Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mungojelly on January 13, 2012 at 5:29

That is nonsense of course.  Anarchists believe in many kinds of order and organization and protection, just not those few (and actually ineffective) techniques that require hierarchy and oppression.  Occupy itself is a perfect example of anarchist ideas put into practice of how to create order without hierarchy.

Charles Smith said:

I see 'anarchy' mentioned.  We must be very careful about this'  Anarchy is freedom without protection, every man for himself, the wet dream of the theocratic republican slave makers who are mightily trying to achieve this now so they can just march in and establish strongman theocratic totalitarian government, unopposed,  and make all of us slaves again.  In anarchy, there is nothing to prevent the best organized, the strongest, the most evil and tyrannical to just overrun the disorganized rest of us, reestablishing the feudal slave society of old where the slaves were controlled by the terrors of religion..   Democratic government protects our freedoms and the biggest problem with it now is it's  tolerance and support of the capitalist system.  "Democracy" should be a synonym for 'socialism.'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Smith on January 13, 2012 at 18:12

Anarchy, a term out of antiquity means 'an' (without) 'archist' (king, or government of that day).Our current theocratic republicans are obviously trying to achieve a no-regulation, no control, total freedom of everybody  by killing our government's ability to protect our freedoms and liberties.  This creates a fertile environment for takeover by strongman government such as existed when that term was coined.  The democrat's mistake is that while trying to protect everyone's 'freedoms' it simultaneously protects the capitalists who work 24/7 to take those rights and convert everyone into chattel slaves and confiscate all their property.  Much of what the democrats do amounts to pacification of workers who might otherwise revolt, as they have done all over the world for the past 230 years, a trend that is still going on today in the Arab world, while protecting the wealth and wealth accumulating practices of the capitalists. Practices that eventually gives them ownership of all that exists, including humans, or triggers their own extermination as it did in Europe in 1789, 1849, 1917, China in 1946, Cuba in 1958, et al.  The bottom line is that our government protects capitalism by making workers believe that somehow they get a 'fair shake' while simultaneously protecting the caspitalist's 'right of ownership' of everything.  Most of our laws are laws that protect the capitalist system and most of our prisons are full of people who encroached on the capitalist's 'rights'. We are doomed to another revolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sarai bee on January 14, 2012 at 7:03

We are the watchers.  Only uniting when needed.  We do not align ourselves with political parties or aspire to create another to fall into the hands of corruption.  We are simply citizens who care to exercise our rights and establish an even playing field for all.  IMHO

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Raphael on January 14, 2012 at 15:34

I'm reading all the comments with interest.  While definitely not an anarchist, I am sympathetic to the wish that we focus our identity and actions in ways not centered on any political party.  That said, I think we do need allies in the electoral system, as in legal and other dimensions of social change.  Maybe the Green Party is already what we need, and perhaps only to support as we are able and inclined?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu Phillips on January 16, 2012 at 10:30

Political parties need to levy funds to run their campaigns. This money is raised on the back of promises by the politician. This is the first corruption of our voice.

Who do you trust more than yourself to decide matters in this world ?

This being the case why not vote in a system that hands back that voice to the electorate, so that they can sit and discuss the issues and then vote on them ?

They can count votes for X Factor, they can count our votes on the issues.

By reducing the power back to the individual, we limit the corruption that can assail our council chambers.

Parties were only ever needed to provide a block of support to get their people elected in every seat. Having a lack of tech, meant they had to hit the campaign trail just to get noticed. This as we know is extremely expensive and in the modern day, it physically stops many people even thinking about standing for election. This is very detrimental to the people, for it makes every candidate, cosy up to those with money, just to get elected.

By utilising websites, individuals can campaign using very little funding on sites dedicated to promoting candidates characters. This stops the first corruption.

By the people deciding issues with their representative canvassing for opinions and then speaking for the majority of that community, stops the second corruption of the voice, by those who stand and lobby our representative, to vote for their concern,

By empowering the people to be responsible for the welfare of their country, taking a people to war, will be virtually impossible. Which corrects the corruption of the Law of Creation.

The tools of our present system are old and corrupt. We cannot hope to use them to correct the faults that they helped create.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Just Torch on January 16, 2012 at 14:42

While this sounds wonderful in theory, it ignores the fact that not everyone is connected to the net.  Not even everyone in the US is connected to the net.  What happens if the idea you propose is instituted is just a new elite of the technorati, which I know is a very popular notion.  It is still just as wrong though.

Another issue is that you talk about voting on the web.  That requires a far larger commitment of time than most people have.  And, this gets to the heart of the problem with consensus building and truly participatory democracy on a large scale.  Not only do you want each and every person, and we'll assume for the sake of discussion that you mean only people of "voting age", to be connected to the net, but now you want them all to stop and log in to the web and vote on a particular issue.

So, we grind everything to a halt while we give everyone time to actually do that the first time.  Now, if we're going to continue to work towards consensus, as opposed to majority, we are going to have to have a LOT of rounds of back and forth to achieve that with how many people?  324 million? Or, are we talking about spreading this out even further?  Either way, through time, the population theoretically continues to expand.

I agree that we have to get organized and that we have to vote.  But, the system that you are proposing disadvantages not only the poor who are not connected at all, but all the way up the ladder it disadvantages most of the 99% because they're so busy trying to SURVIVE, and further it makes rapid decision making impossible.  Now perhaps that is the actual goal.  If so, I think that is a mistake also.

We do need to demand that we the people and our institution the government not fund political parties.  If a political party wishes to exist, then it must be self-funded by the people that make it up.  That means that the primaries are not funded nor conducted by we the people, among other things.

We must push the re-set button.  We have to flush the corruption.  This movement is losing its focus.  We have to return to the basic, fundamental purpose we initially rallied around.  To accomplish those things and ensure their continued success, we have a lot of other rooting to do throughout the entire system, but we have to regain focus or we are lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu Phillips on February 1, 2012 at 0:30

It is not important for people to be conneced to the web, to stay up with the issues of the day. Sites run by the BBC for example are set up for people to interact via their TV. As for voting, just about everyone in the country has a mobile phone to be able to text their vote. How many of us have a spare old phone we could donate, to empower someone ?

I understand you think this would leave people behind, but this is just one of the problems that I think we could do very well in promoting our concern. By taking the side of the little man and ensuring that they have the same opportunity to vote as everyone else, we can be seen as the champion of the little man. The publicity for such a task would be worth millions in comparison with what the parties spin.

I am suggesting the empowerment of the people, by the people. The existing establishment has worked hard to dis-empower people from takng part in the council chamber, so in reply we should work just as hard to respect the voice and the individual's, right to join the circle.

People would only vote on the issues that affect them or those around them. Even so, I suggest there would still be more people wanting to express an opinion on any particular issue, than the few hundred who sit bickering in Parliament at the moment. I can guarantee that people would make the time, if they felt that strongly on a matter. Wouldn't you ?

Norway is a prime example of how the wealth was soon redistributed and the social standards elevated, when the people took control of their council chamber.

As a global movement, out for change, the question is, How high are we willing to aim, to end the corruption that has infested our council chambers ?

The politicians are the gatekeepers, that uphold all that is wrong with our world. Yet every few years, they encourage us to re-elect them to continue their agenda.

I dont believe that our countries would fall apart during the transition, because when the politician goes off on their nice expensive holidays, that we pay for. Life goes on. For we the people are the civil services, that work hard to keep our services running.

AIPAC is considered as the kingmaker or kingbreaker in America now. They have such a stranglehold on the policies , that they intend to drag us into another war, that we cannot afford. On an enemy, that has not made any attempt to break the peace. As the agressor, on a peaceful people. A war, that will drag China and Russia in against us. It would be a war nobody would win and not something I care to contemplate.

We can keep protesting until war comes and they instill martial law, which would effectively shut us up. Or we can unite under a banner of empowerment of the people and start campaigning for the change we want to see.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Just Torch on February 1, 2012 at 1:50

Your reliance on technology is simply misguided.  Sites run by the BBC?  You mean state run and funded corporations?  The very heart of the merger of government and corporations?  Really?  In the ideal Star Trek world, yes.  it's fantastic.  We are just not there.  Do we want to aim there?  Absolutely!  We have to, but to get there, we have to build the infrastructure first.

There was a frightening bit on Jon Stewart illustrating the stratification that was taking place in NY at OWS.  The technorati at one end of the park and the rest at the other end.  And, never the twain shall meet.  It was really very indicative of the problem you and I are slowly discussing here.

The politicians are not the gatekeepers.  We are.  We have to stop talking about the government as though it is some other.  Some alien.  It is we.  We are it.  They are we.  Yes, money has subjugated us, because we have allowed it to.  Hell, even the Newt the other day has taken up our words.  I actually heard him saying that Rmoney has the money power but he has the people power and the people power wins over the money power every time.

It's not that I think that it will leave people behind. It's that we KNOW it will.  We have seen it.  #firstworldproblems.  We have extra phones?  Sure.  On what network?  How does it get secured?  The voting machines aren't even secure.  The NFC technology used in Google wallet reads any credit cards with rfid chips and can then be picked off with th eright equipment.

The goals you have are laudable, but we simply are not there yet technologically.  Some day.  I hope within my lifetime.  We have the technology.  We do not have the security.  You think we have corruption now?  Set up a system like that and let the corruption come reign in ways that it would be essentially unseeable.  At least now we have ways to track it eventually.

Honestly, I care little about the countries.  I am not really a supporter of borders.  I see that the whole march of history is one towards globalization, and I have no problem with that.  So, if the countries fall apart, that's okay.  So long as we are there to catch and pick up the pieces and reform the people.

I disagree that it is the establishment that has worked to disempower people so much as it has been people's own disinterest.  In reality, people have by and large NOT been involved throughout history right up to the point of revolution.  People simply exist.  The masses don't care about the government until it impedes into our daily lives.  It is only the intellectuals and scholars, the elite and the idle, the elected and the wealthy who think about these things.  the rest of humanity is too busy simply trying to live.

The Norway example is a great example.  It doesn't survive through a direct democracy with consensus building at it's core.  It survives because it established at it's core sound principles and when those opposed to those principles took over and started to ruin it, they were thrown out and the reset button was pushed to put things right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stu Phillips on February 1, 2012 at 15:58

I see we are seeing the same, on many points. I too am a globalist, though I do not proscribe to the power structure that is in effect now. I do believe that if we could initiate Direct Governance, the people themselves would decide that borders are just another devisive act, that they will change when they are ready.

Norway went through a period of upheaval, when the people took control. It all settled down, for the people worked hard to make it work.

When I say "the establishment" I refer to those people and groups, who are not elected. Yet use their influence to co-erce the politicians into doing their bidding. When AIPAC can boast being the kingmaker or the kingbreaker of the USA, I know we are in trouble. For they are saying that America is controlled by Israel. Which is a foriegn power. When they tell the world that they control the President, Where is your democracy ? Where is the voice of the American ?  It is because of this terrible situation that another solution to running our council chambers must be considered.

Bitcoin techs, recently announced that their Bitcoin system of making a carbon copy of every transaction could work very well as a voting system.I understand your concerns about fraud and corruption of the peoples voice, yet we could impose stiff jail terms on anyone found tampering with the aparatus, that is set up. Unlike now, when they conveniently "lose" ballots on the way to the count and then shoo away corruption allegations as things of no consequence.

I do not consider it a hurdle we cannot jump, if that is the cost of effecting the change the world desperately needs. Also, I am put in mind of India, who already have a fully functioning e-voting system for the whole country. If they can do this, why can we not ? 

You are right when you say the average Joe in the street does not care for the politics. Being practical people, they realise that it is a waste of time and energy, engaging in the issues, for they know their voices will not be heeded. They rightly call these politicians lying scum and turn their backs on the whole sordid system, then sit at home praying to God that som nutter on a power trip won't demand they send their children back to war. Being a pawn in another man's game is not an easy fact to swallow, yet they do, because they believe in their hearts that they are powerless to change anything. The atitude of "those guys" know best, so we best all shut up and go home and struggle to feed our families, has been prevalent throughout the ages.

Because we have never been able to get way from the fact of needing a represetative to talk for us, in the council chamber. For it has never been possible, to have everyone attend the chamber at the same time to take part in the conversation. This has changed now, with the advent of social media. We can all take part if we want to. So why should we have this 3rd party to do it for us ?

Being a global movement for change, this model is based on a community and how they discuss the issues relating to them. It is down to those in the movement, to be the change in their community, To investigate the issues of getting the people in their own community, empowered. To set up their own social media site, that interacts with their people. Keeping the security for their network within the community. These networks would then link up together, for debates on regional issues, national and international issues as well. Voting and other ancillary costs should be covered by the community. Though with most of the work done electronically, these costs could be kept to a minimum. Technology will improve the speed and effectiveness of the system as time goes by, making it easier for each person to participate.

How about instituting lessons in school in being responsible and teaching them about how to care for our world, by taking an active part in the debates of the day.

There are some very rich supporters of the movement, who could be approached by any poor community, for funding to set up the voting system. These same people would give, in support of the movement, yet instead of paying into a campaign fund to spread the message through the media. By spending their money wisely, in empowering people to use their voice, it would bring greater public sympathy and support for the movement.

Being a working man with a family, I understand the position I have been boxed into by those who wish to control every aspect of my life. I understand how my voice has been taken to the chamber and been distorted, by those who should know better. I have been a peace loving hippy for my whole life, yet those who have sought my voice at election, have constantly waged war on my behalf, trashed our wonderful Mother Earth in my name and allowed our brothers and sisters in other parts of our home, to starve and suffer terrible depravations, because of some capitalistic ideology. This burden I find unbearable. To not vote for somebody, is taken by the ruling party, to meen that I am contented with my lot and am happy for the status quo to continue. This also is unacceptable. So we're damned if we do vote and damned if we don't. Is it any wonder, people do not even want to participate !

Newt is not a very good example of why we should carry on electing 3rd parties, in truth, I see him as a prime example of why we really need to change the whole sorry lot of them. Do you really think he speaks for the people ? Or do you think like I do, that he is a corrupt liar, who will say anything to the people to get elected, so that he can cream off even more of the peoples money ?

 

 

 
Just Torch said:

Your reliance on technology is simply misguided.  Sites run by the BBC?  You mean state run and funded corporations?  The very heart of the merger of government and corporations?  Really?  In the ideal Star Trek world, yes.  it's fantastic.  We are just not there.  Do we want to aim there?  Absolutely!  We have to, but to get there, we have to build the infrastructure first.

There was a frightening bit on Jon Stewart illustrating the stratification that was taking place in NY at OWS.  The technorati at one end of the park and the rest at the other end.  And, never the twain shall meet.  It was really very indicative of the problem you and I are slowly discussing here.

The politicians are not the gatekeepers.  We are.  We have to stop talking about the government as though it is some other.  Some alien.  It is we.  We are it.  They are we.  Yes, money has subjugated us, because we have allowed it to.  Hell, even the Newt the other day has taken up our words.  I actually heard him saying that Rmoney has the money power but he has the people power and the people power wins over the money power every time.

It's not that I think that it will leave people behind. It's that we KNOW it will.  We have seen it.  #firstworldproblems.  We have extra phones?  Sure.  On what network?  How does it get secured?  The voting machines aren't even secure.  The NFC technology used in Google wallet reads any credit cards with rfid chips and can then be picked off with th eright equipment.

The goals you have are laudable, but we simply are not there yet technologically.  Some day.  I hope within my lifetime.  We have the technology.  We do not have the security.  You think we have corruption now?  Set up a system like that and let the corruption come reign in ways that it would be essentially unseeable.  At least now we have ways to track it eventually.

Honestly, I care little about the countries.  I am not really a supporter of borders.  I see that the whole march of history is one towards globalization, and I have no problem with that.  So, if the countries fall apart, that's okay.  So long as we are there to catch and pick up the pieces and reform the people.

I disagree that it is the establishment that has worked to disempower people so much as it has been people's own disinterest.  In reality, people have by and large NOT been involved throughout history right up to the point of revolution.  People simply exist.  The masses don't care about the government until it impedes into our daily lives.  It is only the intellectuals and scholars, the elite and the idle, the elected and the wealthy who think about these things.  the rest of humanity is too busy simply trying to live.

The Norway example is a great example.  It doesn't survive through a direct democracy with consensus building at it's core.  It survives because it established at it's core sound principles and when those opposed to those principles took over and started to ruin it, they were thrown out and the reset button was pushed to put things right.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ArtFrancisco on February 6, 2012 at 8:35

An auxiliary voice for lefties, anarchists and progressive people.

I think that you touched on something in the first sentence. That Occupy houses two different factions, the militants (anarchists, marxists, anti-capitalists) and the moderates (progressives). 

A substitute for failed current political parties of the above inclinations.

I think that this is partly true, that occupy has potential to become a substitute for political inclinations of the status quo. Well obviously the anarchists have no such institutions, but the progressives have the Democratic Party. So I think the real question here is, "Should Occupy be a substitute for the Democratic Party?" I would argue no. If Occupy becomes a substitute for the Democratic party, then it will simply give the Dems a facelift. Some may argue that this is a good thing, and that is all the Democrats need in order to become "progressive." I would argue against that however, because the Democratic Party has a history of maintaining the status quo: capitalism. There is no where within the party line that calls for the overthrow of capitalism, but even if there were, it would still be co-opted by the capitalists.

A raw manifestation of a new political party in the making that belongs in the post modern, post left/right dichotomy, post representative democracy political landscape.

Close, but define a new political party. An electoral party? I made an argument against this just prior. If we are talking about a united anti-capitalist party (mass organization), I think yes. How that organization would look like would indeed exceed the boundaries of the left/right dichotomy because it would be a bourgeoisie vs proletariat dichotomy. Post representative democracy political landscape--excuse me this sounds a bit like useless fluff. Maybe you should explain things like that so it doesn't sound like you are masturbating with your words.

A phenomenon of reaction to the current failing political landscape that will disappear once the parties refresh and reorganise themselves in accordance to the latest globalised developments and crisis.

This in itself is my greatest fear, that Occupy will simply re-invigorate the corrupt, useless political parties that support the bourgeoisie and then dissolve--forcing workers to play the left/right game for another 40 years. It is indeed a phenomenon of reaction to failures of capitalism, however we should think carefully about objectives. Is it to fix a system that is running quite well (capitalism)? Or is it to overthrow that destructive, corrupt, undemocratic, sociopathic system?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Smith on February 6, 2012 at 17:46

Anarchy can never be an option.  That is an open gate for the theocrats to just march back in and take over again, unopposed, and reinstate institutionalized human slavery (serfdom) and totalitarian aristocracy.  This is the goal of the current christians and republicans, a no-government situation that would give them free-reign to just ride rough-shod over us with no democratic government to protect us.   Our current government is dedicated to preserving the status quo, including capitalism, and it must not just be discarded for no government, it must be changed to a protector of the individual, the individual's rights, and most of all economic justice for all.  If it cannot be modified then we MUST be prepared to replace it in whole with one that will protect us all EQUALLY.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ArtFrancisco on February 6, 2012 at 21:02

Charles,

There is a serious difference between abolishment of government vs abolishment of the state. The state represents the coersive institutions of government, like prisons, military, and police. Anarchism is basically the same as communism in that matter. No offense, but I think that your post reflects a serious misunderstanding of what anarchism is--and to be fair, many anarchists or marxists fail to get a clear grasp on these concepts. This movement is still in an elementary phase for theory.

"Our current government is dedicated to preserving the status quo, including capitalism, and it must not just be discarded for no government, it must be changed to a protector of the individual, the individual's rights, and most of all economic justice for all.  If it cannot be modified then we MUST be prepared to replace it in whole with one that will protect us all EQUALLY."

The crucial difference of solutions between yours and that of anarchism is that you think that the current government is salvagable and anarchism doesn't.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page