Forum Post: How do we come to a consensus?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 7, 2011, 10:42 p.m. EST by GammaPoint
(400)
from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Most of the posts in this forum, and our portrayal in the media, is that of a group that has no clear goals and demands. And this is with good reason. We don't. Of course, we're all united in the anger of the 1% of America that owns 40% of the wealth, that manipulates our government and makes it so that our government is no longer a government of/by/for the people, the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk,etc.
But how to we suggest to fix these problems? What do we demand? That is what we need to determine, and the sooner this comes into focus the better. The sooner we do it the sooner we'll be able to recruit the support of others.
So how should we come to a consensus? As a grassroots, bottom-up type of movement, we don't have a leader to simply tell us what to do. We have to decide among ourselves. And this involves talking to each other. These forums (and other forums) are great, but they aren't giving us enough clarity and don't allow for enough back and forth in-depth discussion that is needed to come to a consensus. So what do we do? I think the key is for us to form small discussion groups. These discussion groups could be physical (like at an actual occupation) or they could be on the web (an IRC chat, some forum somewhere, new anonymous email addresses, etc.). The point of these small groups would be to carefully discuss the issues and attempt coming to a consensus. Once consensus is met, the members disperse and seek out other small discussion groups. The person going into the 2nd discussion group argues from the position of the group that they came to consensus with in the first "round", although they could quite possibly be swayed by the arguments of those in the second group. This should occur indefinitely until enough consensus is reached that our movement begins to be represented by whichever goal seemed to be the "best" by the greatest number of people.
Q&A:
Q: This is stupid. A: Really? I can't think of a better idea. If you can please tell, seriously.
Q: How will the opinions formed by consensus start representing the movement? A: As you become convinced of a strategy and set of demands that we should follow, say it. Tell others. When you go to a rally, put THAT message on your poster/tshirt/etc. If enough people are coming to consensus on the issue, this will become to be apparently both visibly and when we talk to each other.
Q: What if there are a bunch of assholes in my discussion group? A: That could be the case. There could be someone who is against this movement who is in your discussion group who is just there to call people names and make them feel disassociated from the movement. If they are and you can, ignore/kick them. Don't take it personally; they are not the movement. Thick skin is important in political change. By the same token, if you get kicked or ignored from a discussion, don't despair. Perhaps you were the only one who was there for the right reasons. Seek a new, different group and try again.
Q: How do I find people? A: Physically, at your local occupation. Online, you can PM a group of people and work out a discussion time (if it will be live) or place to discuss further. Maybe we'll have something better up later on if this idea catches on.
Notes:
- Remember, the discussion should not be (imho) about what would be good for this country. The discussion should be about what would be good for this country AND which can be obtained reasonably through this movement. The greater general political appeal your demands will have the greater the chance that they will generate enough support to come into being.
Thoughts? Improvements on this idea?
there should be online polls for relevant issues
Gamma, I really admire your work ethic. You are giving it your all.
It seems to me that the largest piece of the puzzle missing is a coherent economic/fiscal strategy. I've been posting for days and have found the most popular issues are those relating to taxation, government spending, disparities in pay, corporate governance, and the banks/Wall St. Not surprising, of course, but there is no official policy when you go to the main website. I think that if these are the most popular issues, they probably need to be addressed first.
I have come across numerous people on this site who have advanced degrees in economics/finance, and they all had good ideas. I didn't agree with most of them- you may remember me as the obnoxious conservative who likes to debate people.
Why not place an ad on the site for these people? I'd be happy to help in any way I can although I understand that my political leanings may not be a great fit. I'm a finance guy with a few graduate degrees and I've really taken a shine to this movement. I don't agree with many of the movement's principles but I love the exchange of ideas.
I think it would be great if the government would supplement an "indebted minimum wage". For example, if I'm earning $9/hour and have a ton of debt, I also earn $11/hour in debt forgiveness for a total of $20/hour as your effective minimum wage. This should be an especially easy thing for Congress to support if people's debt is from student/federal loans. Credit cards or medical bills might be a more difficult thing for them to pass. The point is, it isn't a "handout" or money for nothing - it actually doubles my incentive to work hard and pays off loans that would otherwise have crippled people for many years to come.
Please explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that someone else should pay for your college education. If we, the 99% are going to be paying for your college bills, you better have proof that your weren't just goofing off and partying. I want to see grades and I'll probably need some teacher recommendations too. Then I'll consider it. Maybe. Probably not.
Have you ever considered that your missing the real problem. It's the money. Monetary policy is the solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXd_CirMX0w
THIS EXPLAINS IT ALL
futile and pointless until we have the space in which to operate- sub forums and a wiki... which... we keep getting promises but which have clearly not been made a serious priority.
If I imagine having a sub-forum and a wiki, I still don't think that would do us any good. We'd still have to have in-depth discussions to come to a consensus, and too many people talking about something at once just leads to distraction. It is best done in small groups.
And a wiki? Who would be in charge of editing that?
lack of imagination. of course you are right you have to form small groups that work together and actually do the research and work. Everyone edits the wiki. everyone. whats not doing us any good is a chaos scrawl forum and an admin whos put off sub forums for a modd group instead of making this the number one priority.
Perhaps it's not helpful, but I doubt history books 100 years from now will say "Americans, disgusted by the mass unfairness of the economic and political system, staged mass rallies and protests proclaiming 'We are the 99%'. It was the biggest political movement since the 1960s, but was ultimately a failure due to the lack of subforums and a wiki".
no, history books won't mention that because they won't get written in time to prevent human extinction. From an expert pov and from a paradigm shift pov and from a science centered and fact centered pov- thats what is true and real. Whether or not history reports it is moot. The movement IS failing NOW because of mass disorganization. http://www.google.com/search?q=occupy+wall+street+disorganized&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The more this goes on, the harder it is to avoid the suspicion that although the thing has taken on a life of its own, the people are being played.
There is every risk for the whole thing to turn ugly.
The elites have centuries of history of creating conflict, then guiding events to a pre-ordained conclusion. They stampede the herd off a cliff, using the event to set a new precedent. Usually it takes the form of more state control.
All the better if they can get the people to actually demand it.
"This revolution appeared to break out spontaneously, without any real leadership or formal planning. Russia had been suffering from a number of economic and social problems, which were compounded by the impact of World War I. Bread rioters and industrial strikers were joined on the streets by disaffected soldiers from the city's garrison. As more and more troops deserted, and with loyal troops away at the Front, the city fell into a state of anarchy, leading to the overthrow of the Tsar."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
The elites couldn't control the first American revolution very well.
Are you saying that nothing good can ever happen from demonstrations and actions of the people? What about voting rights for women? The 8-hour day? Civil rights movement?
No, my worry is that tinder is being piled high, waiting for a spark.
The examples you gave are examples of people who had definite goals in mind.
Sure, it might be. But the more the 99% suffers at the hands of the 1%, the more uncontrollable the backlash will be. Adjustments are better made now, while the American people are only out for justice and fair representation in the political process, and not clamoring for blood.
In order to negotiate, you have to have something with which to negotiate. Camping out in a public park and marching in streets is hardly a bargaining tool. I don't imagine the powers that be really care much if people march around and squat in a public park. I know I wouldn't.
And even further, nobody can negotiate with you unless they know what you want.
How do you think political change occurs exactly?
Sure, nobody can negotiate unless they know what we want. But that's the point of my post, is it not?
I think it occurs when people in power are facing pressure to make a change.
Sitting around in a public park and marching around is putting us at odds with the gubmint. If the defined goals aren't to be fixing the gubmint, then the solution isn't addressing the problem.
If people are tired of corporations, maybe they should stop giving the corporations their money. These corporations aren't just printing money out of thin air (that's the Federal Reserve which does that). Doesn't do much good to go protest corporations, march in the street, and then go back to work at your big corporate job and go buy all of your stuff from big corporate stores.
But a party in a public park is a lot more fashionable than living by a principle.
Voting with one's dollars doesn't do much good when the "votes" are so unevenly distributed, which is one of the fundamental problems.
Anytime you can rationalize tens of thousands of people not changing their lifestyle to adhere to what they claim to believe in because you think it won't work, you pretty much have to.
I don't understand how, if corporations are responsible for doing bad things with the money, we don't get some of the blame for giving them the money (and that we should STOP IMMEDIATELY)??
Sure, we are partly to blame. Our parents are partly to blame to. Now that we've confessed, can we get back to business?
And that's my point. Changing out lifestyle should be part, if not all, of the business.
But this isn't some fictitious free market economy. The corporations have complete control over the government. Either by bail-out, tax break, or subsidy, those corporations will get our dollars whether we shop with them or not.
You're right, this is no free market. I understand what you're saying, and I agree, but I'm curious how the federal reserve (being able to set financial policy, print money, control the currency, and do any number of financially underhanded things imaginable) isn't one of the main culprits?
I do think the federal reserve is potentially a problem, and should probably be at the very least audited and probably would be better to put it under the Treasury Dept.
I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to that being one of the demands, but even if that were instituted, the corporations would still dominate the electoral process, so they could probably get the Federal Reserve back in their hands unless pro-democratic reforms were made.
I suggest that representatives be elected within the movement itself. A lot of people seem to agree that the system in which we operate is fundamentally flawed. So it seems like a half way sensible idea to elect reps to start discussion about solutions and new approaches. The people establishing their own uncorrupted voice to offer solutions that will benefit the majority should be a clear enough message that can eventually address many issues that the movement has brought to the table.
What if the majority think that what we have is fine? A majority of the 99% aren't protesting, so does their silence mean acceptance? Decisions should be made by knowledge, not numbers.
Yes, but if you ask for a leader, you will likely get one. A lot of people are maneuvering to try to hijack the thing already; there may be others waiting in the wings for the right opportunity (like a riot), and the opposition is almost certainly preparing for that. So instead of getting the kind of change everyone is hoping for, they might get something a little different.
Look what has changed since 9/11, for instance. What do you figure the odds are that those in power will meekly relinquish it?
To control opposition, you lead it.
Of course things can be hijacked. But are you saying that people should be careful? Or are you saying that all movements will be hijacked so there's no point in trying to do anything? We're screwed either way?
Just advising caution. We DO have the internet this time, and plenty of warnings have been going out, so hopefully that will prevent anything bad from happening.
At this point, consensus looks to be a pretty remote possibility, though.
Edit: In the example I quoted above, that did lead to a civil war. Just sayin'
I agree. We don't want another French Revolution.