Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cat Miao on January 7, 2012 at 1:03

Beautifully said. <3

Donnie Vortex said:

None of the above.

Not an auxiliary, not a substitute, not the makings of a political party, certainly a phenomenon but not as you describe. 

Every once in a while something truly new happens in history. The Occupy movement has been a global, ongoing, highly visible response to grievances which are global, ongoing and highly visible. It is only within the last few decades that the worlds population has been technologically and culturally capable of uniting in opposition to problems that effect everyone. Until recently there were no problems which effect everyone such as global warming, financial meltdown, universal corruption.

This is not going to become a political party, because no political party could possibly represent it. What we are discovering is that we can only represent ourselves and each other, on the basis of equality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Gehlert on January 7, 2012 at 4:56

Same, i used to believe in the political system, till i learned how the monetary system owns polotics. now i just believe in the movement.

V said:

"..a new political party in the making .."  if that's the case I'm outta here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Goldman on January 7, 2012 at 5:45

My opinion is that we have to work with, around (i.e. setting up our own health clinics, etc.), and against the present system.  Working with those individual politicians (i.e. Bernie Sanders) who agree with Occupy on important causes is important.  And there are some Democrats who agree with what OWS is fighting for and there are even some Republicans that do in elected office.  I don't think endorsing candidates or parties as a whole is a great idea.  Of course individuals can.  Now if we were to start our own party, that's another story.  A voice at the table through local elections would be beautiful (with the elected only free to carry out the wishes of the GA or something, I don't know).

As far as national office goes, there's too much money right now and it's too far gone to try to get anything done electorally.  But, like I said, we need to work with those who agree with us on an issue-by-issue basis without letting them co-opt us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Occupy London Lobbying on January 7, 2012 at 6:10

We are reinventing the way in which we engage ourselves in political debate every day.  Occupy is part of the spectrum of politics now, and we can learn from others as they learn from us.

Even the government and organisations that fail us have their own idealistic models on how democracy and consensus should be reached, most countries though, rarely implement or adhere to fair and well represented collective democratic processes.  Here is an interesting highlight of an article from The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) a Canadian Crown and UN backed organisation.

Séverine Deneulin

is Lecturer in international development at the University of Bath and Education Officer at the Human Development and Capability Association.

and Lila Shahani is Editor for the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation at the United Nations Development Programme.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITY APPROACH
Freedom and Agency

8. Democracy and Political Participation

Séverine Deneulin

Aims of the chapter

• To analyse various mechanisms through which people exercise their agency in the public space.

• To examine the complexity of democratic decision-making and its consequences for development outcomes.

• To understand the intricate relationship between economic, social and political processes.

Key points

• An effective democracy requires more than free and fair elections and majority rule. It also requires key political institutions and basic political and civil rights, such as freedom of speech, association and information.

• Democracy has intrinsic, instrumental and constructive value.

• Economic and social rights, on the one hand, and political and civil rights, on the other, are intimately related.

• Political equality is a basic requirement for democracy. Economic, social and political inequality tend to reinforce one another.

• Careful attention must be paid to the quality of the democratic process, particularly with respect to the inclusion of all voices in the exercise of public reasoning.

And from another part of the page.

A mechanism for exercising agency in the public sphere

Democracy literally means ‘rule by the people’ (from the Ancient Greek demos, people, and kratos, rule). Essentially, democracy is nothing more than a mechanism that people have designed to rule themselves. In a small book entitled Democracy, which summarizes his substantial scholarship on the issue, the American political scientist Robert Dahl defines democratic decision-making by five criteria (2000, pp37–38). First, democracy requires effective participation. Before a policy is adopted, all members must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views known to others as to what the policy should be. Second, it is based on voting equality. When the moment arrives for the final policy decision to be made, every member should have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes should be counted as equal. Third, it rests on ‘enlightened understanding’. Within reasonable limits, each member should have equal and effective opportunities for learning about alternative policies and their likely consequences. Fourth, each member should have control of the agenda, that is, members should have the exclusive opportunity to decide upon the agenda and change it. Fifth, democratic decision-making should include all adults. All (or at least most) adult permanent residents should have the full rights of citizens that are implied by the first four criteria.

The idea of political equality lies at the core of democratic decision-making. A violation of one of the above criteria leads to political inequality between people, and hence disrupts the democratic process. A democratic government is one which strives to meet as many of these criteria as possible. These criteria do not however exist in an institutional vacuum. Dahl outlines the following institutions necessary for a well-functioning democracy (2000, p86):

1. Elected officials: control over government decisions about policy is constitutionally vested in elected officials.
   
   
2. Free and fair elections: elected officials are chosen in frequent and fairly-conducted elections in which coercion is comparatively uncommon.
   
   
3. Inclusive suffrage: practically all adults have the right to vote in the election of officials.
   
   
4. Right to run for office: practically all adults have the right to run for elective offices in the government, though age limits may be higher for holding office than for the suffrage.
   
   
5. Freedom of expression: citizens have a right to express themselves without the danger of severe punishment on political matters broadly defined, including criticism of officials, the government, the regime, the socio-economic order and the prevailing ideology.
   
   
6. Alternative information: citizens have a right to seek out alternative sources of information. Moreover, alternative sources of information (should) exist that are not under the control of the government or any other single political group attempting to influence public political beliefs and attitudes, and these alternative sources are effectively protected by law.
   
   
7. Associational autonomy: to achieve their various rights, including those listed above, citizens also have a right to form relatively independent associations or organizations, including independent political parties and interest groups.

Dahl uses the word ‘polyarchy’ (meaning ‘rule by the many’) to refer to a government that possesses all of the above institutions. Polyarchy is thus a modern representative democracy which rests on fundamental civil and political rights, such as the right to vote, the right of association and the right to freedom of expression.

As should be obvious from the above, democracy is much more than majority rule obtained at elections, a theme that runs throughout the literature on democracy found in the human development and capability approach:

We must not identify democracy with majority rule. Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment. Even elections can be deeply defective if they occur without the different sides getting an adequate opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the views of the competing protagonists. (Sen, 1999, p10)

Free and fair elections are fundamental, as Box 8.1 discusses, but they make a mockery of democracy if they are not accompanied by the other fundamental civil and political rights. This is echoed in Drèze and Sen (2002, p24), who list other elements that are essential to democratic decision-making beyond the existence of free and fair elections, such as a respect for legal entitlements; the right to free expression (and uncensored media); the right to associate freely and hold public discussions; and the right to organize political movements or protests.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITY APPROACH 8....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Occupy London Lobbying on January 7, 2012 at 6:20

Lol, just doing some google searches, found this awesome document :) Bring on the Grand Jury? ;0)

from Institute for the Study of Civil Society

Total Recall How direct democracy can improve Britain  (pdf link)

How to improve democracy in the UK:
▪ Allow citizens a right of referendum on constitutional issues
▪ Allow citizens to challenge any law passed by parliament by forcing a referendum using a petition of five per cent of the number of votes in the last election
▪ Allow citizens to initiate new legislation and put it to a vote in a referendum using a petition
▪ Give local communities the opportunity to create their own local charters through local initiative and referendum powers
▪ Allow constituents to recall their MP from parliament and hold a by‐election using a petition of 20 per cent of local electorate
▪ Re‐introduce a grand jury system to investigate and begin prosecutions of public officials
▪ Permit grand juries to be convened to decide on public prosecutions as an alternative to the Crown Prosecution Service

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trend Evolution on January 7, 2012 at 13:16

You have two cows...!
ANARCHISM: You have two cows. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.
ARISTOCRACY: You have two cows. You sell both and buy one, really big, pedigree cow. You make a law that you also receive your original cows back.
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
CAPITALISM - DUBAI: You have two cows. You create a website for them and advertise them in all magazines. You create a Cow City or Milk Town for them. You sell off their milk before the cows have even been milked to both legitimate and shady investors who hope to resell the non-existent milk for a 100% profit in two years' time. You bring Tiger Woods to milk the cows first to attract attention.
CAPITALISM - SAUDI ARABIA: You have two cows. Since milking the cow involves nipples, the government decides to ban all cows in public.
CAPITALISM- USA: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Whilst you were busy the two cows wondered in front of a petrochemical transportation, were severely injured, but regardless are detained indefinitely for being Eco-terrorists.
CAPITALISM - UK: You have two cows. They are crazy. You sell them in Europe, declaring that there is no problem from BSE in your country. You blame terrorists.
CENTRALISM: You have two cows. And a problem finding them in the middle of the field with 100,000,000 other cows.
CONSERVATIVISM: You have two cows. You lock them up and charge people to look at them. You give the richest tax breaks to look at them more often.
COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The state takes both and milks them. It gives you the milk... once.
DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. They outvote you 2 to 1, resulting in a ban upon all meat and dairy products.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes them. If you complain the cow secret service take you during the night.
EUROPEAN UNIONISM: You have two cows. You are not allowed to sell their milk & have to pay fines for overshooting your quota of "Greenhouse gas emissions from flatulent cows." You are arrested as the currency you paid the fine in has since collapsed.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord owns them. He takes the milk.
INDUSTRIALISM: You have two cows. You dissect them both and figure out how to build a milk-factory instead.
INNOVATIONISM: You have two cows. You patent "cow" and claim license fees for all the cows of the world.
LIBERALISM: You have two cows. You sell both to the rich. The government then taxes the rich one cow and gives it to the poor.
LIBERTARIANISM: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business.
MARXISM: The proletarian cows unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie cowherds. The egalitarian democratic cow revolutionary state with the cow party as vanguard disintegrate over time. Marx choked on a veggie-burger before he could explain what happens to the use-value, exchange-value and sign-value of bovine leather.
NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you. Then it shoots them.
NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.
PACIFISM: You have two cows. You love them. They stampede you.
SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour who has none.
TALIBANISM: You have two cows. The government shoots them because  "they are Hindu religious symbols." 
UNITED NATIONISM: You have two cows. One bites the other. France and Germany impose milk sanctions on you. China and Russia abstain. The USA and UK bomb the culprit cow. Then you. Then steal your cow. No other country was on the security council to stop it all happening.

Just Torch said:

Though I am very definitely liberal and unapologetically so, I am so very frustrated with so much I see about Occupy.  One of the very first things that I believed about Occupy is that it is not about Left v Right.  Occupy is about right v wrong.  If it changes, or forgets that, then I am out of the movement.  The issues that we should be facing, are not about one's political orientation.  These are truly about survival and sustainability.  These are about ECONOMIC issues.  Economic issues which have corrupted our politics so to that extent they are political as well.

I have already seen Occupy maturing.  I defended it early on to old 60s activists who asked what did it stand for?  What were the goals?  Where are the leaders?  I pointed out that it was a nascent movement, and that no such massive social movement sprang fully formed into being like Athena from Zeus' thigh.  I then tried very carefully to enumerate for them the issues which I saw as being the core issues.  Again, sustainability and survival.  Economic inequality.  I convinced one or two to give us a chance.  I lost one or two.

But, I digress.  You asked, "What is the occupy movement in relation to political parties?"  The answer in my opinion should be that it is nothing in relation to the parties because it is above and beyond politics.  It must use politics to achieve its goals, but it isn't about politics.  It isn't about any of the things you listed because those things are all petty squabbles that come lower on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  Once we find and push the reset button, then we can resume our squabbles over those issues, if we need to, and chances are pretty good that we will need to, because we are, after all, petty humans and it is in our nature to squabble with each other.  

Despite all our attempts to believe otherwise about ourselves.  Very damn few of us, and I am not counting myself in that number, have risen far enough above that level yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trend Evolution on January 7, 2012 at 13:16

You have two cows...!
ANARCHISM: You have two cows. The cows decide you have no right to do anything with their milk and leave to form their own society.
ARISTOCRACY: You have two cows. You sell both and buy one, really big, pedigree cow. You make a law that you also receive your original cows back.
BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
CAPITALISM - DUBAI: You have two cows. You create a website for them and advertise them in all magazines. You create a Cow City or Milk Town for them. You sell off their milk before the cows have even been milked to both legitimate and shady investors who hope to resell the non-existent milk for a 100% profit in two years' time. You bring Tiger Woods to milk the cows first to attract attention.
CAPITALISM - SAUDI ARABIA: You have two cows. Since milking the cow involves nipples, the government decides to ban all cows in public.
CAPITALISM- USA: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt / equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Whilst you were busy the two cows wondered in front of a petrochemical transportation, were severely injured, but regardless are detained indefinitely for being Eco-terrorists.
CAPITALISM - UK: You have two cows. They are crazy. You sell them in Europe, declaring that there is no problem from BSE in your country. You blame terrorists.
CENTRALISM: You have two cows. And a problem finding them in the middle of the field with 100,000,000 other cows.
CONSERVATIVISM: You have two cows. You lock them up and charge people to look at them. You give the richest tax breaks to look at them more often.
COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The state takes both and milks them. It gives you the milk... once.
DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. They outvote you 2 to 1, resulting in a ban upon all meat and dairy products.
DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes them. If you complain the cow secret service take you during the night.
EUROPEAN UNIONISM: You have two cows. You are not allowed to sell their milk & have to pay fines for overshooting your quota of "Greenhouse gas emissions from flatulent cows." You are arrested as the currency you paid the fine in has since collapsed.
FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.
FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord owns them. He takes the milk.
INDUSTRIALISM: You have two cows. You dissect them both and figure out how to build a milk-factory instead.
INNOVATIONISM: You have two cows. You patent "cow" and claim license fees for all the cows of the world.
LIBERALISM: You have two cows. You sell both to the rich. The government then taxes the rich one cow and gives it to the poor.
LIBERTARIANISM: Go away. What I do with my cows is none of your business.
MARXISM: The proletarian cows unite and overthrow the bourgeoisie cowherds. The egalitarian democratic cow revolutionary state with the cow party as vanguard disintegrate over time. Marx choked on a veggie-burger before he could explain what happens to the use-value, exchange-value and sign-value of bovine leather.
NAZISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and then shoots you. Then it shoots them.
NEW DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the sink. The government insists there is a giant storage tank where all the milk goes.
PACIFISM: You have two cows. You love them. They stampede you.
SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbour who has none.
TALIBANISM: You have two cows. The government shoots them because  "they are Hindu religious symbols." 
UNITED NATIONISM: You have two cows. One bites the other. France and Germany impose milk sanctions on you. China and Russia abstain. The USA and UK bomb the culprit cow. Then you. Then steal your cow. No other country was on the security council to stop it all happening.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Badweather on January 8, 2012 at 3:00

Leave your ideology at the door and be human and agitate for full human rights for all.

rise up in love and cooperation and take control of our world back from the greedy few.

We are more powerful turning our back upon the broken system and acting outside of it.

We divorce ourselves from power sapping, divisive politics and put boots on the ground in resistance. Voting has never been enough.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Joseph on January 8, 2012 at 12:48

Recently?!

kingfrederik said:

personally I support labour  but they have been stupid recently 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Raphael on January 9, 2012 at 18:12

The way this forum is presented/worded contains a number of substantial, unexamined assumptions.  Has anyone considered what 'left' means?  Does it mean anything at all?  Do we want to exclude people from Occupying who don't favorably respond to or identify with this undefined word?  Do we wish to disdain those who participate in electoral processes?

If this forum had the capacity for creating discussion threads focused on some of these questions, it might be feasible to pursue them.  However, this does not appear to be the case.  Too bad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Smith on January 13, 2012 at 1:33

Republicans beat the drums for outright repression and enslavement of workers, the democrats protect the capitalist system by placating the workers, hiding the fact that they are slaves from them.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Smith on January 13, 2012 at 2:52

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

▶ Reply to Discussion

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