heres a question whats more scary to big business 100 people dressed in black clothes carrying protest signs camping out and making the hard working tax payer pay even more for the police to kick them out after they have been told to leave. OR 100 people going to college and getting a law degree, becoming lawyers, filing a case against the 99% and taking them to court, while the second may be hard, well thats what grants are for, nobody said your cause is gonna be easy
People power. Don't impose your will on others. And support those who you think are doing good.
Currently that means changing your lifestyle almost completely. Don't buy slave goods, buy food locally (and organically, less from giant agri-businesses) grown, don't consume mass media, etc and on and on and on. Don't need to vote to change the world, need to change yourself.
Give me an egg, some flour, a "punk" patriot type liberal and a "Xomniverse" type right wing libertarian capitalist and I'll bake a big fat cake of bullshit flavored muck with a side order of idiot. That's some great baking skills when limited to such empty ingredients. It's almost funny watching people be so convinced they have a clue as to whats going on. It's like watching televangelists rant and rave about some non existent god- they actually believe their own bullshit. Benny Hinn? Yep.
What if we had an organisation or 'party' that had the main goal of having elected representatives who empower the people to be able to make the decisions in government? My idea is that if we elected people at all levels of government who promise to use the internet to obey the will of the majority by polling the people they represent on what to do about the issues they face or what are the most important issues. Take the power away from the establishment and give it back to the people.
@Propagandhi900 History shows revolutions replace something bad with something not much better if not worse. As long as a minority rules,they will do what they can to keep power at the expense of the majority. I believe if we really had majority rule, we would use the power wisely. It's not hard to do, just vote for reps that will empower who they are supposed to represent. If there are none, run for the position.
@Propagandhi900 I will look into your examples and suggested reading. I want a society where there is peace and freedom. The revolution you wan't would have to be violent, wouldn't it? How do you get consensus on the type of new society? I don't want to reform capitalism, it's a concept that you can not stop existing. People will always find ways to trade with each other. The Government tries to control capitalism and that causes the problems.
There is no "consensus". Socialism can be organized in different fashions, with different means. Each "platform" will be decided on by the Workers' Councils.
Trade is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and the exploitation of the working class for profit.
@Propagandhi900 On the plus side, should this crap actually come to fruition, the rich have the money to hire mercenaries to support whatever is left of the American government and I personally would work for them in a New York minute. What it sad is that people in power are only just starting to realize how dangerous these groups are to America and it's basic concepts of governance. You really should be detained. If the govt fails, at least the rich will protect themselves (and the rest of us).
@DavidCaines100 So, you aren't a member of the working class? Ergo, you are enemy of the working class. If the revolution should come, and you fight it, you will lose. The working class is the majority in society.
@Propagandhi900 Funny, I've been a chef, a soldier, a construction workler and finally when I grew up and earned some money a bussiness owner. Hells, I washed dishes and pumped gas to pay for school. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I probably reflect the "Working class" far better than you. But if you're occupy, you probably just bitch about how there are no jobs instead of working two or three at a time like the rest of us did. Working class my ass. people who work 70 hr/wks dont but this
@Propagandhi900 Why is it that lazy welfare ghetto shits always call themselves working class...I guess the same reason revolutionaries alway say they're doing it for everyone. Because telling the truth would make them look and feel like the pathetic losers they are and then they'd have to grow up and get jobs. Heaven forefend. Way easier to lie and bitch.
@DavidCaines100 said- "you really should be detained". WoW. We have a clear example of reincarnation here. I believe we're corresponding with Allan Pinkerton himself! Kill and imprison those silly workers who are trying to terrorize those poor capitalists! Ya, thats just about how most Americans think. I'm going to go cry in a dark room now. Thanks.
If they are working class, they will live in a socialist society, even if they happen to be supporters of capitalism.
If they are bourgeois, they will have to find a new job, and adopt to society, because they won't have money, lots of land, factories, or labour to exploit.
@Propagandhi900 You would have to kill/jail them and steal their land and property. You would also have to repress any anti socialist speech otherwise the people may want a different society to you. In your ideal society, everyone is forced to be socialist. In my society, everyone would unite to create what ever society they want which may or may not have socialist elements.
Yes, repression of counter-revolutionary activity is important. This, however, does not mean repressing free speech.
No, not everyone is "forced to be a socialist". There is no "forcing". Through the popular uprising of the working class (this means the majority of people), the current system of the rule of a few (the bourgeoisie) will come to an end.
Your society is one of slavery, exploitation and the ravaging of earth.
@Propagandhi900 I agree that the current system of the rule of the few is terrible. So you agree with me that the majority should be in power but you personally want a socialist society? I respect that view. I personally like capitalism but I would go along with the will of the majority as long as everyone is given a fair way to contribute to the discussion and creation of the society they want.
@therealbradburns Socialism is the only way the majority can be in power. The majority (the working class) is in control of political power and the means of production, ergo, the majority run society.
@Propagandhi900 You seem to agree with me that the majority should have the political power, but for you it is only if they choose socialism. Socialism appears to have just as many challenges as direct democracy. I think you will find that thy majority may like parts of socialism but would also like some parts of capitalism as well. If free speech were allowed in the socialist society you envision and the majority really did have the political power, then that is probably what you would get.
@Propagandhi900 Is control of MOP all socialism is? No,there are other socialist ideas that the majority would accept but not the means of production. Too many people love capitalism and won't change. If like you say, the majority have political power then you will not have pure socialism. The only way to have pure socialism is for a few to have power and control of the majority.
@therealbradburns Yes, control of the MoP is the basic definition of socialism.
"Too many people love capitalism and won't change it" is bullshit. What do you think Occupy is? Why do you think there were anti-capitalist revolutions in the world? Why are the Greeks fighting police in the street? Capitalism! They want to end it.
You have no idea what socialism is. Especially if you think its "minority rule". Moron.
@Propagandhi900 The revolutions mean they don't like the current situation, it does not mean they all love socialism. My whole point is that I want majority rule but I don't think the majority would create a society that is pure socialism. However if that is what an educated free majority wanted, I would accept it. I enjoy discussing different ideas, except when there is name calling. It does not endear the name caller or contribute to the debate.
@therealbradburns The anti-capitalist revolutions have all been socialist. Spain, Russia, Cuba, China, etc. The end result was state capitalism, because of a flawed method of applying socialism. Excluding Spain, who failed as a result of defeat at the hands of fascism.
@Propagandhi900 So if we had a pure direct democracy (which I understand you don't believe is possible) where the majority had political power and created the society they wanted, socialism would be the end result?
@therealbradburns Of course there is. Socialism is, what I refer to, as democracy in it's purest form. There can be no socialism without democracy.
When decisions need to be made, workers will participate in the councils to decide what is to happen. Whether it is allocating resources, or plans to expand a hospital. This is usually done directly at the local level, and through representatives at the regional and national levels.
@therealbradburns Please check out my video series "Self Governance" Part VI Stephen Shalom addresses this idea in some detail. It's a ten part series (one talk) from a talk given at Left Forum in 2010 on Self-Governance. I think you'll find it interesting. But skip to Part VI to address your question in more detail than I can give it here in the comments. Thanks for the comment!
@buddhagem Good video series, there are some things I agree with but not everything. The laptop can make direct democracy possible, there are ways around Stephens objections.
@ThePositiveAussie I understand it may seem like that. Hopefully I address this in my next video "Voting is the 1% of Politics" Voting is a very small part of the political process.
@buddhagem The lone strategy of not voting isn't going to make a difference. The system is still going to hold onto our leashes. The only real change is that, without the consent of the majority, leaders would be chosen for us. At best, this would cause others both in and our of America to question our government's credibility in ruling without popular consent given we are founded upon "by the people, for the people."
In order to dent the system, people need to do more than that.
@MrEniena Since I've gotten no response from you, let me continue.
What do you intend to do if enough people do not vote? The government is not going to go away, will keep functioning and will certainly make things worse as it could operate without the will or consent of the majority much more than now. You would be making a monster through your non-voting and your Gandhi tactics won't cut it then as they will be ignored more.
What are you going to do? Occupy more vacant spaces?
@MrEniena Non-voters already far outnumber those who vote, even in election extravaganza years like this one. Last Presidential election non-voters: 90 million. Voters: 70 million. And that doesn't count roughly half the population that's not even allowed to vote. No, the government isn't going away but as we build a better world it will become increasingly irrelevant in the lives of many.
@buddhagem No it won't. You've completely ignored my last comment when I said that non-voting will merely create a system that will rule with an iron fist. Ignoring it's not an option as they will simply force people to acknowledge and obey it.
Peace isn't going to cut it then as that's like standing still and letting a monster devour you. The founders knew this after peaceful protest failed and were forced to fight rather than just defy.
@MrEniena Could you clarify what I ignored? Sometimes comments get jumbled here. Non-voting isn't a strategy or a technique towards change. Is that where this confusion is coming from? We are building a new society right now. It's happening all around you whether you know it or not and most of us simply don't have the time or inclination to play the charade of voting. Of course it's a fight. It's a class war. And we plan on winning.
@buddhagem I owe you an apology. I wasn't in a good mood when I posted the comments and I lashed out when I should've kept my comments civil. Now that I'm back in the cool, let me try to understand your plans.
If you're making a new society, then it stands to reason that you should also go further that non-voting like refusing things such as conscription and paying taxes. Are you willing to go that far to cut yourselves off from this government? Cause they won't be happy if you do.
@SaimDI I know they are good at scaring you; it's a good cop bad cop routine if ever there was one. And it works well at keeping a small minority of Americans (roughly 40% of the voting age population) going back to the voting booth to keep out the "bad guys" Check out my latest video "Voting is the 1% of Politics" and try thinking about politics as a process much larger than yes/no votes. Think about the roles we don't get to partake in because we pay others to do them for us (representatives)
@buddhagem I'm not saying that voting is *all* that you should do, I'm saying that you should use *any* avenue to make your voice heard. Especially in a system as effed up as America's, where business interests have so much influence. Vote Democrat when it's Dem vs. Rep, vote for progressives in Democratic primaries, AND go out on the streets.
@SaimDI Unfortunately that's not how our system works, SaimDi. The winner, in this country, is determined by who raises the most money. It's really that simple. And it's going to be very tough for any of the Republicans to beat Obama at this; Obama who has already set records for money raised from Wall St. The voting stuff is a red herring. Pay attention to the money raised and where it comes from. That's how our electoral system works. 90%+ winners out spent opponents.
There is no voting for the people. Only lobbyists get a vote. I guess thats too much for people to grasp. They are simply in denial of how corupt the system is. 60% of the people dont even know what Ron Paul is talking about when he sais audit the Federal Reserve. Yet the Federal Reserve shouldnt exist at all, infact OWS should be in front of the Fed Res with pitch forks & torches & dragging bankers out on the streets for full out lynchings. If anyone really understood, there would be hangings
@LendMeYourHand Sorry, but the Federal Reserve is a symptom, not a disease really. The disease that OWS is fighting against is capitalism. I would never support or defend the Fed but ending the Fed by itself won't do all that much to solve the problem of capitalism.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 You need to reassess the magnitute of what you propose & redefine your definition. Capitalism is NOT the problem. Capitalism is small business. To say this system is based on a Republic or that we have Democracy is a dillusion. We clearly have been hijacked by a Plutocratic Oligarchy of Corporatism, controlled by a fractional banking system based on Fiat currency. This design allows criminal activity at the upper most levels to cheat their way to the top
@LendMeYourHand "Capitalism" is not small businesses. A free market made up of nothing but self-employed people and coops is mutualism, not capitalism. Capitalism is hierarchy and centralization of the means of production. That 1776 "perfect capitalism" you read about and which Ron Paul champions was mostly a slave economy full of uncompensated labor (not just uncompensated black labor but uncompensated white labor as well).
Also, how come every "1776 capitalism" has morphed into corporatism?
@juliaisafilmbuff123 You aim to shoot yourself in the foot. I REALLY hope you arent the face of OWS. If you dont educate yourself with a dictionairy, you will be lead to believe whatever they want to tell you the meaning is. What you propose is to colapse a free system into a Socialist Republic=Communism. I am appalled. The fact that OWS should have spent more time researching instead of sleeping in tents out in front of WallStreet. I can no longer support this movement. BYE
@LendMeYourHand OWS doesn't have a clear ideology. I remember Cindy Milstein talking about all the Ron Paul people at Occupy Philly who would never talk to the anarchists there until they wanted anarchists to join them in direct action. Socialism has NOTHING to do with the state; it has to do with workers' control of the means of production (hence the reason why anti-state anarchists have ALWAYS considered themselves socialists). Also, the Fed is capitalist designed and controlled by capitalists
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Well, thats the problem. Boycott corporation. Support small & privately owned business. Taking down a concept of market is no target. You cant generalize a word like capitalism as being the issue, when it also targets the mom & pops well being in turn. Its a dangerous concept to put the crosshairs on the only true employers of a free market, whilst attempting to combat corporate monopoly. Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
For the past 10 years there's been a huge boycott campaign aimed at Walmart and guess what? Walmart's profits are at a record high. In my home region, small businesses go out of business within months (I happen to be from the most "free market" state of New Hampshire as well).
"...print fake money,..."
If you read Graeber's latest book you'll realize that ALL money is based on debt and markets came into existence through violence and statism.
@juliaisafilmbuff123 The FedRes is privately owned, true, but a better descripter would outline a select few ruling the many. Noblemen, the richest controlling the many. Family bloodlines like the Rockefellers,Rothchilds,etc. This is in definition more in lines with a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. A privately owned bank hijacked the market & print fake money, which creates the inflationary dollar, which is not backed by real assets, such as gold. Its exploitation. End the Fed Res
While I agree wholeheartedly with a number of concerns you raise, there are other factors to consider. First, within the Occupy movement, consensus might be the way to go, but if you count the entire population of the US into the equation, it would be very hard to find any consensus on a variety of issues. This is why the demands of Occupy should be narrowed down to a few basics, rather than trying to tackle ALL problems all at once. >>>
@55ella2007k Google "Stephen Shalom" And Nested Councils. It's a form of participatory democracy that without ever having groups larger than 50 you could account for a population of over 12 billion. Also there are very few issues the entire planet would ever have to consense on. Most issues are local and could be handled at that level. My video series "Self Governance" also has Stephen talking about his theories. Worth a listen; addresses this concern.
@55ella2007k (continued 2): furthermore, I would argue, that direct democracy could possibly be even more damaging once it moves beyond the community or neighborhood level. The reason for this two-fold: For democracy to work AT ALL, a reasonably informed citizenry is necessary pre-condition. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Secondly, there is no way individual citizens have the time to research all pros + cons of a particular bill, let alone numerous bills. It's a full time job. >>>
@55ella2007k You're concerns are really more aimed at imagining if we all voted on everything. That would be exhausting, and that's definitely not what direct democracy is all about. Think smaller, horizontal groups dealing with local issues, federated into nested councils with directly revocable delegates with groups never going over 50. Small, local, manageable. Check out my video on "Self Governance." Great talk with Stephen Shalom and Cindy Milstein. Addresses most of your concerns.
@55ella2007k (continued 3): Direct democracy, via referendum, have produced some terrible results in the past, not because of ill intentions, but because people simply did not have enough unbiased info to make well-informed decisions. I agree with you, that our representative system is totally broken, but why is this so? Because wealth + money should NOT be considered as 'free speech'. These are some of the fundamentals we need to address as the MAJOR goal. >>>
@55ella2007k The the problem isn't direct democracy/consensus but rather lack of information. I have never seen a representative system work at all, at least not for the people.
@55ella2007k (continued 4): and quite frankly, this change will NOT come by working within the current corrupted system, but rather from outside of it, or in combination of the two. No revolution has ever succeeded (real or manufactured), without at least 50% of citizens in support of it. And we are not even anywhere close to this. Dreams can be realized, but reality must be taken into account as well, and it is a huge mistake to discount the opposition to all of this.
I pretty much agree with your formulation, but as long as we're stuck in the current system, if begging gets some people some of the things they need (even if it's only scraps) then shouldn't we do it, while we're also trying to bring about real systemic change?
@churchofstfu That's certainly a personal decision we each have to make; and my own feeling is that usually makes more sense at the local level than at the national level.
and just for fun, you can have my right to vote when you pry it from my cold dead hands and not a second before. I think you'll find a shoccking number of people agree.
@DavidCaines100 Rest assured I don't want your right to vote. Vote all you like, but also consider what it is you're doing. You'll never be free if you have to keep begging other people to make decisions for you. We can do better.
@buddhagem Of course you want my vote and my right to do so. Yours is at least for the most part and for the moment a non-violent assualt on the legitimate elected government of th US and many other nations, in most of those nations it has turned violent so basically if you can't con me out of it at some point you'll have to strip it from me. Direct democracy is nothing new it is little more than a new spin on the communists movemnts of the wiemar german era. And that ended so well. ...
@buddhagem for you folks to get the type of governance that you wish, the rest of us must either surender the type of governance we wish and I and 60% of other American opnely support through the voting proccess or have it stripped from us. Color and change the woirds all you wish but at the end of the day for your system to triumph all others must fail by choice or by force. The ignorance is yours, I get your point of view I considered it and dismissed it as a child for it is childish.
@DavidCaines100 Your lack of imagination says quite a bit about you. You keep doing whatever it is you want to do. Vote all you like. Dance if it strikes your fancy. Go to a police ball. I don't have a "system" so your idiotic statements are really more for your own amusement than any attempt at dialogue. I like that you end your statements with your name; apparently you're not aware that it makes it pretty clear who's making the comment. Good luck with whatever you're doing. Keep voting!
@buddhagem Interesting, why is it that children alway think that the generation before them havenb't already tried their "imaginative " nonsense and found it wanting. SO let's be clear, I support the American government which currently exists. Try to take that or seriously undermine it and if you are taken up under the new detention bill, you deserve to be. Our government which represents our people has a right to defend itself against this and I strongly suggest that it do so.
@DavidCaines100 That you can't think of a choice beyond voting says you have some homework to do. That's ok. Lots of learning going on right now. Join the movement, learn about consensus process where we don't vote but work together to formulate solutions we can all agree on; check out Stephen Shalom and nested councils on the problem of scale raised by others. Use that wonderful imagination of yours. You're not alone. Visit a local Occupy community and see Direct Democracy first hand. It's rad!
voting is more like pandering, in my opinion. showing support...because we still beLIEve it can work (even though it never has.)
for one thing, our representatives ONLY know our opinion on issues if we send them a letter (with a signature) or we Speak TO THEM on the phone. so, if anyone ever tried to make this system work (for the people) they'd be writing about 12 letters EVERY week...or making sh*tloads of phone calls.
for another, this is how it was always meant to turn out...civilLIESd
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not sure. I think he's down with the Green Party at this point. He's been all over the map politically and he's still learning a lot, like a lot of folks. He'll figure it out eventually.
Another thing I like to point out is the Super PAC issue we now face as the result of Citizens United v Federal Election Committee.This has,for the most part made void any sense of "fairness there may have been in the process.Balance in politics?Not in the U.S.
What we need is to end all private funding of elections and ensure that anyone who gets enough signatures can run for office, not needing corporate funding to run a good campaign.
I must agree. I've been voting for years and no matter the outcome of the election,NOTHING ever changes.
"insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."(Ben Franklin?)
I do think that by voting I was giving myself a sense of false hope.This false hope allowed me to feel a bit more content.This made it easier to be lulled into a near comatose state of contented "sir and rot...I mean wait."
Then if you do it here on youtube you are a E-beggar. Lol ;-P (sorry (different debate) just had to) But I agree the one thing that leads use forward is when people come together and form ideas that they try to make real. But to vote is also one of the things that democracy is depending on so I can't see one without the other. Regards and have a skilful time. Pinge
@PingeMusic actually voting isn't required in democracy at all. Unfortunately that's how it's understood by most. But voting entails winners and losers. Consensus, which is also democratic, is more about making us all winners. Voting can be used but it should be used sparingly.
The political system we have now in the USA is flawed, but I'd never discourage people from voting.
No one way works, voting, raising money and the like, along with protesting and occupying. Together.
Cooperation is the key. If selfish privileged Americans could get over themselves there would be hope, as it is now only very few activists actually want what the claim to.
@NubianTribesman well I see it slightly differently in that I'm actually encouraging that same energy be spent in more productive ways. If November comes and a person feels compelled to vote, go for it. That is a personal decision, but we have to prioritize our limited time and resources and the electoral process can really suck those dry. Again it's a matter of priority.
@buddhagem I agree with this, but I also feel it necessary to stress that voting for an improvement in living standards is important in aiding the working class. There are millions who don't have time to participate in any class-conscious activity. Higher wages, free childcare, etc. can all allow them the ability to participate. This ability of improvement applies less to the USA, and more to parliamentary nations. The USA bi-party system is absurd, as far as bourgeois electoral systems go.
unfortunately, the 99% cannot grasp this concept
th3inquisitiv31 1 day ago
heres a question whats more scary to big business 100 people dressed in black clothes carrying protest signs camping out and making the hard working tax payer pay even more for the police to kick them out after they have been told to leave. OR 100 people going to college and getting a law degree, becoming lawyers, filing a case against the 99% and taking them to court, while the second may be hard, well thats what grants are for, nobody said your cause is gonna be easy
carousel66 6 days ago
Dude, for a second I thought "Is that LA? He is in a t-shirt"
mempko 3 weeks ago
how is camping out and growing a beard not begging?
tonygmilan7 3 weeks ago
People power. Don't impose your will on others. And support those who you think are doing good.
Currently that means changing your lifestyle almost completely. Don't buy slave goods, buy food locally (and organically, less from giant agri-businesses) grown, don't consume mass media, etc and on and on and on. Don't need to vote to change the world, need to change yourself.
Self-sufficiency
moktail 3 weeks ago
Ive never seen The Projects full of white people
BadLilNinja 1 month ago
Give me an egg, some flour, a "punk" patriot type liberal and a "Xomniverse" type right wing libertarian capitalist and I'll bake a big fat cake of bullshit flavored muck with a side order of idiot. That's some great baking skills when limited to such empty ingredients. It's almost funny watching people be so convinced they have a clue as to whats going on. It's like watching televangelists rant and rave about some non existent god- they actually believe their own bullshit. Benny Hinn? Yep.
crud4 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Right..always when people govern others it doesnt work!
Call it democracy or dictatorship in fact a small group of people have the power and can do any decision.
hairyhornydude 1 month ago
What if we had an organisation or 'party' that had the main goal of having elected representatives who empower the people to be able to make the decisions in government? My idea is that if we elected people at all levels of government who promise to use the internet to obey the will of the majority by polling the people they represent on what to do about the issues they face or what are the most important issues. Take the power away from the establishment and give it back to the people.
therealbradburns 1 month ago
@therealbradburns You cannot elect change. The system cannot be fixed, nor can it be fixed from the inside.
There has to be a revolution, and elimination of the system. Otherwise, the working class will remain the exploited class.
Propagandhi900 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 History shows revolutions replace something bad with something not much better if not worse. As long as a minority rules,they will do what they can to keep power at the expense of the majority. I believe if we really had majority rule, we would use the power wisely. It's not hard to do, just vote for reps that will empower who they are supposed to represent. If there are none, run for the position.
therealbradburns 1 month ago
@therealbradburns Wrong. The revolution in Paris created the Paris Commune. The Spanish revolution created a better society. Etc.
The minority is the bourgeoisie, they own and control the electoral system. You cannot reform capitalism.
Look at Greece and Spain. Socialist governments, who ran a capitalist system without trying to change it to socialism.
Bourgeois elections are a sham, and I suggest you read up on why. Read Rosa Luxemburg's "Reform or Revolution".
Propagandhi900 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 I will look into your examples and suggested reading. I want a society where there is peace and freedom. The revolution you wan't would have to be violent, wouldn't it? How do you get consensus on the type of new society? I don't want to reform capitalism, it's a concept that you can not stop existing. People will always find ways to trade with each other. The Government tries to control capitalism and that causes the problems.
therealbradburns 1 month ago
@therealbradburns There will be no peace within capitalism.
There is no "consensus". Socialism can be organized in different fashions, with different means. Each "platform" will be decided on by the Workers' Councils.
Trade is not capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and the exploitation of the working class for profit.
Propagandhi900 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 On the plus side, should this crap actually come to fruition, the rich have the money to hire mercenaries to support whatever is left of the American government and I personally would work for them in a New York minute. What it sad is that people in power are only just starting to realize how dangerous these groups are to America and it's basic concepts of governance. You really should be detained. If the govt fails, at least the rich will protect themselves (and the rest of us).
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 So, you aren't a member of the working class? Ergo, you are enemy of the working class. If the revolution should come, and you fight it, you will lose. The working class is the majority in society.
Propagandhi900 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 Funny, I've been a chef, a soldier, a construction workler and finally when I grew up and earned some money a bussiness owner. Hells, I washed dishes and pumped gas to pay for school. I'm going to go out on a limb and say I probably reflect the "Working class" far better than you. But if you're occupy, you probably just bitch about how there are no jobs instead of working two or three at a time like the rest of us did. Working class my ass. people who work 70 hr/wks dont but this
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 Why is it that lazy welfare ghetto shits always call themselves working class...I guess the same reason revolutionaries alway say they're doing it for everyone. Because telling the truth would make them look and feel like the pathetic losers they are and then they'd have to grow up and get jobs. Heaven forefend. Way easier to lie and bitch.
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 Are you calling me a "lazy welfare ghetto shit"?
I'm doing this for the working class, not "everyone".
You're so fucking stupid, it's hard not to just laugh at you, but I can tell you're serious, so I suggest you read a fucking book.
Propagandhi900 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 said- "you really should be detained". WoW. We have a clear example of reincarnation here. I believe we're corresponding with Allan Pinkerton himself! Kill and imprison those silly workers who are trying to terrorize those poor capitalists! Ya, thats just about how most Americans think. I'm going to go cry in a dark room now. Thanks.
crud4 1 month ago
@Propagandhi900 What would you do with those who are not socialists?
therealbradburns 4 weeks ago
@therealbradburns What do you mean "what would we do with them"?
If they are working class, they will live in a socialist society, even if they happen to be supporters of capitalism.
If they are bourgeois, they will have to find a new job, and adopt to society, because they won't have money, lots of land, factories, or labour to exploit.
Propagandhi900 4 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 You would have to kill/jail them and steal their land and property. You would also have to repress any anti socialist speech otherwise the people may want a different society to you. In your ideal society, everyone is forced to be socialist. In my society, everyone would unite to create what ever society they want which may or may not have socialist elements.
therealbradburns 4 weeks ago
@therealbradburns That's a complete strawman.
Yes, repression of counter-revolutionary activity is important. This, however, does not mean repressing free speech.
No, not everyone is "forced to be a socialist". There is no "forcing". Through the popular uprising of the working class (this means the majority of people), the current system of the rule of a few (the bourgeoisie) will come to an end.
Your society is one of slavery, exploitation and the ravaging of earth.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 I agree that the current system of the rule of the few is terrible. So you agree with me that the majority should be in power but you personally want a socialist society? I respect that view. I personally like capitalism but I would go along with the will of the majority as long as everyone is given a fair way to contribute to the discussion and creation of the society they want.
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns Socialism is the only way the majority can be in power. The majority (the working class) is in control of political power and the means of production, ergo, the majority run society.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 In a Direct Democracy the majority (the working class) is in control of political power, ergo, the majority would run society.
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns `Direct democracy`is unworkable for numerous reasons. however, it is also not workable within capitalism, especially.
Do you think the rich (who control the government and the military) would allow it to happen? You're nuts.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 You seem to agree with me that the majority should have the political power, but for you it is only if they choose socialism. Socialism appears to have just as many challenges as direct democracy. I think you will find that thy majority may like parts of socialism but would also like some parts of capitalism as well. If free speech were allowed in the socialist society you envision and the majority really did have the political power, then that is probably what you would get.
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns You can't have part capitalism and part socialism.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism is worker control of the MOP.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 Is control of MOP all socialism is? No,there are other socialist ideas that the majority would accept but not the means of production. Too many people love capitalism and won't change. If like you say, the majority have political power then you will not have pure socialism. The only way to have pure socialism is for a few to have power and control of the majority.
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns Yes, control of the MoP is the basic definition of socialism.
"Too many people love capitalism and won't change it" is bullshit. What do you think Occupy is? Why do you think there were anti-capitalist revolutions in the world? Why are the Greeks fighting police in the street? Capitalism! They want to end it.
You have no idea what socialism is. Especially if you think its "minority rule". Moron.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 The revolutions mean they don't like the current situation, it does not mean they all love socialism. My whole point is that I want majority rule but I don't think the majority would create a society that is pure socialism. However if that is what an educated free majority wanted, I would accept it. I enjoy discussing different ideas, except when there is name calling. It does not endear the name caller or contribute to the debate.
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns The anti-capitalist revolutions have all been socialist. Spain, Russia, Cuba, China, etc. The end result was state capitalism, because of a flawed method of applying socialism. Excluding Spain, who failed as a result of defeat at the hands of fascism.
Majority rule, is worker rule. Ergo, socialism.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 So if we had a pure direct democracy (which I understand you don't believe is possible) where the majority had political power and created the society they wanted, socialism would be the end result?
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns You cannot vote for or legislate socialism into existence.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 So if there is not voting in socialism, do you need leaders in socialism to make the decisions for the majority?
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns There IS voting in socialism. Voting is done via the workers councils.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@Propagandhi900 You are right, I don't know a lot about socialism. I think most people don't. So there is a democratic element to socialism?
therealbradburns 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns Of course there is. Socialism is, what I refer to, as democracy in it's purest form. There can be no socialism without democracy.
When decisions need to be made, workers will participate in the councils to decide what is to happen. Whether it is allocating resources, or plans to expand a hospital. This is usually done directly at the local level, and through representatives at the regional and national levels.
Propagandhi900 3 weeks ago
@therealbradburns Please check out my video series "Self Governance" Part VI Stephen Shalom addresses this idea in some detail. It's a ten part series (one talk) from a talk given at Left Forum in 2010 on Self-Governance. I think you'll find it interesting. But skip to Part VI to address your question in more detail than I can give it here in the comments. Thanks for the comment!
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem Good video series, there are some things I agree with but not everything. The laptop can make direct democracy possible, there are ways around Stephens objections.
therealbradburns 4 weeks ago
Defeatism.
ThePositiveAussie 1 month ago
@ThePositiveAussie I understand it may seem like that. Hopefully I address this in my next video "Voting is the 1% of Politics" Voting is a very small part of the political process.
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem The lone strategy of not voting isn't going to make a difference. The system is still going to hold onto our leashes. The only real change is that, without the consent of the majority, leaders would be chosen for us. At best, this would cause others both in and our of America to question our government's credibility in ruling without popular consent given we are founded upon "by the people, for the people."
In order to dent the system, people need to do more than that.
MrEniena 1 week ago
@MrEniena Since I've gotten no response from you, let me continue.
What do you intend to do if enough people do not vote? The government is not going to go away, will keep functioning and will certainly make things worse as it could operate without the will or consent of the majority much more than now. You would be making a monster through your non-voting and your Gandhi tactics won't cut it then as they will be ignored more.
What are you going to do? Occupy more vacant spaces?
MrEniena 3 days ago
@MrEniena Non-voters already far outnumber those who vote, even in election extravaganza years like this one. Last Presidential election non-voters: 90 million. Voters: 70 million. And that doesn't count roughly half the population that's not even allowed to vote. No, the government isn't going away but as we build a better world it will become increasingly irrelevant in the lives of many.
buddhagem 3 days ago
@buddhagem No it won't. You've completely ignored my last comment when I said that non-voting will merely create a system that will rule with an iron fist. Ignoring it's not an option as they will simply force people to acknowledge and obey it.
Peace isn't going to cut it then as that's like standing still and letting a monster devour you. The founders knew this after peaceful protest failed and were forced to fight rather than just defy.
Unless you're ready for that, enjoy slavery.
MrEniena 3 days ago
@MrEniena Could you clarify what I ignored? Sometimes comments get jumbled here. Non-voting isn't a strategy or a technique towards change. Is that where this confusion is coming from? We are building a new society right now. It's happening all around you whether you know it or not and most of us simply don't have the time or inclination to play the charade of voting. Of course it's a fight. It's a class war. And we plan on winning.
buddhagem 1 day ago
@buddhagem I owe you an apology. I wasn't in a good mood when I posted the comments and I lashed out when I should've kept my comments civil. Now that I'm back in the cool, let me try to understand your plans.
If you're making a new society, then it stands to reason that you should also go further that non-voting like refusing things such as conscription and paying taxes. Are you willing to go that far to cut yourselves off from this government? Cause they won't be happy if you do.
MrEniena 7 hours ago
Hope you enjoy a Republican administration, because that's what your voting strategy supports.
SaimDI 1 month ago
@SaimDI I know they are good at scaring you; it's a good cop bad cop routine if ever there was one. And it works well at keeping a small minority of Americans (roughly 40% of the voting age population) going back to the voting booth to keep out the "bad guys" Check out my latest video "Voting is the 1% of Politics" and try thinking about politics as a process much larger than yes/no votes. Think about the roles we don't get to partake in because we pay others to do them for us (representatives)
buddhagem 1 month ago 3
@buddhagem I'm not saying that voting is *all* that you should do, I'm saying that you should use *any* avenue to make your voice heard. Especially in a system as effed up as America's, where business interests have so much influence. Vote Democrat when it's Dem vs. Rep, vote for progressives in Democratic primaries, AND go out on the streets.
SaimDI 4 weeks ago
@SaimDI Unfortunately that's not how our system works, SaimDi. The winner, in this country, is determined by who raises the most money. It's really that simple. And it's going to be very tough for any of the Republicans to beat Obama at this; Obama who has already set records for money raised from Wall St. The voting stuff is a red herring. Pay attention to the money raised and where it comes from. That's how our electoral system works. 90%+ winners out spent opponents.
buddhagem 1 day ago
There is no voting for the people. Only lobbyists get a vote. I guess thats too much for people to grasp. They are simply in denial of how corupt the system is. 60% of the people dont even know what Ron Paul is talking about when he sais audit the Federal Reserve. Yet the Federal Reserve shouldnt exist at all, infact OWS should be in front of the Fed Res with pitch forks & torches & dragging bankers out on the streets for full out lynchings. If anyone really understood, there would be hangings
LendMeYourHand 1 month ago
@LendMeYourHand Sorry, but the Federal Reserve is a symptom, not a disease really. The disease that OWS is fighting against is capitalism. I would never support or defend the Fed but ending the Fed by itself won't do all that much to solve the problem of capitalism.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 You need to reassess the magnitute of what you propose & redefine your definition. Capitalism is NOT the problem. Capitalism is small business. To say this system is based on a Republic or that we have Democracy is a dillusion. We clearly have been hijacked by a Plutocratic Oligarchy of Corporatism, controlled by a fractional banking system based on Fiat currency. This design allows criminal activity at the upper most levels to cheat their way to the top
LendMeYourHand 1 month ago
@LendMeYourHand "Capitalism" is not small businesses. A free market made up of nothing but self-employed people and coops is mutualism, not capitalism. Capitalism is hierarchy and centralization of the means of production. That 1776 "perfect capitalism" you read about and which Ron Paul champions was mostly a slave economy full of uncompensated labor (not just uncompensated black labor but uncompensated white labor as well).
Also, how come every "1776 capitalism" has morphed into corporatism?
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 You aim to shoot yourself in the foot. I REALLY hope you arent the face of OWS. If you dont educate yourself with a dictionairy, you will be lead to believe whatever they want to tell you the meaning is. What you propose is to colapse a free system into a Socialist Republic=Communism. I am appalled. The fact that OWS should have spent more time researching instead of sleeping in tents out in front of WallStreet. I can no longer support this movement. BYE
LendMeYourHand 1 month ago
@LendMeYourHand OWS doesn't have a clear ideology. I remember Cindy Milstein talking about all the Ron Paul people at Occupy Philly who would never talk to the anarchists there until they wanted anarchists to join them in direct action. Socialism has NOTHING to do with the state; it has to do with workers' control of the means of production (hence the reason why anti-state anarchists have ALWAYS considered themselves socialists). Also, the Fed is capitalist designed and controlled by capitalists
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 Well, thats the problem. Boycott corporation. Support small & privately owned business. Taking down a concept of market is no target. You cant generalize a word like capitalism as being the issue, when it also targets the mom & pops well being in turn. Its a dangerous concept to put the crosshairs on the only true employers of a free market, whilst attempting to combat corporate monopoly. Like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
LendMeYourHand 1 month ago
@LendMeYourHand "Boycott corporation."
For the past 10 years there's been a huge boycott campaign aimed at Walmart and guess what? Walmart's profits are at a record high. In my home region, small businesses go out of business within months (I happen to be from the most "free market" state of New Hampshire as well).
"...print fake money,..."
If you read Graeber's latest book you'll realize that ALL money is based on debt and markets came into existence through violence and statism.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 The FedRes is privately owned, true, but a better descripter would outline a select few ruling the many. Noblemen, the richest controlling the many. Family bloodlines like the Rockefellers,Rothchilds,etc. This is in definition more in lines with a Plutocracy or Oligarchy. A privately owned bank hijacked the market & print fake money, which creates the inflationary dollar, which is not backed by real assets, such as gold. Its exploitation. End the Fed Res
LendMeYourHand 1 month ago
While I agree wholeheartedly with a number of concerns you raise, there are other factors to consider. First, within the Occupy movement, consensus might be the way to go, but if you count the entire population of the US into the equation, it would be very hard to find any consensus on a variety of issues. This is why the demands of Occupy should be narrowed down to a few basics, rather than trying to tackle ALL problems all at once. >>>
55ella2007k 1 month ago
@55ella2007k Google "Stephen Shalom" And Nested Councils. It's a form of participatory democracy that without ever having groups larger than 50 you could account for a population of over 12 billion. Also there are very few issues the entire planet would ever have to consense on. Most issues are local and could be handled at that level. My video series "Self Governance" also has Stephen talking about his theories. Worth a listen; addresses this concern.
buddhagem 1 month ago
@55ella2007k (continued 2): furthermore, I would argue, that direct democracy could possibly be even more damaging once it moves beyond the community or neighborhood level. The reason for this two-fold: For democracy to work AT ALL, a reasonably informed citizenry is necessary pre-condition. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Secondly, there is no way individual citizens have the time to research all pros + cons of a particular bill, let alone numerous bills. It's a full time job. >>>
55ella2007k 1 month ago
@55ella2007k You're concerns are really more aimed at imagining if we all voted on everything. That would be exhausting, and that's definitely not what direct democracy is all about. Think smaller, horizontal groups dealing with local issues, federated into nested councils with directly revocable delegates with groups never going over 50. Small, local, manageable. Check out my video on "Self Governance." Great talk with Stephen Shalom and Cindy Milstein. Addresses most of your concerns.
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem thanks, will check it out.
55ella2007k 4 weeks ago
@55ella2007k (continued 3): Direct democracy, via referendum, have produced some terrible results in the past, not because of ill intentions, but because people simply did not have enough unbiased info to make well-informed decisions. I agree with you, that our representative system is totally broken, but why is this so? Because wealth + money should NOT be considered as 'free speech'. These are some of the fundamentals we need to address as the MAJOR goal. >>>
55ella2007k 1 month ago
@55ella2007k The the problem isn't direct democracy/consensus but rather lack of information. I have never seen a representative system work at all, at least not for the people.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@55ella2007k (continued 4): and quite frankly, this change will NOT come by working within the current corrupted system, but rather from outside of it, or in combination of the two. No revolution has ever succeeded (real or manufactured), without at least 50% of citizens in support of it. And we are not even anywhere close to this. Dreams can be realized, but reality must be taken into account as well, and it is a huge mistake to discount the opposition to all of this.
55ella2007k 1 month ago
I pretty much agree with your formulation, but as long as we're stuck in the current system, if begging gets some people some of the things they need (even if it's only scraps) then shouldn't we do it, while we're also trying to bring about real systemic change?
churchofstfu 1 month ago
@churchofstfu That's certainly a personal decision we each have to make; and my own feeling is that usually makes more sense at the local level than at the national level.
buddhagem 1 month ago
and just for fun, you can have my right to vote when you pry it from my cold dead hands and not a second before. I think you'll find a shoccking number of people agree.
Thanks,
David
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 Rest assured I don't want your right to vote. Vote all you like, but also consider what it is you're doing. You'll never be free if you have to keep begging other people to make decisions for you. We can do better.
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem Of course you want my vote and my right to do so. Yours is at least for the most part and for the moment a non-violent assualt on the legitimate elected government of th US and many other nations, in most of those nations it has turned violent so basically if you can't con me out of it at some point you'll have to strip it from me. Direct democracy is nothing new it is little more than a new spin on the communists movemnts of the wiemar german era. And that ended so well. ...
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@buddhagem for you folks to get the type of governance that you wish, the rest of us must either surender the type of governance we wish and I and 60% of other American opnely support through the voting proccess or have it stripped from us. Color and change the woirds all you wish but at the end of the day for your system to triumph all others must fail by choice or by force. The ignorance is yours, I get your point of view I considered it and dismissed it as a child for it is childish.
David
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 Your lack of imagination says quite a bit about you. You keep doing whatever it is you want to do. Vote all you like. Dance if it strikes your fancy. Go to a police ball. I don't have a "system" so your idiotic statements are really more for your own amusement than any attempt at dialogue. I like that you end your statements with your name; apparently you're not aware that it makes it pretty clear who's making the comment. Good luck with whatever you're doing. Keep voting!
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem Interesting, why is it that children alway think that the generation before them havenb't already tried their "imaginative " nonsense and found it wanting. SO let's be clear, I support the American government which currently exists. Try to take that or seriously undermine it and if you are taken up under the new detention bill, you deserve to be. Our government which represents our people has a right to defend itself against this and I strongly suggest that it do so.
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
why do you hate capitalism?
joshua1auhsoj 1 month ago
seriuosly, so instead of voting you want to what overthrow the current existing government and replace it with what?
I'd ask who elected you and your bunch to be kings, but clearly you don't believe in the concept.
So, what is the logical alternative? mind reading, because beklieve me you do not speak for wither myself or anyone that I know.
So if you want to lead and votting is out that doesn't leave you a lot of options. I'd say either overthrow or arrest.
I'm actually at a loss ...
DavidCaines100 1 month ago
@DavidCaines100 That you can't think of a choice beyond voting says you have some homework to do. That's ok. Lots of learning going on right now. Join the movement, learn about consensus process where we don't vote but work together to formulate solutions we can all agree on; check out Stephen Shalom and nested councils on the problem of scale raised by others. Use that wonderful imagination of yours. You're not alone. Visit a local Occupy community and see Direct Democracy first hand. It's rad!
buddhagem 1 month ago
voting is more like pandering, in my opinion. showing support...because we still beLIEve it can work (even though it never has.)
for one thing, our representatives ONLY know our opinion on issues if we send them a letter (with a signature) or we Speak TO THEM on the phone. so, if anyone ever tried to make this system work (for the people) they'd be writing about 12 letters EVERY week...or making sh*tloads of phone calls.
for another, this is how it was always meant to turn out...civilLIESd
donHooligan 1 month ago
Comment removed
PersianPaladin 1 month ago
Nice!
NocheezRecords 1 month ago
Isn't PunkPatriot a Ron Paul follower? I've never understood those people.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 month ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 I'm not sure. I think he's down with the Green Party at this point. He's been all over the map politically and he's still learning a lot, like a lot of folks. He'll figure it out eventually.
buddhagem 1 month ago
Thanks for uploading this. Liberal democracy's a sham
CommunistWarrior1917 1 month ago
Another thing I like to point out is the Super PAC issue we now face as the result of Citizens United v Federal Election Committee.This has,for the most part made void any sense of "fairness there may have been in the process.Balance in politics?Not in the U.S.
SuperPacJack 1 month ago
Voting never seems to work. All politicians are the same, that is why we should abolish government and the state.
AngryPunkPixie 1 month ago
What we need is to end all private funding of elections and ensure that anyone who gets enough signatures can run for office, not needing corporate funding to run a good campaign.
CrazyCheeseMagee 1 month ago
Comment removed
CrazyCheeseMagee 1 month ago
I must agree. I've been voting for years and no matter the outcome of the election,NOTHING ever changes.
"insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."(Ben Franklin?)
I do think that by voting I was giving myself a sense of false hope.This false hope allowed me to feel a bit more content.This made it easier to be lulled into a near comatose state of contented "sir and rot...I mean wait."
SuperPacJack 1 month ago
Then if you do it here on youtube you are a E-beggar. Lol ;-P (sorry (different debate) just had to) But I agree the one thing that leads use forward is when people come together and form ideas that they try to make real. But to vote is also one of the things that democracy is depending on so I can't see one without the other. Regards and have a skilful time. Pinge
PingeMusic 1 month ago
@PingeMusic actually voting isn't required in democracy at all. Unfortunately that's how it's understood by most. But voting entails winners and losers. Consensus, which is also democratic, is more about making us all winners. Voting can be used but it should be used sparingly.
buddhagem 1 month ago
The political system we have now in the USA is flawed, but I'd never discourage people from voting.
No one way works, voting, raising money and the like, along with protesting and occupying. Together.
Cooperation is the key. If selfish privileged Americans could get over themselves there would be hope, as it is now only very few activists actually want what the claim to.
NubianTribesman 1 month ago
@NubianTribesman well I see it slightly differently in that I'm actually encouraging that same energy be spent in more productive ways. If November comes and a person feels compelled to vote, go for it. That is a personal decision, but we have to prioritize our limited time and resources and the electoral process can really suck those dry. Again it's a matter of priority.
buddhagem 1 month ago
@buddhagem I do agree that putting all our time and energy into one "hero" is a waste.
The thing is until people are ready to get over themselves and do something real, we'll have to work with what we have.
still what you say here makes sense.
NubianTribesman 1 month ago
@buddhagem I agree with this, but I also feel it necessary to stress that voting for an improvement in living standards is important in aiding the working class. There are millions who don't have time to participate in any class-conscious activity. Higher wages, free childcare, etc. can all allow them the ability to participate. This ability of improvement applies less to the USA, and more to parliamentary nations. The USA bi-party system is absurd, as far as bourgeois electoral systems go.
Propagandhi900 1 month ago