maternal brothers. Because they already know that primates prefer to care for maternal brothers as they are able to recognize them due to kinship.
>To determine the extent to which indirect and direct benefits
influence patterns of affiliation and cooperation among male
chimpanzees, we examined the number of related and unrelated
pairs that engaged in each of the six social behaviors more than
expected by chance. [...] Because chimpanzees can presumably readily identify
their maternal siblings (13), we excluded the 12 maternal sibling
dyads from this analysis.

That being said, I am a supporter of evolution. So if primates show rare signs of behavior that helped make human species great, then that's not surprising. In fact that is to be expected and only supports the theory of evolution, and my explanation of history.

I do appreciate you using science to debate back though.

>No, I'm posting a reference to a very long, very detailed, very well-researched book from an anthropologist that says that the "conventional wisdom" story told by historians that money replaced barter has no supporting evidence, while there is a lot of evidence to support his counter-claim.

So you are supposedly making the claim that "conventional wisdom" story told my historians has no supporting evidence? You do know that we are living in the 21st century and that we do take history more seriously than just believe some story with no supporting evidence as one of the main historical foundations of civilization right? This is just not a strong argument frankly. You can't say that historians are all completely wrong, because this guy selling this book, says otherwise. That's 1 guy against a whole field. To claim that that field doesn't care about evidence in making up their stories, is just a ridiculous claim and I think any historian would be appalled by that accusation.

Taoism is based on the writings of the Eastern philosopher Lao Tzu.


Taoism is generally more focused with nature, mankind, politics, and this life. It is all about balance and going with the flow of things. Buddhism is laid out pretty clear with lists of truths and specific steps towards enlightenment. Taoism is much more enigmatic and isn't trying to get you to an afterlife. The 'goal' of Taoism is harmony with nature and the world around us, awareness of the present moment, and going with the flow. The goal of Buddhism is self annihilation and total detachment by reaching nirvana.

Taoism is not really a religion but a way of life. Many folk religions in East Asia have syncretistically blended with Taoism, but Taoism(like Buddhism) is generally apatheistic... meaning the existence of a God is irrelevant to the practitioner.



An interesting note as to how taoism and buddhism relate to anarchism. Taoism is unique in that it explicitly supports anarchist societies and rejects governments outright. While anarchistic principles can be derived from buddhist thought, Lao Tzu (who was an ex-govt worker) was pretty clear on government.

Some Sources For You:
http://personaltao.com/teachings/recommended-books/tao-te-ching-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
http://taoism101.freehostia.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFb7Hxva5rg


The best sources on taoism come from Lao Tzu himself. These two translations have served me well:
-http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Lao-Tzu-Ching/dp/0937064009/ref=sr_1_108?ie=UTF8&qid=1457992946&sr=8-108&keywords=tao+te+ching
-http://www.amazon.com/Way-Life-According-Laotzu/dp/0399512985/ref=sr_1_152?ie=UTF8&qid=1457993091&sr=8-152&keywords=tao+te+ching



You can also find free versions of the Tao te Ching online:
-http://www.taoism.net/ttc/complete.htm


PM if you want to discuss in depth about it and stuff. :)

you may want to check out The Anthropology of Freedom if this topic interests you.
are you free if you are born in a giant pit in the ground in which you can do anything you want to, but with no ladder to get out?
true freedom requires the scaffolding necessary to climb to your highest aspirations.
If you love playing the violin and want to become the world's best violin player, you will need someone who wants to make violins, someone who wants to chop wood to provide the violin maker with material, and a violin teacher to give you lessons. without that scaffolding you cannot be free to become the best violin player you can be. not to mention the things everyone needs to be free--freedom from violence or abuse, socialization and social relationships, food, shelter, water, etc... all of which are necessary for you to be alive and psychologically healthy enough to be able to pursue your passions and desires.
like lil wayne says:
"But they talked that freedom at us
And didn't even leave a ladder, damn"

Here's a list I'm working on:

----

Online introductions:

• The Wikipedia entry for libertarian socialism actually gives a pretty good overview.
  
  
• An Anarchist FAQ also has good material -- it is especially good at differentiating traditional anarchism from US-style libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. You will find many references to other works in the FAQ.
  
  
• /r/anarchy101 is a good place to ask questions. Check the sidebar for a list of recommended reading material.
  
  
• If you're ever looking for specific works online, always check The Anarchist Library. They've archived many (mostly shorter) works, and they're available in several formats (html, pdf, epub).
  
  Books:
  
  
• The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin. It is old, a classic, but it provides examples rather than formal/philosophic arguments so it is still quite readable and relevant today. It will give you a good idea of where modern anarchist communists are coming from.
  
  
• A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. This book is not explicitly anarchist, but it presents an accessible and scholarly picture of the way anarchists tend to view and react to the world. As the title suggests, it will be most interesting to anyone interested in the history of the USA specifically.
  
  
• A book like Paul Eltzbacher's The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers which provides an overview of the various founding philosophers is a good idea. This is another old one [1908], but one advantage of Eltzbacher is that unlike most authors of anarchist texts, he was not an anarchist himself and offers a very unbiased introduction.
  
  
• I think Peter Gelderloos writes clear introductory material. I've not read his latest (The Failure of Nonviolence), but you can read Anarchy Works online.
  
  
• It's a bit outside the main thrust of the anarchist tradition (which is often focused on class struggle), but one of my favorite books is Crispin Sartwell's Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory which provides counter arguments to several justifications for states, especially the various contract theories.
  
  Other reading guides:
  
  
• Phoenix Class War Council's Recommended Reading
  
  
• Libcom.org's reading guide

"One cannot simply choose whatever one's starting positions are arbitrarily. After all, I cannot simply say "I believe I'm the most important thing in the world, so I can justifiably steal from you or harm you for whatever purpose."

>Well why not?

If your moral theory compels you to accept an ethical proposition such as "I value myself and not others in such a way that I can (for example) permissibly torture you to death for the pleasure I derive from it" then that counts against the plausibility of your ethical theory. It's a huge bullet to bite. I'm not saying you're being inconsistent by adopting such a starting position and following through with it. But consistency isn't the only metric by which we can evaluate moral theories.



>I've not ever seen a good argument that objective, universal values exist. Or that values exist outside of our own choices at all.

I can recommend some well regarded stuff. Enoch's [Taking Morality Seriously](https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Morality-Seriously-Defense-Realism/dp/0199683174) Shafer-Landau's [Moral Realism: a Defense] (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Defence-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199280207/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CNVDTNHGJW3FHXNR8821), Oddie's [Value, Reality and Desire] (https://www.amazon.com/Value-Reality-Desire-Graham-Oddie/dp/0199562385/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496676933&sr=1-1&keywords=Value+reality+and+desire), Huemer's [Ethical Intuitionism] (https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0230573746&pd_rd_r=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ&pd_rd_w=imPRX&pd_rd_wg=uCVqd&psc=1&refRID=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ), Parfit's [On What Matters] (https://www.amazon.com/What-Matters-Three-Derek-Parfit/dp/0198778600/ref=pd_sim_14_19?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198778600&pd_rd_r=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R&pd_rd_w=Gz5f7&pd_rd_wg=Vrfn0&psc=1&refRID=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R)
Wedgwood's [The Nature of Normativity] (https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Normativity-Ralph-Wedgwood/dp/0199568197), Cuneo's [The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism] (https://www.amazon.com/Normative-Web-Argument-Moral-Realism/dp/019958138X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496678105&sr=1-6&keywords=terence+cuneo).


And here's some free papers you can read (too lazy to name them all, sorry):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Boyd5/publication/240034001_How_to_Be_a_Moral_Realist/links/556f6f4308aec226830aab09/How-to-Be-a-Moral-Realist.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/4116101/Why_Im_an_Objectivist_about_Ethics_And_Why_You_Are_Too_

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=433000088031098030104101075089022124028072042008084011092124087113084016108098084005098003032035018116033080110110127020085084106080012039033080068103113067015099089032030091083096096084064089109093065079071016028099008078093021125125068072101086002&EXT=pdf

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=207103102008006126082026003080087077015002001000090086121025066112086090029103080091030096049125038001052020081100031102121000046002046043009065006112075102115099049080048111067091106094117103109111097113120126103124079110093018090122114122112110007&EXT=pdf

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~umer/teaching/intro181/readings/shafer-Landau2005EthicsAsPhilosophyADefenseOfEthicalNonnaturalism.pdf

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1007/s11245-016-9443-7?author_access_token=R2EN7zieClp6VWWEo8DyZPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY6_LyD8T3yNLLNQUBcKQRpfV5lbirZE36eSIc6PLipzIUjIvQrTe9aO4meFw0oJ_Dp784B0R9TnA9qTFaNLe9oWPQUaroxf3o-BsITKWjp_6Q%3D%3D

http://www.owl232.net/5.htm

















>Maybe. But if so then what are these properties?

Moral realists are traditionally divided into two camps on this. Moral Naturalists take moral properties to be natural properties, and Moral Non-Naturalists take moral properties to be sui generis, irreducible, that they cannot be wholly understood in natural terms, that moral properties supervene on the natural. (This is a woefully rough outline: here's a good place to read about the difference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/. And here's an attempt to describe what non-natural moral properties are: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/INP.pdf


>And what is "good" and "bad". I've not seen a definition that doesn't just feel arbitrary.

It has been argued that it is precisely that these things cannot be defined that makes them what they are. See the non-naturalism SEP entry above in the section on Moore's Open Question Argument and this for more responses: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#OpeQueArg

>And even if it's possible to believe in objective values one way or the other - the fact is that no-one's come up with an ethical system that's so convincing everyone agrees.

True, but disagreement about x doesn't necessarily mean right answers are impossible to derive.

>And the objective fact is that at present different people have different values (and good luck trying to get them to change!)

True again, but we can test the reasons why they hold these values.


"But even slaughtering a final generation is better than breeding and slaughtering generations in perpetuity."

>I think that if we're making that decision on animals behalf, without asking them - then that's still domination.

Slaughtering them? Sure is. I'm not saying that's the best solution. Just better than what we're doing now. That's how bad it is now.


>That's the thing I can't see any relation with animals at present that isn't some kind of domination.

That's why some vegans basically want to leave them be. Other vegans will argue having pets is ok, so long as the pet is amenable to being domesticated, like dogs seem to be, and provided we can provide them with a good life. In fact, helping animals like these could be argued as being a good thing.

Other vegans will maintain that some animal use is justified, like medical experimentation. (Not all, but some.) Others will argue that even killing animals for food is justifiable, provided a person does this to survive and be healthy -- or if affordable, healthful alternatives are not readily available to them.

>We all die someday. If had to choose between getting killed at 30 or not existing at all, I'd rather die at 30.

Again, this rather misses the point. The question is, is someone justified to kill you at 30 for whatever purpose, provided they were instrumental in bringing you into existence? It doesn't seem so.

>Equally there's plenty of people who know that they're about to give birth to a child with a life threatening disability, who still choose to make that life anyway. If we don't give farm animals that same choice then we ARE treating animals differently to humans.

In this case, the parents aren't really giving that child a choice. They are making the choice to bring a child into existence. Furthermore, it doesn't seem we have an ethical obligation to bring children into existence. Perhaps it's a permissible option, but it doesn't seem to be a duty. After all, I could have a child and probably provide her a good life. But if I get a vasectomy, that doesn't make me akin to a murderer. Non-existing beings cannot make choices, and they cannot be harmed.




>I don't personally think it's a bad thing to do that. But I do think that it's not possible to come up with a plan for agriculture that doesn't involve humans making decisions on animals behalf - either slaughtering them or placing further restrictions on their freedom than they have already.

Which supports the idea that we shouldn't bring them into existence in the first place.


Edit: fixed a link. And fixed "non-natural terms" to read "natural terms".

>Im not zizek but if you wanna criticize the source you can read him or see the videos were he explains his filosofy

I know who Slavoj Žižek is.

 

I have watched a lot of his Debates and Videos on YouTube. I have watched how he "Debated" the maniacal Transphobic Misogynist Judeo-Christian Fanatic called Jordan B. Peterson.

I have read his books let me Synopsize them for you; Accordingly—

 

• "Violence." ( A very Neo-Liberal Psuedo-Hegellinistic view and description of Voilence and a bit on Heirarchy. )
  
  
• "Sex - and The Failed Absolute." ( Hegellinistic/Kantian revisionistic Interpretation of Sex-Differences represented through skewed interpretations of Films, Literature and Entertainment he uses as Examples to bring forth the Hegel/Kantian view of Sex and Gender. SIDE NOTE Kant was a very Religious Philosopher, believes in Authority and that God/Jesus is a good Ideal to follow. An Academic Theologist basically. )
  
  
• "The Sublime Object of Ideology." ( A very shitty Kantian Interpretation of Marx's defintion of Commodity and Freud's weird un-materialistic Interpretation and Opinion of what Dreams are. )
  
  
• "Less than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism." ( His justification book to Revise the words and meanings of Marx's Defintion of Materialism and Materialistic Views. )
  
  
• "The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?" ( Apologia Piece towards the Atrocities of Christianity through— you guessed it; Kantian Perspective. )
  
   
  
  Slavoj Žižek— is a Capitalist Masquerading as a Communist.
  
   
  
  He is a Modern Stain on Anarchism and Communism, he believes in a lot of ways - that the Revolution will never happen and because he is Depressed he Actively writes Psuedo-Communist Revisionist Literature to discourage Revolution.
  
   
  
  Why do you think he is so popular, so free to "Debate" people, why the Media Corporations aren't trying to Damage his reputation? Not trying to deplatform him? It is because the Capitalist-Class, States/Militaries around the world and Religious Figures aren't afraid of him— because in his works he has never wrote directly against nor outright discouraged Capitalism.
  
  He is a hack, and a Disengenueous Revisionist towards the cause and goal of Cummunism- which is Anarchism. Anarchism is the end Goal of Communism, Communism is just Karl-Marx's "How to" Guide to Achieve Anarchism.
  
   
  
  I've read a lot of Theory on Anarchism and Communism. I'm an Active Anarchist in my part of the World-( Which I will not expose for Safety reasons ) somewhat succeeding in Communal Living.
  
   
  
  If you want real Scientists and Philosphers' views on Anarchism and Communism read Pëtr Kropotkin's—
  
  
• "Conquest of Bread"
  
  
• "Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal"
  
  
• "Scientific Evolutionary Principles of Anarchism & Co-operation based on Darwin's Evolutionary Theory."
  
   
  
  Albert Einstein's—
  
  
• "Why Socialism".
  
   
  
  Read Karl Marx as well— so that you don't fall for bullshit Revisionists of the Modern Times like Slavoj Žižek.
  
   
  
   
  
  

  EDIT:
  

  
  >And the guys on top dont really wanna control you they just dont want to lose their power
  
  Are you even an Anarchist? I don't think you have any Idea what Power is. You have a very Childish view of Power.
  
   
  
  How does one protect Power? Maintain it? How do Dictators, Kings, Queens, The Pope - Politicians protect their Power? Hm? Do you know the Dynamics of "Power"?
  
  I don't think you do, going by your— description... if we can even call it that.
  
  Do you know the Definition of Control? Please educate yourself before you try to talk about things you don't really understand.

That's not true. He was referring to people like Heidegger and Paul de Man, left wing European intellectuals who were nazis and then became heroes to the new left and post modernists. Insinuating that anybody you disagree with is an anti semite or racist is a stalinist tactic of ziofascist neocons and establishment liberals. Richard Wolin has written about the phenonomena of nihilist, anti enlightenment, anti capitalist, and anti science romanticist European intellectuals who were first nazis and then whose ideas were supported in America by post modernists.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Seduction-Unreason-Intellectual-Postmodernism/dp/0691125996

http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668152&sr=1-1&keywords=stephen+hicks

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction-Literature-Criticism-after-Auschwitz/dp/0874515661/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668256&sr=1-6&keywords=david+hirsch

http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Enlightenment-Tradition-Zeev-Sternhell/dp/0300135548/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668499&sr=1-3&keywords=zeev+sternhell

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The two intellectual movements Molyneux was referring to. Supported by European intellectuals like Herder, Heidegger, and Fichte.

I have a book about him and UATWMF and Black Mask, it's super interesting, it's a collection of texts, I highly recommend people read it.

Edit: Here it is!

OK I've been looking up left fascism and this is really fascinating.

This book especially:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Seduction-Unreason-Intellectual-Postmodernism/dp/0691125996

I have a few you might be interested in:

Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord

Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky
The footnotes to Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky

Foundation by Isaac Asimov This book will bring up many interesting discussions on power systems, for a discussion group I would recommend just reading the first book in the series and discussing the themes.

The Mexican Revolution by Alan Knight

Dreams of Freedom : A Ricardo Flores Magon Reader

Stone Age Economics by Marshall Sahlins

The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

Fragments of Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber

[Zapatista Reader] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Zapatista-Reader-Nation-Books/dp/1560253355)

Our Word is Our Weapon

The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy

Government is Violence by Leo Tolstoy

That's as much as I can remember, but my recommendations are bias towards my interests.

Sure.

Jacques Ellul, of Propaganda and The Technological Society, was a Christian anarchist. His most famous book on that field is Anarchy and Christianity which I believe is the best in the works. (http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Christianity-Jacques-Ellul/dp/1606089714)

For a classic, there's Leo Tolstoy's "Government is Violence" (http://www.amazon.com/Government-Is-Violence-Leo-Tolstoy/dp/0948984155)

And for a current group, there's "Jesus Radicals" (http://www.jesusradicals.com/) They have conferences, essays, but lately have moved very supportive of primitivism.


(Sorry for the Amazon links, but I'm lazy to find another copy, shop around. AKPREss and the like have bulk buying programs for them I believe)

• “A Mathematician's Lament: How School Cheats Us Out of Our Most Fascinating and Imaginative Art Form,” by Paul Lockhart.
  
• “The Teenage Liberation Handbook: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and Education,” by Grace Llewellyn.
  
• “The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition,” by Don Norman.
  
• “Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder,” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
  
• “The Language Construction Kit,” by Mark Rosenfelder.

I'm a part-time babysitter and I believe raising a child right can be one of the most revolutionary things one can do in this world. Two books I'd recommend
Unconditional Parenting Alfie Kohn is a radical in his field, I would pay no attention to almost any other book on parenting than this one.

And for when they're a little older: The Teenage Liberation Handbook This book is written towards teenagers, but i recommend you check it out too. Mostly about unschooling and general hierarchy challenges.

David Graeber has written about how Occupy Wall Street was organized along "horizontal" lines, where power was not distributed in a top-down manner. Anthropologists have done much research on societies that are not governed along capitalist lines. Both of these facts can be easily verified by googling the appropriate question.

Murray Bookchin, whose writings and ideas synthesized anarchism and ecology, traced the origins of domination and hierarchical relationships to an economy of material scarcity. He argues that due to scientific change and technological development, society has moved to a stage beyond scarcity. Thus, he writes that we do not need to impose hierarchy and exploitation in order to live. I am unable to write on his ideas in detail, but I would recommend reading his books.

http://www.amazon.com/Post-Scarcity-Anarchism-Working-Classics-Bookchin/dp/1904859062
http://www.amazon.com/Remaking-Society-Pathways-Green-Future/dp/0896083721/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371996581&sr=1-2&keywords=remaking+society