Forum Post: We need unity.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 12:10 a.m. EST by ARod1993
(2420)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Whether you want to talk to me about leaders or find some other word for it the facts remain that given all else there should be at least two or three things out there that 90% or more of the Occupiers agree need to be done as quickly and comprehensively as possible to fix things. That list generally includes some form of repudiation of Citizens United and a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, among other things.
The fact also remains that right now these central ideas don't really have any sustained support and tend to get drowned out by the sheer volume of other things going on, both on the forums and in the real world. Somebody (or a workgroup of somebodies if you prefer groups) needs to be tasked with fixing that problem. They need to be given the responsibility to protect that message (and the associated rudimentary platform) and promulgate it among the American people, the right to speak in the name of OWS while promulgating that message, and the resources to maintain an active and positive presence with that purpose in mind both in real life and in all media (Internet and mainstream). Whether we call such a person a leader, a mouthpiece, or whatever other term you can think of, one can't really deny that someone serving these functions is highly necessary if we want to gain enough traction to fix things.
Unity. You said it. Defendit numerus. We need to BE humanity, and reclaim it.... Leaders.....hmmmm not so sure...
This is what I say....
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50500650/yourtopia-your%20official%20final%20beginning.pdf
Heres what others say....
http://occupywallst.org/forum/im-here-to-listen-what-is-it-you-want-to-be-heard/#comment-464830
Heres something you could do about it all.... right now....free, easy, 2 seconds...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/something-that-you-can-do-right-now-from-where-you/
I'm going through the links right now and the first one has proven to be quite an interesting read thus far. I would love to live in a world in which most if not all people were able to enjoy a standard of living commensurate with the American upper middle class, in which war was generally unnecessary, and in which we could count on our way of life to be sustainable indefinitely whether or not we choose to expand to other planets. In the long term (a hundred years or two hundred years) this could be great. I also have to say that I enjoy the level of detail in your book a great deal because it makes it far easier to evaluate the your plan in a systematic fashion than if you tried to compress this into a forum post.
A couple of practical questions, however. As wonderful as this model seems, I can think of at least five ways to smear it badly enough that no self-respecting conservative (and almost none of the current crop of liberals) would be willing to touch it with a ten-foot pole. Now, I'll grant you that most of those smear campaigns would amount to nothing more than veiled ad hominem attacks on the creators and appeals to old fears such as "the Godless Communists" and "the dirty hippies who will corrupt our children" and "idiot intellectuals who want to castrate America" and so on and so forth. The problem is that as disingenuous and vacuous as such attacks are, the fact is that they work. How exactly would you propose to counter such attacks?
That topic also leads into a larger question about the necessity of an educated populace; your system assumes that 51% or more of the people who are participating in a given situation know what they're doing or at the very least have some sort of positive motivation for why they vote the way they do (whether it's a Macchiavellian desire to get ahead or a desire to make the world at large a better place or an instinctive drive to inject your knowledge into any situation where it's relevant to better the debate). What isn't accounted for is what happens when large parts of the populace have been sold a bill of goods, as is the case now.
There's a major chicken-and-egg problem concerning education and the implementation of a functioning society designed to trust the majority of the populace with directing day-to-day affairs; you need a reliable system of disseminating information (which there is a great potential for but I would argue hasn't fully developed yet) combined with a strong system of imparting critical thinking ability alongside fundamental skills in things like mathematics and historical knowledge.
Finally, on this I feel like you and I may hit a bit of an impasse; I would like to see us build the necessary prerequisite social and educational infrastructure for this system to be feasible in the United States first as a demonstrative model. This would mean a return to regulated capitalism, work on developing models for truly employee-owned industry, and a return to public funding of research. I also feel that we would do better trying to address this piece by piece in one country without any overall state of intention involving world government than attempting to do the globalism things all at once.
I'm going through the links right now and the first one has proven to be quite an interesting read thus far.
As to the '5' ways....well my answer is 'character suicide'. You can't kill something that's already dead. This covered completely in the final chapter.
Re: the third paragraph.... I cover this also.... I would say that the only things that need to looked at are those that need changing, or, alternatively created or removed. In the case of things being just fine the way they are, they are fine! And clearly have no need for intervention.
In the case of the first three scenario's, the only reason they can exist as the first three scenarios, is that SOMEONE has defined them so. The measure, or the 'amount', that something requires changing, creating or removing, is determined again by the definition of those involved (ie; the only reason these forums themselves exist is that large amounts of people have agreed that there is a problem).
Ergo, where a problem exists, and a solution needs to be forthcoming, the greater that problem, the more people involved, the more people will BE involved.
Re: second last paragraph:
I agree.
Re: last paragraph....
I disagree.... I think we're agreeing! lol. The system I would propose exists in many differing dichotomies, and dealing with things on both the local, and global scales is one of them. I also explore the education system further as well.
And I would table, that this system would be an educational tool, like no other has been seen, by any human alive. Ever.
It's true that your putting this out there about yourself prevents scandal, but given some of the things you list in the character suicide section whole groups of people will ignore this as the ravings of a depressed, mentally ill addict, and they will treat the vision you described having as proof even though a lot of the ideas you put here a lot of your ideas speak for themselves.
I agree with you that this system is designed to forcibly educate large groups of people (by forcibly I don't mean in the literal sense but in that to have any say in what gets prioritized and funded you have to know enough about what's going on to form an opinion and set your tax slider accordingly. Incidentally, I like the idea of being able to set where my taxes go, and quite honestly I think a lot of the angry middle-class "no taxes" people would be more okay with it if it were managed that way.
I would agree that for now we should start with regulated capitalism (beginning with Glass-Steagall), employee-owned industry, an ROTC-style setup for federal agency recruitment (scholarships for years of service), campaign finance and lobbying reform, and tax reform. Essentially once people begin to see the public sector as a positive force in their lives and a necessary part of a functioning economy we can talk about moving toward the actual system you outline should if prove necessary. How does that sound?
Hmmmm yes..... is that what you conclude? re: the ravings of a depressed, mentally ill addict?
I am betting on, yourself and others concluding differently. No matter who I am, or whatever letters I have after my name, what counts in the end are the merits of the ideas themselves, and, whether those ideas gain support. Would you support this? That is the main question. And can be applied across the board. I believe, that by making this public domain, as I have, that the Idea...is now yours, so, again, garnering support, and again, by asking you to pass it on, as I have, it BECOMES yours in reality, as, the very act of passing it on will be seen as support.... and that effect, has the potential of going viral...IF...open minded, people like yourself support the concepts, criticize, and further them...
Ie; "Look at what this crazy guy came up with, it could really work", coming from you as you pass it on, is more valuable support than all the doctorates in the world....
In terms of Glass-Steagall... I agree completely....and argue that it's just not enough anymore.... what impact will this have on global population? Or peak oil/gas? What impact will that have on dwindling fresh water reserves?
I have read some things about American politics (I'm an Aussie), and have read of this, through these forums, and simply to understand the origins of occupy better, but I ask, as I have, how can anything but global solutions, fix global problems?
I'm not suggesting that what you suggest is not going to have a positive effect, I believe it will, I am tabling, that this simply is not enough. That no NATIONAL (American or otherwise) solution, could resolve the WORLD crisis that we face....
And thnx again....Your insight and thoughts, are appreciated!
And btw.... I'm far from ONLY those things.... rather, I highlighted the worst of me, that way the better things will hopefully be the scandal. It was the best idea I had, in terms of facing the very problems you forwarded.
No, I don't conclude that this is the ravings of a depressed, mentally ill addict at all; the ideas themselves make enough sense that they can stand on their own quite nicely. I'm merely playing devil's advocate here because I find that a loyal opposition provides a great sparring partner to help one refine one's ideas, and we seem to be playing off each other quite nicely. The thing with proposing a national solution first is because large groups of Americans tend to have a rather nasty knee-jerk reaction to globalism and I'm trying to avoid that. Essentially my comments on Glass-Steagall are merely the tip of the iceberg and I'd like to see a second New Deal focused in part on moving to renewable energy and rebuilding our infrastructure to successfully support our population.
lol! No, I know that, that's what your doing! I was using YOUR reaction and mind set to further my point. If I put it all into the open from the outset, people will be almost forced to be more open minded about the ideas themselves, as you have been...
And thnx devil, I agree...;)
And I would play devils advocate here and say, that whilst I agree that G.S. (Glass-Stegal), is a correct national move to make, even in terms of nationally, is it the last? Surely, world peace, is the simplest, most saleable, 'final destination'? And I think HUMANITY is screaming for it. And I think should occupy hold that up as it's singular objective, it's ultimate end, the world that already stands behind it, will stand together. The 'B' in the plan is not what people seem to be clamoring to hear about, it's the 'Z'. So why not put forth the ultimate 'Z'? The ultimate solution. As the 'one simple thing' that occupy stands for, and that so many are trying to understand.
I'm choosing not to put the "Z" out there publicly because there are a lot of people who like world peace in the abstract but flip a shit if we try to take steps such as disarmament to get there. In other words, their definition of the end goal is different enough from ours that they won't agree to join us if all we offer them is that goal. If we present each step as an end goal in and of itself, then we can hold them all the way to "T" or "U" rather than have them start scoffing and digging their heels at "B".
Hmmmmm....or.... confuse them by agreeing with what they say. When you say our ultimate goal is world peace, and they say "how?", instead of telling them, ask them. They then put forward heaps of ideas (usually undiluted rubbish, lol), you say "That's great! You should tell everyone!", you should be debating this more.... and point them towards a thread/link/more info/whatever.... They will think your the greatest guy alive, promoting THEIR ideas (most will never actually read into or look at anything you present), and you can go about the business of getting it without their interference, but with their support. For those (like us) that are actually intent, and have will, to achieve this, will read on, read further, go to the debates, get the info, etc, etc, essentially gaining the education required to make their understanding and input valuable....
Or in other words... We say "World peace."
They say...."How?"
We say....."WOW, You care! How, you ask? With the help of people like you...of course!"
That works very well with one whole group of people; the group that plans and plans and plans without subjecting their ideas to critical analysis somewhere between brain and mouth (or keyboard). They'll love being pandered to and sign on without a problem. The problem is that a lot of the fence-sitters are going to ask how things will happen, and giving them the run-around will either get us dismissed as stupid or accused of being con men. Setting out discrete policy initiatives with no stated goal gets us around that issue because it answers the "How?" quite honestly and easily, and when anybody asks why we just mention the specific problem that policy remedies as sufficient reason, and most people will listen.
I base my support of this approach on how we wound up in this mess in the first place; when people voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 did they really intend for us to be where we are now? I highly doubt it; they wanted a particular set of changes that were real but not enormous, and the Republicans delivered. Then they wanted more of those changes, and the Republicans delivered again. You can make an insane amount of change within a few decades if the individual step sizes are small enough...
Re... "One step at a time".... Maybe another dichotomy?.......In 'B' and 'Z'....? Hmmmmm
Probably. We didn't get here overnight, and we won't get there overnight either. I figure that it would be better to use that fact to our advantage and go somewhat slowly and carefully at first. We'll know it's working when it's too big for us to manage; if Ronald Reagan were to pop out of his grave and harangue the shit out of the current Republican Party for letting this happen people would accuse him of betraying his ideals rather than listening to him. When the same holds true for us, we know we've won.
Hmmmm... I would like to table something else also.... I may even set up a specific thread for it. I know this is 'off the wall', but "is it time?" Is there a 'change in the air'? I know it's 'hooky pooky', in that it is backed up by naught more that feeling and co-recognition, rather than reason and intellect, but still it's there.... And I'm certain that you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Again "hooky pooky"..... but it seems to me that humanity itself has a collective conciousness, and that collective conciousness knows everything that humanity knows, and, MANY people speak of change, in hushed voices, and whispered hope....
I know that this is far from the sort of logical discourse required...but there it is....
In fact I may even just ctrl C, ctrl V this entire post...lol
It is possible that this is the case; I would really like to think so but I can't be sure. The recession hit a lot of people really hard, and there's a fair amount of collective anger over the behavior of the banks and the failure of the government to call the banks to account. The sheer virulence of the language flying back and forth right now reminds me of the leadup to the Civil War, so I guess you could say there is precedent for some sort of watershed to happen soon.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
Ask and ye shall receive....unbelievable proof....
Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. The stress and pressure, that many people are exhibiting almost seem indicative in and on itself. Indicative of what is the question I suppose....
Well if you follow the proscribed method, after you do that you give them more information than they can handle, essentially, bombard them. Those that can deal with that amount of info, will dive in headfirst, those that don't, will support it or not (in either case I would argue that we could never, ever convince the 'stubborn opinionate few' of ANYTHING), with most who would consider themselves 'a smart person' (which is most people), being overwhelmed into accepting the original premise, to 'hide' the fact that they do not understand. This paradox is actually what runs our current ignorance to the destruction around us. We simply turn it around, and make it work for the cause. In that, people simply 'accept' the systems that are in place due to a lack of knowledge and education, coupled with, the natural human desire to 'appear' knowledgeable.
Btw... just out of curiosity, what are some of the things, that you could add? What are some things that you like, about this idea? I'm not simply fishing for compliments.... I've had so few people who have actually read any part of it, that this discussion is rather refreshing!
"A fool is one who thinks he is wise, a wise man is one who knows he is a fool."- Shakespeare
Omnia vincit amor.
As far as your book, I've read it once through and am currently reading it for the second time. I don't really yet have any suggestions for change or criticisms because I haven't had a chance to see it in action and I haven't spotted any major theoretical flaws as of now. As far as what I like, the tax slider idea and the combination of centralized tax collection but fully democratic dispensation is really nice. It also sounds like a great way to allay the fears of libertarians and others who fear government by letting them decide where to spend their taxes.
You pointed to the lack of a central goal to unify the movement and I think that central goal lies in direct democracy. Demanding and introducing a higher level of direct democracy (developing our websites) is the one thing that could do the trick. A higher level of direct democracy would hold politicians to account and would represent the best means to pursue and achieve all other goals (social and political). Please go to realtimedemocracy.wordpress.com and vote for a higher level of direct democracy, which is the least divisive and most useful of immediate goals. Thank you.
Some of that is a good idea, but I believe that our main focus needs to be on proper policy initiatives such as repudiating Citizens United and reinstating Glass-Steagall. Direct democracy sounds nice but is different enough from our current system that you risk spooking whole groups of people whose support we need if we want to go places.
Somebody (or a workgroup of somebodies if you prefer groups) needs to be tasked with fixing that problem
The National General Assembly July 4th will not just protect that message, it will refine and empower the message with the help of the 99%
Citizens United site got an anti abortion ad
Are you serious?
http://www.citizensunited.org/
Yeah, that would figure.
Somebody needs to.....