Forum Post: I have some questions
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 7:10 p.m. EST by Alliandrina
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've tried to ask these in different ways and in different forums and I would really like answers. First I would like to more about the consensus process. I've read different things about it. Is it a true consensus process or is it more of a majority rule? How are the concerns of people who disagree adressed? What are safeguards are there to make sure everyone feels comfortable participating? How is it ensured that each person is speaking their true voices and not just changing their minds so as to be accepted in the crowd? Is the movement about getting big money out of government? Or is more as may be the Declaration of Occupation suggests? (From what I read I believe that it is more about building a more responsive (community like in such that everyone looks out after each other) government). If it is just about getting money I can see how that can be done- but if it is the second it makes me wonder how that can be accomplished from the top down. It isn't then just about changing peoples minds but their hearts. (Sorry don't mean to preach). And my last concern- I'm not really sure how to explain. So I'll just try. I appreciate all cultures and groups of people. But maybe its was because the way I was raised. I don't have a culture per se except for the one I make for myself. I see on the main site that there are groups for women, for those of color, etc and it makes me wonder how do these groups promote inclusiveness rather than division?
I think we need 1 group - American.
I agree that is how I was raised.
Most residents of other countries in North and South America take offense at us co-opting the "American" for our country alone, and I'm sure none of us want to give offense to our New World neighbors. Citizens of the USA is the group to which the power of self-governance needs to be restored.
offending them? we came up with american and they just tag along. they should pay us royalties
I agree that is kind of ridiculous
I think they were here before Europeans called it the Americas... And Europe has taken most of the natives' resources, so I would say they have paid their fair share of royalties.
I know that it happened and I also know it wasn't right. I believe by realizing what happened in the past is one the best way to keep it from happening again. What I don't understand and maybe you can explain it to me is why any of us have to feel guilty over things our ancestors did? When did the sins of our fathers get passed down to us?
I don't feel guilty. My ancestry is European. My ancestors did not own slaves. My ancestors werebpushed out of Europe due to religious intolerance. Just like the majority of European Americans. We came here because we are cheap labor. Plus, because of all the different European cultures, we fought among ourselves because of job scarcity instead of the 1% that brought us ALL here.
So I think feeling guilty is the wrong answer. I think being knowledgable about the past, though, helps us to learn from history so we are not condemned to repeat it. Like, letting 1% of the population control 90% of the wealth.
Like I said knowing the about the past keeps us from repeating those mistakes in the future. I also agree that feeling guilty about what our forefathers did But neither is assigning blame. If we are truly going to move forward we have to learn to respect one another.
Agreed. I was just responding to the comments above yours. Mostly tongue and cheek. :)
"I've read different things about it. Is it a true consensus process or is it more of a majority rule? How are the concerns of people who disagree adressed? What are safeguards are there to make sure everyone feels comfortable participating? How is it ensured that each person is speaking their true voices and not just changing their minds so as to be accepted in the crowd?" - http://www.nycga.net/category/minutes/minutes-ga/
That is the official OWS website. Scroll down the page to the 10/13/11 minutes the process is explained better their.
"Is the movement about getting big money out of government? Or is more as may be the Declaration of Occupation suggests?" - Getting money out of the govt is a major concern. Their are many other concerns as well. People have their own personal issue. And when someone new joins us they give a louder voice to the issues that they have. Most of the major issues have to do with corruption, corporate greed, and social inequality but their are many other issues people bring up as well.
"I see on the main site that there are groups " - Can you link specifically what you are talking about please.
get republicans to vote yes on the jobs bill-by any means necessary-power to the people!
because it is a very bad bill. It took 2 democrats to defeat the bill. I think that is called bipartisanship.
In my honest opinion figuring out how to set an agenda is the key. Think-Thirty.org might be something worth checking out for anyone that's truly interested in setting an agenda rather than simply pushing their own agenda
Here are my answers to your questions. Thank you for the post!
There is no chance we will reach consensus, it must be majority rule.
People that disagree are welcome to make comments on forums like this, and if enough people disagree we should form a compromise.
You’ll get a huge participation; I wouldn’t worry too much about making people feel comfortable participating.
You can’t stop people from changing their minds, but making their feedback anonymous helps. Also, good leaders can get people to change their minds, not just because they are following a crowd, but because they give them a solid direction and purpose.
I believe there are two main purposes of this movement. 1. Take money out of politics. 2. Stop the wealthy from siphoning money from the middle and lower classes. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JWPJM3N
There are always minorities that will attach themselves to any large scale protest.
I agree that there is no way to reach a true consensus. But do the GA or whomever is actually voting at these sites actually look at these boards to get feedback?
For some people it is true that they won't change their minds because they know what they what they believe. But not all people are like that. How do any of us know if those people are speaking their true voice?
We who disagree are given different Strategically Weighted Policies, to each according to what they want. For example, start the war against Injustice by starting our own banks to double the income of the Bottom 99% of Workers, for many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 1% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and thus doubling our income from Bank Profits which are 40% of all Corporate Profits; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
Join http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Online Congress, and related “new” Businesses, REPLACING the "old" Congress, and related “old” Businesses, according to your current Occupations & Generations, called a Focused Direct Democracy.
Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet, a political opportunist, just like today; what's important is the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing Power & Group Investment Power. In this, sequence is key, and if the correct mathematical sequence is followed then it results in doubling the income of the Bottom 99% of Workers from today's Bank Profits, which are 40% of all Corporate Profits.
Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.
The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 1% Management System of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.
Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupations & Generations.
So JOIN the 2nd link, and spread the word, so we can make 100,000 support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.
Thank you, but how does this answer any of my questions?
You implied that you wanted a "process" that works. Have you read the process I outlined in the 1st link?
I'm not sure how you read that into what I wrote. I was just asking questions about the process that is being used and clarifications of things I have read about it.
Read the 1st link and you'll understand how Strategically Weighted Policies can be derived from the bottom-up because, as you said, you don't "how that can be accomplished from the top down". You're right, it can't be accomplished from the top-down, for it can only be accomplished from the bottom-up as "new" Bank Owner-Voters, and therein, as "new" Business Owner-Voters, agreed?
The comment your referring to had to do with community building.
Which "community building" is exactly what we're both talking about. However, it seems that you're asking a lot of questions without wanting to think too hard or critically about the technical (or mathematical) answers to those questions, agreed?
No, I don't agree. I've thought about it- but I'm not trying to put my thoughts out at this moment. I'm trying to understand what other people. I have read your link and if you really want me to give you my opinion, I'll try. What I am reading is that your saying that by creating these home town banks in which we not only invest in but we own and use- we can build a community. My question then is how do you get all those people to invest in creating a home town bank unless they have joined together in a group or created their own community?
That's exactly what both of us are asking people to do, to join "together in a group" as Bank Owner-Voters (in my calculation of Natural Social Law) and thus control their "community" design directly.
For example, there is an immediately practical solution to global warming, and the related "UNSUSTAINABLE" system that's creating it. If the 99%, as Home Town Banks of 65,000 Members, divide themselves into 16,384 Vehicle Investment Groups of 4 Members, with each group of 4 Members purchasing a hybrid-diesel-hummer-limo Cab which they then put into their Town Cab Fleet of 16,384 Cabs, then this would reduce their Individual Transportation Costs by 75% (Cost of 1 Cab / 4 Members = 75% less cost per member), and yet they would have a Luxury Limo Cab available to them, out of 16,000 cabs in their Town, five minutes after calling for one, but not necessarily the specific luxury cab in which they own 25%. And most importantly, let's not forget the lessening of Mother Nature's burden from having 75% fewer cars with no traffic jams, and thus 75% less CO2. Furthermore, the list of simple productivity improvements like this one -- which the 99% want but the 1% don't want -- are endless. But first, the 99% must control the banks as Bank Owner-Voters before they can control their Town (and National) design in this manner which is less costly (in terms of the worker hours to maintain it by 75% too) and yet have 75% greater luxury (such as a limo cab) at the same time. Consequently, to decentralize banking into a Focused Direct Democracy by Occupation & Generation is to lower cost 75% is to lower price 75% is to lower work 75% is to increase luxury by 75%. And that's just 1 of 48 Tactical Investment Procedures at the 1st link above, starting from where they are now, and then you can take them even deeper mathematically into the better resource-based system.
So you see, once you get people thinking technically (or mathematically) like this in a way they can understand, THEN you can help them to take control of their "community" (and national) design for optimal effectiveness and efficiency, and thus "community" happiness, agreed?
I'm not asking people to join "together in a group." I'm asking if that is what the occupy movement wants. And then I commented that if that were so top down approach in trying to build a community is not the way to go. In your plan- which is interesting- you think we should become banker owner voters in order to take over our communities and so build our communities- but what you are forgetting is that you need a community of people (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/community (see E)) to begin your project.
I think you are implying that I don't understand what a "community" is, so out of the 11 different definitions of "community" defined at the link you cited, which is the most relevant to you? I understand they all relevant, but which is the most relevant to you because you obviously think that the group link I cited above is not a community, right?
I didn't say that it wasn't a community- I said you are forgetting that you first need to create a community to achieve your goal of getting commmunity back to the people.
In response to polo: I don't mean to offend you, but we are the ones trailing behind the global movement; in Spain , they started in May as well as Chile in south america. Here is a video of what the people from Spain have been enduring for example. I dont't think we should be afraid to call the movement whatever we want. Her is the link http://youtu.be/VQnGXkuydZw
This forum is fast becoming useless, as half of the responses have nothing to do with the original question.
Per your first few questions about the consensus process, see http://takethesquare.net/2011/07/31/quick-guide-on-group-dynamics-in-peoples-assemblies/
Thanks- but it was more of an overview. And is this what is used at the NYCGA?
To get a feeling for the actual procedure at NYCGA, take a look at some minutes. The procedure is similar to the first link, but not identical. I should say, I haven't been there myself, I have used these links to educate myself for the purpose of helping facilitate our local group.
I have one of my questions answered. Another person I asked explained what consensus was. Apparently it isn't a true consensus and they suggested that it might be more of a collaborative process (but I haven't seen that in the minutes) The minutes did show that the consensus is more majority rule.
Consensus is not the same as unanimity. What is a "true" consensus? That is subjective. Our local group is currently going with U-3 (unanimity with up to 3 blocks) as our definition of consensus. We are a small group, so 3 blocks would indicate a significant minority in serious opposition. In such a case, the proposal would be discussed, amended or sent back to the working group.
Is the only way to get a proposal discussed, amended, or sent back to the working group for it to get three blocks? Can it happen any other way? And yes my definition of consensus is complete agreement.
Actually, we try to have discussion, friendly amendments and concerns raised without blocks. But at some point you need to make decisions, and that is where blocks come in.
According to Merriam Webster: Consensus is defined as: 1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead> 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
So unanimity is one sense in which the word consensus may be used, but not the only one. I believe that sense is an uncommon meaning on these forums. If that is what you mean, then I would give friendly advice to use the term unanimity here instead. Otherwise there will likely be miscommunication. Of course you can always just state, as you did now, that that is what you mean when you say "consensus", but then we don't really have a word to use in joint communication for "non-unanimous consensus", so that makes it difficult to be sure we are talking about the same thing.
I understand about miscommunications. I training to be a mediator. And there are many times we may have to stop and ask how a word is understood to avoid misunderstandings. The process I am hearing would to me more collaborative- meaning people try to work together to get what they want. Thank you for taking the time to answers some of my questions.
i see these type questions a lot on here and i have to wonder, did you guys not have a circle of friends growing up, how did you guys make decisions. the thing is organic you see.
Not really. We moved around a lot. Seriously- is there something wrong with asking honest questions and getting answers? I don't really know whats going on, I haven't been at any of the Occupy sites- but I am curious....
sorry, trolls get me worked up i guess. na, check out the map link in the navigation up top. the movement is being supported in many ways in a lot of places.
We have been noticed … and while we have the world’s attention let’s not squander the opportunity.
We now need to focus … focus on how government and fairness in this country can be returned and belong to everyone not just an elite governing few.
We need a position – a unifying theme – something that everyone will get behind … something that people can grasp and something that the 1% will understand.
If we wish to win.. and to win long term, we must settle on the most important change we wish to achieve. Preferably it is one that everyone who is not one of the 1% agrees with.
Very seldom are there situations where virtually everyone agrees the same change needs to happen. If we press a platform that is diverse then we will be opening ourselves to division within ourselves, and as result providing those who have every incentive for the current rules to stay unchanged - weak points for them to exploit.
Remember united we stand and divided we fall.
Does everyone believe Student Loans should be forgiven? No! Does everyone believe we should simply withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? No! Does everyone oppose the NRA? No! Does everyone believe in a women’s right to choose? No! Should they? That is a different question. To have such debates and to be part of the debate we need first to get back the government of our country! We will not do this if we list many many demands. We will not move forward because we will be endlessly debating amongst ourselves. Save those debates for later – later until there can be a real debate - rather than simply rules and stances decreed by those who weigh everything with a single criterion – namely “what’s in it for me!”
Currently the 1% does not take us seriously – they have hunkered down and are waiting for this surge to fizzle and burn out. We too will likely tire if we do not have a understandable major goal - a shining beacon to carry forward.
Beware of those who were initially critical and deriding of us – and yet are now those who position themselves as our champions. I do not want to be lectured to as to how we need to act because we don’t understand the political process – especially by those who for years have been at the beck and call of the 1%. I don’t want headlines blaring forth our victory only to find whatever we thought we had achieved is whittled away in a legislative process.
The legislation that becomes law should be a law for the 100%.
I plead with everyone who is part of or considering to be part of this movement – put aside issues that divide us – adopt the incontrovertible single point and aim of what I believe we all demand. Let’s get our government back!
To start, let’s not wait until next year to hold a National Meeting, let’s challenge our elected representatives NOW! If Grover Norquist can require all Republicans to sign a pledge to never raise taxes – then we can ask and expect that every representative, every senator, every governor, every mayor, and in fact every elected official sign a pledge that they will not take money from any corporation, PAC, organization, and that they will only accept a maximum of $500.00 (the amount is not significant it could be $100 or $1,000) per individual. Let’s make sure that those who do not sign on to the pledge will not receive one vote the next time they run for office, and anyone who is elected and who has accepted monies from other than individuals will face a recall.
This will be the start – let’s have our elected officials declare – go on record – as to where they stand – let’s make them go public so we can create a bulletin of shame . Let’s also make it clear that any company, PAC, Union, organization and/or individual who in the past has donated (either transparently or otherwise) more than the threshold we agree on, that will now not sign our pledge to limit what they provide and to cease and desist lobbying – they too will be put onto the Wall of Shame and will suffer the isolation and of boycotts until they do sign on.
While we do all this we need to keep in mind that we live in a democracy – or at least wish to. In the society we live in we need to respect that we will have differences of opinion. We must make it clear that the expression of one’s views is still everyone’s right.
I will be the first to sign the pledge …. Will you join me .. and demand that every elected official declare themselves to be with us … or not .. and that they doo so publicly.
This doesn't answer any of my questions.