Unfortunatley many goals people imagine are not possible and won’t be. This is because we are humans and history shows this type of idealistic, “collective, one body that agrees to disagree for the better of all people” society will not happen. And I venture to say it shouldn’t happen. That needs divine rule not rule by a majority of people, even good hearted people. SOmewhere in the mix of things people’s flaws always muddy the intention of such societies. That said, the mix of good intentions but semi selfish ones are what worries me about occupy. Alot of people I know do not agree with the movement because right now its standing for nothing but ideas of some whole new world with new rules. I think its nice (because I’m an idealist) however, it is not realistic. We need to make real aims to remind America and the world of good ethics and hard work. Be willing to role up are sleeves and work past things that are unfair in this world because the world is unfair period. However by becoming a type of moral concious, we should remind America that we can have a survival of the most fit attitdue in bussiness balanced by an obligation to work together and ensure that we are all fit. It takes many goals to reach a vision. Some goals are being met and when they are we need to work on clear, workable replacements for some of those. For instacne if Bank of America has let go of its fees in part because of the movemnet, we should create something acceptable in its place because Bank of America is still losing money and people will still get hurt by other fees, requirements, or even losing a safe place for the investments they work on. I’m just saying to be taken seriously people who do not agree with Occupy need REALISTIC answers not a place just to OOCUPY MORE QUESTIONS and uncertainties. Thanks Peace
the Birdman replies:
An emergency plan if everything falls apart or an alternative that would be what the 1% fear more than anything else: “Either give a representative government that isn’t bought and paid for by corporations or there will be no centralized government and the workers will take over the corporations!”
I believe that our problems with the economy and the power of corporations are based on a structure that began when we started using money in exchange for goods. Money became the basis by which we measure value and we have developed a science for analyzing the value of every effort by assigning a dollar everything we can conceive.
What we perceive as crimes by large corporations is seen as just good business sense when looked at it “objectively” on the spreadsheet. Government can fine a corporation and this can be figured into the analysis. “Can we still come out with a profit after paying the fine?” Corporations feel like they have a moral obligation to their stockholders. Our puritan work ethic makes us feel morally obligated to do what we were hired to do.
I hope that, at the very least, this movement will force the government to break up corporations that have become wealthier and more powerful than any government, and create financial incentives that will make responsible decisions by corporations cost effective.
Ideally, I would like for the system to change so completely that we no longer see money as the measure of all value. The only way for this to work is for money to have no value and this change could be brought about by a mass effort to stop making all payments to corporations, but to keep working while developing new ways and systems to distribute our goods and services to others freely.
“Are you suggesting we go back to a barter system, Birdman?”
No, I envision an anarcho-syndicalist system, similar to what the occupiers are doing. No one is worrying about trading services and achieving some sort of equity. People are working and helping each other. I pray to God that we do something like this if the stock market completely crashes and the corporations go belly up and most of the people are out of work. We should keep working and GIVE the services away, NOT TRADE. In a crisis we must feed anyone who is hungry, take in anyone who needs shelter and treat anyone who needs medical help. Why can’t we do this before we are in a crisis? Because, everything is OWNED by someone who is trying to get the highest possible price for their goods and services. This was efficient and is still certainly more efficient than bartering, but haven’t we evolved enough that we can just do our work and help others every way we can and have faith that we will be helped by others? Probably not…but may we please work towards something like this?
I will sign all the petitions. I agree with ever idea and every demand on everyone’s “laundry list,” but money does cause people do things for its sake alone. It abstracts value and takes it away from the real good that it is supposed to represent. Wars are fought for mere numbers on a ledger. These numbers become meaningless just as soon as we say so.
“Are you suggesting that we start a communist revolution? Communism seems to have failed in the USSR. People seemed to not be free and had so few choices of goods and services.”
This could be seen as a pure form of communism: a form we have never seen in recorded history. The USSR really isn’t a good example of this since it was a socialist country with a very centralized bureaucracy. The lack of choice was mostly because of a bureaucratic elite that decided what would be the most efficient ways to meet everyone’s needs. I believe, like some other posters here, that we should not have a central authority. There could be people whose roles are to find services for others, suggest different types of products, etc. based on informed analyses of trends in technological development, social demographics, lifestyles, etc. However, they would not have any authority to enforce their ideas. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of capitalism would be alive and well; healthier, in fact, than it is now with corporations being so large that they control what is available for us to buy and what the prices will be. The big difference with capitalism is that we would take money out of the equation. We would only be concerned with determining people’s needs and finding the best means to meet those needs. These decisions would be made collectively by those making the products or providing the services, not by a central government. Each corporation would continue to exist, but be controlled by those who work in them, not by an administrative elite. I see no reason why there would be less choice of goods and services. It seems to me there would be more because more people would be working, creating, inventing…
I am not proposing a total lawless anarchy. We will need the protection of police, military, etc. but these must serve the people’s needs, determined by a true democracy: something we have never really seen either. All laws would go from local consensus to a national consensus. It is possible that our present nation is too large and would need to become separate autonomous regions, however, continued associations with wider regions could help provide us with more goods and services, greater security and general harmony with the rest f the world. Obviously all of this would work best if it happened globally.
Again, this could be either an emergency plan if everything falls apart or an alternative that would be what the 1% fear more than anything else. “Either give a representative government that isn’t bought and paid for by corporations or there will be no centralized government and the workers will take over the corporations!