Forum Post: To reach consensus, we should be able to vote on issues that we consider 'dealbreakers'
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 8, 2011, 2:09 a.m. EST by Shankara
(33)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A few days ago I went to the first Occupy Sarasota protest and then attended the local general assembly. What transpired there is exactly what I see on this forum: opinions so divergent that no consensus occurred. There were some advocating the 'Buffett tax' and universal healthcare, but there were also others, like me, who are Libertarians and don't agree with them on these issues. Though everyone was respectful, we basically went around in circles for hours with no real progress being made.
The plan at the time was for everyone to eventually vote on the issues that are most important to them, similar to what Occupy Wall Street is doing. We'd find the top 5 or so issues that the most people rated as 'very important,' and those would become the 'official list.'
The issue I have with that is if, for example, 80% of the people are very strongly in favor of an issue, the issue may become part of the official list. But say that the remaining 20% are not only against listing it as an 'official' demand, but are against it so strongly that if it becomes an official demand, they will leave the movement. Then we have lost 20% of the movement, not to mention all those that may have joined in the future but are put off by the official support of this issue.
So I suggested (and there was a favorable response to this suggestion, though I'm not sure if it will actually be implemented) that in addition to voting for an issue, we also be able to vote against an issue, in the sense that the issue is a 'dealbreaker' to us. That way we can get to the core issues that everyone can agree on.
In my opinion, if this movement becomes too much aligned with the Right or Left it will lose its power. To prevent that and to come to a consensus of core issues that everyone (Socialists and Libertarians alike) can agree on, everyone will probably have to sacrifice some issues that they personally are very passionate about.
Hi Shankara. As you say, it is about core issues everyone can agree on. Well, OWS seems to be about how we manage economic reform and/or revolution At least since Reagan, the economic system has gotten way out of balance in favor of big business and the piracy that too often takes place under the moniker of free enterprise. Democrats have tried to uphold a commitment to the social interest, but as they retreat, it is increasingly a rear-front battle. It seems, they've run out of ideas. The concepts behind the Social Market could restore vision and momentum to the democratic party. As they become defined in the American context, they could indeed find wide agreement. The Social Market is a way out of the impasse.
There is a site up now called occupyanddemand.org for voting on issues - it does appear to be legit and associated with this site. Take a look.
First, we need to resurrect the concept of social interest which republicans of late have correctly identified as their nemesis. Social interest of course in education, transportation, healthcare & medicine, worker's rights etc, but more fundamentally in capital formation & investment. Over here in Austria (and other European countries) they invented what is called the Social Market 50 years ago to contain the rapacity of free enterprise without squelching private investment. Contrary to what you might be told, businesses get to make money in socialist economies. The middle class burgeons because all other enterprise which involves a clear social interest, salaries are adjusted. Doctors earn more, just not 300x more than the hospital janitor. The so-called insurance industry and legal profession are kept pretty much at bay because the framework of the soical market provides security and clearly defines rights and obligations in the marketplace. Pioneers of such a Social Market must come to the fore in America and persuade the democratic party and the rest of America that such a system is economically efficient and feasible, in contrast to our current outworn so-called free market system with government overlay which produces redundancy, inefficiency and injustice. keep it up. rise for the milennia
I do my best to be constructive but often come off rough... but if you are still thinking the different parties matter you have a long way to go in how to achieve your goals. I have no statement on your ends, just your means.
The problem is that many will disagree with you. Which is why, if we want to retain most of the support, we have to find the core issues everyone can agree on. That is assuming you want to retain most of the support rather than retaining only the ones who agree most with you.
I agree with this idea.
Good; hopefully this will have a positive effect.
france here
holla!
What really concerns me about this movement is that so many people are pushing a political viewpoint. I don't support this movement because of ( insert political viewpoint ) I support it because our system is broken and the top 1% own and control this country, and that needs to change. My personal view on this is that we need to forget about the politics and focus on ways to shift the power back to the people, the citizens. How to get the greed and corruption out of our government. If this starts turning into a left, right , liberal, progressive, libertarian, Ron Paul or Obama movement. I wont support the OWS movement in any way.
Which is exactly why I think there needs to be a vote on deal breakers, so we don't lose people like you. Do you feel that even if there is no official goal that is political or partisan in nature, but that many of the OWS participants are pushing a political issue on their own (like they have signs that say "End Capitalism" or "Ron Paul 2012"), that you will still not be a part of OWS?
where to start lol ... The End the Fed / Ron Paul signs do get on my nerves. Even though i am a Progressive, I would be just as annoyed if i noticed people with Obama 2012 signs. Like i said, i don't see the OWS movement as a political one. I see it as a movement for people who are sick and tired of the greed and corruption in our media, government, wall street and banks. I see it as an attempt to fix a broken system.
As for the deal breakers... KISS, Keep it simple stupid. I think we all agree that there is a problem and I'm fairly certain most people agree where that problem is. Why not focus on that and get that part fixed first ? We can then deal with the tough issues we don't all agree on.
I do agree with the political signs; at my local Occupy group we've decided not to have them; no one is even allowed to promote a candidate or political party on the facebook page.
I agree with you about KISS...I think at the very least most people can agree with getting rid of the corporate influence over politicians.
Keeping the signs out of it is probably a good thing. It allows people to approach the protesters and ask questions, find out what this is all about and decide for them self if they support the OWS movement or not. I wouldn't go any where near a protest if i saw all Republican and Tea Party signs.
Yes, and I think it benefits the politician as well. For example, most Ron Paul supporters that I've talked to don't want him to be associated directly with OWS, and don't want Ron Paul signs to be displayed.
I totally empathize with the pathos, but if I were to break down your point on a structural basis it would lead me towards breaking down the demographic concerns and rationalizing what percentages we could lose for trade offs in keeping other ones in oreder to maximize our sustainability on a political front.
Does that sound good? Because it sounds like a shit way to approach this to me.
It's important to remain cognizant of outside influences, but it's equally important that we stand for more than that, that we stand for (currently) a divergent base that supports transparency, accountability, and honesty.
This is obviously not perfect, and it WILL lead to a watered-down official list, that everyone agrees on yet does not inspire passionate action.
Personally I don't think there needs to be an official list of demands, but many people do. If people want an official list, this can be a way of getting there. What is your alternative? Unless you don't think there needs to be a list, which I agree with.
My issue with my local group was that it seemed to be decided that we would have an official list to give to the media. I personally feel that if that official list has something I am against, I will not be part of the movement any longer. I couldn't care less if there is a Socialist next to me protesting, so long as the Socialist agenda is not the official one of the group.
It may end up being the case that "transparency, accountability, and honesty" may be all that can be agreed upon. Is it enough?
Personally, I'm completely against a list of "demands" at this point. You can only make demands once you have the clout to do so, and we clearly do not (yet). In doing so preemptively the only purpose it serves is to provide something the opposition can rally against.
We need goals, we need leadership, and we need consensus- but those things will naturally evolve over time- there's no need to get forced into doing something other people can capitalize on because the media and the unwashed masses that "demand" classification fuel the general trend.
I agree. The movement is growing pretty quickly as it is, even with no official list. I think an official list will make it easier to pigeonhole and control. The reason for this post was only in the cases of where OWS or a local group decides they need an official list for whatever reason.
Well we TOTALLY need a listed organizational structure.
I've been talking to a guy from a waste management company all night, and he wrangled it from his Co. that he could swing a few porto-potties from their inventory. The problem is that we can't connect point A to point B (supply to...what?). That lack of a definable "what" is what's holding up getting shitters on site.
The group has a limitedly defined set of goals so far, but what we're still lacking is the ability to aloocate resources efficienttly.
Once someone takes the step to database participants we'll have a way to contact our resources.
Organizational structure is a completely issue than what we'd previously been discussing, right? I just want to make sure I'm following you here. Ahhh I think I need to go to bed soon..
It's simply a logistical concern, and we need to keep those things in mind if we're concerned with sustainabiity.
That's what I thought. I'm not too knowledgable about what's going on in NYC as I'm down here in Florida. We just started so we're still in the process of working out our organizational structure.
I feel you, I'm watching this from California.
Nice name BTW; are you a fellow Vedantist?
Krsna devotee, ftw!
Namaste! I'm a Sri Aurobindo devotee and weekend pagan myself.
Lol, I'm just a weekend alcoholic.
Better than a weekday alcoholic.
Lol, when the only difference is showing up for work I'm not sure there's much of a distinction.
Well to me 'alcoholic' implies lack of control. The fact that you can abstain 5 day per week is a good sign. Maybe. I hope.
Haha, I haven't abstained 5 consecutive days since boot camp, but thanks- I classify it being a problem based on results also.
Boot camp? Many other Krisna devotee's there? You sound super sexy. Wait...you are a guy right? LOL
Doubt it, I was listed as a Buddhist on paper for the sake of argument the whole time I was in so I couldn't say about anyone else really. And yeah, I find myself totally sexy, but I'm admittedly biased.
Are you enjoying the military?
And now I don't know if you're male or female. If you're female than I'd have to explore latent homosexuality inside of myself and that could be awkward, especially on a public forum.
Hetero male,thanks, though this isn't the place for that discussion. On a seperate note, yeah, done w/ Army.
LOL I agree.
There will be a general assembly this sunday. I am sure #ows will have a declaration. It is evolving .
I guess we'd have to decide what percentage of the movement you'd be willing to lose. Is 5% too much? 10%? Then we wouldn't include the issue if it more than that percentage is absolutely against that issue and will leave the movement if it becomes part of the official list.
the smarter and better game is to do open source research instead of poll the public for opinions. what if 51 percent are wrong? Purple Dialogue. There are assorted methods of dealing with this, but you are very right we must define ourselves outside of those old dualisms and old mental cages... to do that will require science sooner or later. merely voting is not an answer. actually confronting the issues and working them to transcendent solutions is.
Can you explain more about open source research please?
the basic thing is you have to start with an esoteric information pov and see this as an expert sees it. The republicans and the dems and the corporate oligarchy absolutely rely upon mass ignorance. 95 percent of the ideas i see vented in here are ignorant ideological noise. If the public became aware of the simple truth, the gig is up, the house of cards falls. Sociology, Civil Engineering, systems theory and game theory.. some formal conversational logic and NVC... while its in many ways a ver ytuff thing to ask everyone to crash course themselves through five degrees in college... doing so blasts the lies and ignorance and disinfo away. Only a paradigm shift gets real change and only direct open source research gets a paradigm shift. think of wikipedia. now imagine wikipedia but not run by jimbo wales as a right wing propaganda outlet- an actual information instead of propaganda resource- centered in political issues instead of random bs. We write 101 textbooks together online- they go viral- the Evolutionary forces atain critical mass and then can't be stopped.
Do you think it's possible for a significant percentage of those in the Occupy movement to education themselves enough in the areas you suggest in the near future?
I think if a few people were to write a book, it would be difficult for the authors to get enough support that OWS in general will stand behind it. Might it not be simpler for you to write the textbooks/ebooks yourself, since you're already educated on these matters? Otherwise you'll spend a lot of time and effort trying to get through to the 95% of people here who aren't at the same level of understanding as you are. Maybe it'd be better to channel that energy into a book?
i can write one textbook per year. i can organize ten thousand people to write 100 textbooks in under a month. See how that goes? It can happen very fast if enough people get involved. many hands make light work. Everyone needs to get themselves involved at that level, or its just some few of us creating a new oligarchy. real democracy requires everyone to actually take personal responsibility for shit we are all programmed to shuff off onto the "intellectual caste"
Yes, but who will decide when these ten thousand people are educated enough to write the books? Are you looking to find that 5% here who is now able to write the books? That may be doable, but those people would have to agree with you about the topics and ideas put forth. I do think it will take a long time to get 10,000 people educated enough to be able to write books that will meet your expectations.
the research process just starts. we become educated enough to write the books as we go. anybody can join in the process its actually kind of simple once you understand it. again, this can happen in under a month or two.
So how does someone get involved?
pick a subject and start operating google. report back. sociology, civil engineering, psychology, formal conversational logic, systems theory, game theory, economics...
linkin park - high voltage
Do the authors have to agree with you? Do they have to meet a certain threshold to be determined by you? Or can anyone do this?
What I mean is, it seems like you will be the leader, the one who will be putting forth the ideas and opinions and determining the level of education and knowledge that is required. Am I correct?
Isn't 51% being wrong the risk you take when you get rid of a King?
it can be. or, you can go for the truth and always have 80 percent or so be right.
I've actually spent some time thinking on how requiring super-majorities might play out. At first glance it seems like a positive thing. If Congress has to act on a super-majority they can't get anything done without both parties clearly being behind it. Talk about a bummer for the fake republicrat con job they run now, right?
right. well. the thing is you assume to start that the people involved want positive social change instead of being evil. the real problem is when some large group of people is dead wrong and won't listen and votes insanely. Which is what the republican party is. How we win people over tho is that our solutions make SENSE. So assuming that we get behind it in s diplomatic way, it can go viral and everyone agrees. Democracy BTW of a pure form requires a super majority, thats one of the core issues to define fake democracy from real democracy. How do you get everyone to agree? let them all see that their opinions and ideologies are garbage and show them something with depth and substance to it...
do you really believe the democrats are better than the republicans?
personally i think they work together and are just bunch of con-artist fraudsters
yes. absolutely. one is a godzilla sized demon and the other is merely a 20 foot tall demon. They are both evil and from hell and literally killing people on earth to keep power and etc etc. But one is by far much worse than the other.
in any contest of the lesser of two evils, a democrat is far better than a republican assuming that the peeps in question aren't ron paul.
that's fair, I like RP but not sure who the #2 gopster would be on the list of good ones...
Ron Paul FTW. Yet I wouldn't expect that to be the official view of OWS...
I like this. Down-voting is the easiest way to quickly whittle away at a smorgasbord of ideas to something that really can represent a 99% push.
Yeah, I think otherwise we'll just keep going in circles. It will be hard to sacrifice an issue the you or I feel is very important, but I guess that's where an ego-check is needed.
This is actually probably the best idea I have seen since hitting these forums.
I'm not sure what else could be more effective at destroying the divide & conquer strategies of the Republicrats and Fed financed propaganda networks.
So do you think I should submit this to the administrators of this website? If that is even possible?
I think I'll PM OccupyWallSt and see if he/she/they like this idea.
good idea.
I had actually thought of putting together a list of proposals and my own poll just so that I could see IP logs and such and get a feel for the ballot stuffing / demographics of voters. But that info wasn't a sufficient motivator for the work. I'm strongly considering putting up a framework similar to what you suggest though.
Of course, now we have to reach a consensus as to what is an acceptable percentage of people leaving the group because they don't like an issue that others feel strongly about. I guess that one can just be up for a regular vote? I'm thinking somewhere around 5 to 10 percent but I haven't really thought about it in too much detail,
We need a pretty low threshold for rejection in my opinion and I was also thinking 5-10% neighborhood. It forces only the really good, non-partisan ideas to the forefront.
Yay! We've reached a consensus! 5-10% it is! LOL