If a person takes a critical look at society today and its dominant institutions and is honest about what they see, it will be the following:

1. Large corporations are increasingly pushing out small businesses.

2. Large corporations have a somewhat standardized mode of operation.

3. There is little to no effort within these corporations by the workers to unionize.

4. The individual, within the corporation, has very little chance of getting a fair wage and benefits without collective bargaining.

5. The individual, within the corporation, has very little chance of being promoted if they have pro-worker proclivities.

6. The standard method of unionization is not working.

7. The standard method of unionization is not working is because of worker intimidation and the fact that there's an inordinate burden placed on individuals or small factions whom are easy to clear from the ranks, effectively eradicating the threat.

8. Unions are far too conservative and lack the creativity, vitality, and ingenuity we need from them.

9. Corporations and private businesses alike provide monetary support for political candidates who favor a for-profit foreign policy and a militarized role of government at the expense of social welfare programs at home that favor and liberate workers.

10. The many smaller hierarchies (businesses) are propping up the larger hierarchy (the state) and the larger hierarchy is propping up the smaller hierarchies.

11. Unions provide monetary support for political candidates who claim to favor a non-profit, diplomacy-based foreign policy and a de-militarized role of government in favor of social welfare programs at home that favor and liberate workers.

12. Candidates backed by unions are more loyal to businesses and corporations than they are to unions and workers.

13. The reason for this is that the business lobby has the most money and also because -- unlike unions -- it's very organized, particularly in the establishment of Chambers of Commerce.

If industry represents a battlefield, then "organized" labor represents an army which has incurred many consecutive defeats and, as a result, is no longer seen as a threat. Organized labor has become stiff and rigid and torpid. The current method of unionizing workers must be abandoned in favor of a more inspired one.

If it were really warfare, continuing a method that hasn't been working would be out of the question as it would be too costly in human lives. Indeed, so is this one. Often, a smaller, battered army will resort to guerrilla tactics. It suffices to say that this is what we're doing now, metaphorically-speaking. We're not really constituting an existential threat to the established order. We're just kind of being annoying. This is obviously no victory plan. We're just trying to stay alive as a recognizable movement.

Another metaphor does, on the other hand, represent a victory plan. And that is the metaphor of maneuver warfare.

Currently, we are spreading out our "army" and operating in the shadows. We're fighting individual battles wherein we're always the underdog and relying on the probability that we'll win at least a few of them. But, this way, it's all but assured we'll lose more battles than we'll win and we continue to lose "soldiers" and waste resources.

In order to win, we must put more emphasis on each individual battle and take them one at a time. We must choose our battles wisely. We must come together as one solidified entity and "attack" key positions together. In such a battle, we will NOT be the underdog. They will be at the disadvantage. We will overwhelm them. We will bombard them will artillery. And, ultimately, we will capture that position and it will be a symbolic, statement victory; a morale-boosting victory. This is -- as psychologists have shown -- how the downtrodden are empowered. And we will gain strength because of it. Then we can use that new strength and momentum to capture other positions (again, one at a time). And so on and so forth; moving as one, unified army; never splitting up, never fracturing. Just infiltrating and sweeping across "enemy" territory, ultimately leading up to one, final, deciding battle that will determine the war in either our or their favor. And one could argue that we would have the advantage; being battle-worn and impassioned soldiers.

This is using maneuver warfare as a metaphor for the de-centralization of private Feudalism.

Not only do we unionize the workers, but we democratize corporate governments, further insuring they will be agents that represent the interests of the employees, not preserving them as Feudal dictatorships. You don't take positions on the battlefield in order to leave them in the hands of the enemy, only to see them take back everything you've fought for. You take the position, and you make it your own. Or, at the very least, half your own.

This, you could argue, was the mistake of previous labor movements. They organized without democratizing. If this kind of talk scares your traditional American sensibilities, consider this quote from Marjorie Kelly:

"Calls for economic democracy may be painted as anti-business, but that's a bit like painting George Washington as anti-government."

I want to stress that this is no minor situation. Large amounts of money are at stake in this and the rest of many peoples' lives are, too. It has to be taken seriously by us because it is assured that it will be taken seriously by the opposition. Whether people organize or not will decide the quality of the rest of all our lives. And maybe our deaths. A victory for labor anywhere is a victory for laborers everywhere. We do represent a unified force. As business operates this way, so should we. Right now, we don't.

Our jobs often deprive us of an avenue for our passion and ingenuity. We're terrorized almost to the point of insanity by the stifling drudgery and formality. This spills over into other spheres of life. And people continually ask why. It goes unarticulated; unexpressed. The labor movement is that missing avenue. The workplace, more often than not, represents a closed society where candid self-expression is opposed and suppressed, even by those who stand to benefit from it most. We don't have the strength in us to fight a personal revolution. The system is designed to prevent it.

And one need not see labor activism as distinct from anti-war activism or environmental activism or the like. As I said before, business interests and militarization go hand in hand. Labor interests strive for de-militarization and dissolution of concentrated power. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, one might say pro-business is pro-war, while pro-labor is pro-peace. Sure, there's nuance, but ultimately it represents a fundamental truth. This is the case because democracy removes the results of personal whimsy from the equation. One person, or one small group of people -- investors, for example -- is more likely to declare or support war than many people are.

In fact, labor activism may be the most productive avenue for anti-war activists to take, as it goes after the money supply of those who support an aggressive, for-profit foreign policy; knowingly or unknowingly. Likewise, labor activism may be the most productive avenue for environmental activists to take, as it goes after the money supply of those who support a selfish, for-profit environmental policy. Would a democratically-run corporation have instigated and refused to be held accountable for the Bhopal disaster? For Exxon-Valdez? For the spill of 14,000 gallons of oil into the Ecuadorian Amazon? Would it oppose climate change legislation? Many people are calling for economic democracy. I'm convinced it's soon to reach a fever pitch.

Taking a garrison means changing its many destructive policies. As history shows us, maneuver warfare has the power to defeat empires. With the fall of Constantinople, the Roman Empire collapsed. As former "economic hitman" John Perkins says, other countries are powerless to stop the aggression of the all-mighty American Empire. We have to stop its destructive practices from the inside. And, he says, this means economic democracy.

The pyramid must fall, and together we can take it down.

To seize a stronghold, we bombard a company's workers with propaganda (for lack of a better word). Propaganda, as many have shown, is not always deceptive. It's often honest.

We need a whole new canon of tactics and names to go along with them. If they are a call center, we flood the phone lines. If they are a big box store, we swarm it and buy single items and crowd the check-out lines. It will be economically debilitating and impossible to guard against. There will be no way to distinguish between us and regular customers. It can go on as long as it needs to. We can ask workers for assistance and talk to them about joining a union. We tell them we've talked to all their co-workers and tell them their co-workers want to unionize. We don't let up until they at least vote on a union. We don't pressure them to join any particular union. Such is against our principles and is counter-productive. We just want them to get the chance to unionize. And once they do, we recruit as many of them as possible to help us with the next one, thus growing our ranks systematically as time goes on. They will bring an essential perspective; knowing what it's like to be on the other side of the scenario. They'll have pointers and good advice and more relatability. They'll be better recruiters. This will give us new strength. This will build and build and soon we'll be humming along, winning battles easily. We'll have perfected the method.

We also want to provide certain services to these workers once we're established and able to; benefits that were denied to them for so long like financial services, counseling, family planning services, career training, and possibly loans through a mutual bank. It will give people an incentive to join us and will strengthen and unite our fractured communities. It will constitute the social safety net that our society today lacks.

And, most important of all, we will be democratic. Not just superficially democratic, but truly democratic. It will be inclusive, deliberative, and direct; voting on as many things as possible via referendum, whose language is decided upon by randomly-selected members after intensive deliberation. Positions within the organization will be decided the same way; deliberated-upon and then voted upon. Democracy shouldn't only be used for official state functions. It should be used in as many places as possible in our society.

We won't be a union. We will be a federated network called the Chamber of Labor, much like (and much unlike) the Chamber of Commerce. Each city will have its own branch, to be set up one by one, as progress allows. (Austria, it seems, already has these.) It will collect dues from unions, from willing unionized workers, and will take contributions from un-unionized workers, as well. It will be the responsibility of each city to maintain their individual branch, but one should not be left out in the cold if it needs help. Overarching policies will be decided democratically. They will be the go-to place for all things labor. In America, we don't have the Ghent system. We have government agencies that distribute unemployment insurance, thus allowing unionization to remain low. These agencies help people find jobs and are supposed to suffice as a go-to place for workers, but they don't. They're the result of legislation passed by a corporately-owned government, and as a result they reflect corporate values, not community ones.

The Chamber of Labor will be the central vehicle for mobilizing forces in a given area. It won't be a government agency; but it may be an interest group that will lobby the government for labor-friendly policies. Membership will be confidential and meetings will be optional. It will be made as worker-friendly as possible. We all know that many workers work long hours at jobs that tire them out and disallow them to do much outside of work. Therefore, systems will be in place to accomodate these people. They will have access to all the information about progress, voting, new developments, and various other activities. It will be organized on the principle of one person, one vote. Votes will not be weighted by how much a person participates or contributes financially. Members, upon joining, should be made to understand this. As a progressive institution, we must all acknowledge that all people are created equal regardless of wealth, health, race, sex, heritage, personality, or sexual orientation.

The Chamber is likely to have a complicated relationship with the government. The government can be said to be a neutral body, with potential to be influenced by different interests. One would expect to find us opposing it from time to time, when interests other than our own control it. And vice-versa. But what must be preserved at all times is the Chamber's independence. It is not a government agency and it never should be, though it should strive to comply with all federal, state, and local laws.

The Chamber of Labor will be a democracy existing within a larger democracy. This should make for an interesting dynamic. We hope to see all businesses and unions implement democratic mechanisms so that our entire society is but a large, interconnected web of independent and interrelating democracies.

That there has been no uniting force in the labor movement is truly baffling. It has been the subject of much conversation, but very little effective action. All unions have common interests, just like all businesses have common interests. We've sort of been caught napping, as an army. We've been confronted with superior weaponry, in a sense; superior planning.

Disorganized labor has withered in the face of organized commerce.

It's like a city that doesn't have a central government in a fight against a city that does. The city without the central government would be no match. Just like we haven't been one. So that's what we want to do: we want to be a match. We don't think we should be under siege to begin with, but there's no mistaking the fact that we are. If their flag has on it a rattlesnake and the motto "don’t tread on me", then our flag has on it a mongoose and the motto "don’t tread on them".

So let this be a call for a new strategy in the labor movement; a new philosophy. We'll use maneuver warfare as a metaphor for the de-centralization of private Feudalism. We must, therefore, study maneuver warfare. We must strive to be experts on the subject, for through metaphors it will continually provide us guidance. History is apt to be laden with hints and ideas that can aid us in our efforts. We know what the plan is. The only thing left to be answered is "how?". The element of surprise is important, but not a must. There are many other weaknesses we can exploit. Through continued study and continued deliberation, they will be revealed. Private Feudalism, as a model, as expressed earlier, represents a closed society, just like state Feudalism often did. This is a dark and oppressive form for industry to take. We posit that it has worn out its welcome.

All humans are created equal regardless of wealth, health, race, sex, heritage, personality, or sexual orientation and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. These rights don't vanish when you enter the workplace. They should stay fully intact and any infringement upon these rights we consider an egregious offense, intolerable in the realest sense.

It seems almost the consensus that we are at the end of an era. What this growing movement represents is nothing less than a Second Enlightenment. It is a questioning of the underlying governing principles of private government. We need a cast of characters of the same quality and charisma as in the first. The thinking and the doing will happen concurrently, as before. We have more to go on this time, but there's still more to figure out. We must reject the divine right of capital and embrace the concept of fundamental worker rights. So, we must also, therefore, study The Enlightenment. We must strive to be experts on the subject, for through metaphors it will continually provide us guidance. History is apt to be laden with hints and ideas that can aid us in our efforts. We know what the aim is. The only thing left to be answered is "what?". What are the flaws of the underlying governing principles?

Being granted with what rights in the workplace we have now is comparable to what progress was made by generations prior to The Enlightenment. You could say what we work in are comparable to private constitutional monarchies. The Age of Enlightenment is when the light finally became bright enough (and people rational enough) to show (and acknowledge) all the flaws in the underlying governing principles. Perhaps we've been through a Second Renaissance already and perhaps the Second Enlightenment has already begun. These things can be debated. Maybe it's different for different people. But I think we have, and that this is the age when the light will finally become bright enough (and people rational enough) to show (and acknowledge) all the flaws in the underlying governing principles of private Feudal government. But, most importantly, we must realize that, like the 18th Century, this is a time of action; an age of thought an action coinciding.

Today, we are used to a kind of inactivism; of thought and action. I posit that this is the result of our ignorance. We've been roundly indulgent and distracted; lost without a map. We didn't know that there's farther to go; more to figure out; more possibilities; something different to do. So that will change as we pick up momentum over the next few years.

We're at the end of an era. The baby boomers generation is winding down and a new one is becoming the hegemon. The full extent of private Feudal abuses seems to be coming into view. We seem to be recognizing a larger historical trend. The drugs are wearing off. The spell is ending. Greater access to information is leading more and more people to information some people would rather you didn't see. More important is the way we're starting to interpret that information. We've been living our lives as though certain events didn't happen. Now that we know they did, we're shifting our understanding of the world to factor that reality in. Lesser access to information and the centralization of its dissemination is what allowed these things to take place to begin with, so old practices are meeting with a new paradigm and those old practices are like cockroaches scampering to avoid the light.

We don't like what we see. That's why those who wish to stay in the dark (or wish for the errancy of the underlying governing principles to stay in the dark) seek to re-centralize the dissemination of information by destroying net neutrality. But there's already strong resistance to those efforts; both economic and social. The blindfold has been lifted for long enough that there's no way we'll let someone put it back over our eyes. Our eyes are already used to a certain level of light.

A network of Freemasonic lodges proliferated in the First Enlightenment that allowed freedom of thought and planning to take place. For us, it will be a federated network of democratic institutions called the Chamber of Labor. That's where we'll come together and coordinate our attacks, like a broken and scattered army cautiously coming out of the woods and re-convening.

Yes, it's OK to come out now. Let's come together and try this again. This time, a little differently.