Occupy the Oligarchy

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Occupy the Oligarchy

to be continued....

Pondering

This thread is a spin off of this thread:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canada-really-different-greece...

The reason I am creating a spin off is because posters contributed links and thoughts that provide a better beginning to the conversation. During that discussion, Mr. Magoo inspired me to call the movement Occupy the Oligarchy.

The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country. This is a class war but we aren't up against the middle class, or the upper class, or the merely wealthy. It is a subset of the uber-rich. We can't fight an enemy that doesn't have a name.

Oligarch: a person who belongs to a small group of people who govern or control a country, business, etc.

We are not fighting free trade deals or corporations we are fighting an identifiable group of people with names and faces who are responsible for neoliberalism. Oligarchs.

To fight them we will have to inspire this:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time. - Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/we_are_all_greeks_now_20150712

which is no easy task.

I hope this thread will be about finding a means to inspire mass protest. Maybe it's impossible but brainstorming how to do it is at least an alternate mental exercise from endlessly obsessing over every word said about Mulcair and Trudeau everywhere. So, if anyone wants to waste time brainstorming an impossible task please join me.

To achieve our goal we must set aside all differences and focus solely on that which unites us. In that vein I hope that those of us who have differences can set them aside just for this one thread.

Rather than impossible, let's say our task is implausible (both getting along and inspiring a mass movement).

Occupy succeeded in advertising income inequality to the extent that it could no longer be ignored by politicians around the world. It might be worth while to discuss how and why it succeeded in inspiring so much support and why it petered out.

The environmental movement also holds clues to success as they have stopped pipeline after pipeline one right after the other. These pipelines are something oligarchs really want. Harper has been trying to get them through for 10 years and has yet to succeed. That proves that we still have enough democracy left to stop oligarchs.

Although Syriza was unable to deliver on it's promises it did manage to win an election and the support of a majority because Tsipras transcended the usual barriers of left and right based on the unifying cause of rejecting austerity.

iyraste1313

inspiring mass protest of course is essential...and it will come, no doubt through everyone's deteriorating accounts...

what unites us is that we are being screwed by a system, a financial system, a corporate controlled economic system....the target cannot be the oligarchs...as they are but the symptom of the system they created and controlled over the millenia...

No doubt the mass protests will erupt...but hopefully within an atmosphere of discussions over fundamentals; globalization vs. community and bioregional autonomy, corprate technology vs. human, community oriented appropriate technologies, and a political system based on integrity not the corrupting powers of money and their corporate controllers....ultimately bottom up grass roots politics vs. so easily corruptible hierarchal control, by the elites through their financial institutions, economic development corporations and their so called regulatory government agencies...

Pondering

iyraste1313 wrote:
..the target cannot be the oligarchs...as they are but the symptom of the system they created and controlled over the millenia...

Let's say for the sake of argument that we succeed in shutting down the pipelines and blocking expansion of the oilsands.

Do you think the oligarchs will just sit back and take it? They will make Canada scream for mercy through stock markets and other financial vehicles such as credit agencies. They will make us hurt until Canadians insist on pipelines to stop the pain.

Oligarchs are not the symptom of the system they created. It is logically impossible to be a symptom of something you created. Oligarchs created the system to serve themselves and it is working as intended.

Corporations are organizations through which oligarchs act. The tools used by oligarchs around the world differ but the guilt belongs to the oligarchs not the tools.

iyraste1313 wrote:
what unites us is that we are being screwed by a system, a financial system, a corporate controlled economic system..

Oligarchs are hiding behind these systems and they hold all the levers. They managed the crash of 2008 to ensure that they came out whole and taxpayers paid the price. The debate became about how to adjust the systems to better prevent financial breakdowns not how to overthrow it. The same people are in still in charge. Banks are still too big to fail.

iyraste1313 wrote:
No doubt the mass protests will erupt...but hopefully within an atmosphere of discussions over fundamentals; globalization vs. community and bioregional autonomy, corprate technology vs. human, community oriented appropriate technologies, and a political system based on integrity not the corrupting powers of money and their corporate controllers....ultimately bottom up grass roots politics vs. so easily corruptible hierarchal control, by the elites through their financial institutions, economic development corporations and their so called regulatory government agencies...

It's fine to hope but what makes you think that is even a possibility? Why wouldn't the oligarchs simply tweak the system? Placate the majority of protesters with some small improvements, flood the system with more money than usual, create a minimum income program and voila, no more mass protests.

What percentage of Canadians do you think are interested enough in politics to pay any attention to discussions over fundamentals?

The 2008 crash didn't result in neoliberalism suffering anything other than a tiny setback.

The environmental movement found the Achillies heel of the oil company in pipelines because locals all along pipelines are against them. National environmental groups worked to create/connect with the local movements to create a national movement and to promote fighting climate change as the target not just pipelines.

If the movement succeeds in stopping all pipelines in Canada, but the States approves Keystone, the demonstrations will shrink or end. I don't believe the majority of Canadians would fight Keystone.

Activists can all unite their movements but that doesn't mean they can inspire Canadians to unify and even if we unify it doesn't mean we will stay that way once the oligarchs begin punishing us. They can't do what Germany did to Greece but that doesn't mean they are helpless. They can can cause enough of an economic downturn to get the general public to back off and let the experts fix everything.

This... an atmosphere of discussions over fundamentals; globalization vs. community and bioregional autonomy, corprate technology vs. human, community oriented appropriate technologies, and a political system based on integrity not the corrupting powers of money and their corporate controllers....ultimately bottom up grass roots politics vs. so easily corruptible hierarchal control, by the elites through their financial institutions, economic development corporations and their so called regulatory government agencies...

...is not something most Canadians have any more than a passing interest in, if any at all, which is why we don't have any political parties campaigning from that perspective. 

Oligarchs did not go about trying to convert people to neoliberalism by discussing the philosophy and why it is better than socialism. They never denounced Keynesianism as a philosophy.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2014/09/28/130-civil-society-org...

More than 130 civil society organizations on both sides of the Atlantic have reiterated their continuing rejection of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or CETA.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso signed the deal during an Canada-EU Summit in Ottawa on Friday. That’s after 5 years of secret negotiations....

The coalition said its statement was supported by “important social movements outside Canada and the EU, including Public Services International, a trade union federation of over 500 public sector unions in over 140 countries, the Citizens Trade Campaign, a wide coalition in the United States that contributed to stop fast track, and many organizations in South America that successfully blocked the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).” The group added that its opposition to CETA was “an additional step towards the greater articulation of social struggles on the free trade and investment regime, and its most recent expressions like the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).”

I don't see how more of the same is going to stop CETA or reverse it any time soon.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So the original "Occupy" mostly occupied parks or other public spaces.

What shall "Occupy the Oligarchy" occupy?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So the original "Occupy" mostly occupied parks or other public spaces.

What shall "Occupy the Oligarchy" occupy?

It's a bit of a play on words. Instead of occupying physical space we would (eventually) be occupying them through opposition.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'm putting my tent back in the garage then.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I'm putting my tent back in the garage then.

You strike me as a realist.

I was completely shocked that Bush won a second term. How did he do it? Why do so many Americans support the right?

I concluded that public ignorance has allowed the right to blame the poor for everything instead of the oligarchs who are the real culprits.

Rightwing propaganda is a beautiful thing to behold if you don't think about it's purpose.

They have developed ideological arguments but that is not what they present to the public. They present ideas in a few words as possible.

"Right to work"

Who could be against that?

Right to keep the money you earn.

Sounds good to me.

Government is corrupt so we should privatize as much as possible.

A free marketplace keeps prices down through competition.

People who are willing to work get ahead.

Giving people money for nothing makes them lazy.

The number one issue people vote on is the economy.

The left is fighting all of this by trying to convince people we should fight climate change and oil companies are bad and we can have a green economy.

People are all, yeah, climate change is a huge problem, I wish governments would do something about it. If I'm not too busy maybe I will go to a demonstration.

Oh wait, Canada is only responsible for 2% of global emissions!  We aren't the problem!

Scientists will be able to do something, everyone is always claiming the sky is falling. Remember when they were saying we were running out of oil?

Or how about this conumdrum that the public doesn't seem to care about:

We needed tempoary workers because there aren't enough in Canada, but we must support business and keep taxes low so they will create more jobs.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I concluded that public ignorance has allowed the right to blame the poor for everything instead of the oligarchs who are the real culprits.

This could very well be apocryphal, but which President was it -- Harry Truman? -- who was shocked and indignant when someone told him that fully half the nation was below average IQ?

Quote:

They have developed ideological arguments but that is not what they present to the public. They present ideas in a few words as possible.

"Right to work"

Who could be against that?

Right to keep the money you earn.

Sounds good to me.

And the Left leads from different strengths.

"If you follow the asymptote of this graph to where it meets the median of the bell curve..."

Pondering

I have to say I am surprised. If it were up to people here Occupy would not have happened because it was unnecessary given all the existing organizations we have + the NDP.

Either that, or it's usefulness is over, or you think it's dead. Or maybe it is just fatalism, you don't believe we can succeed so why bother trying?

If someone had linked to the call to occupy Wall Street when it was first announced and suggested we do it in Canada too a few members would insist it couldn't be done and/or wasn't needed and/or it wouldn't be any use and everyone would agree and that would be the end of that silliness.

So, I don't agree that it can't be done but I do agree that babble is an unlikely place to start anything. It's no wonder that it is students that usually start things. They believe they can make a radical difference and without that there really is no point in trying.

"If you live long enough, you'll see that every victory turns into a defeat."

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)

So why bother?

Pondering

This is how I mean it: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Ignorance does not necessarily denote lack of intelligence. People have busy lives, their own interests and goals, their own areas of knowledge. Not everyone wants to know what maoism is. I don't know what it is without looking it up and I am way more interested in politics than anyone else I know.

The main contradiction today is between the possibility of free, abundant goods and information; and a system of monopolies, banks and governments trying to keep things private, scarce and commercial. Everything comes down to the struggle between the network and the hierarchy: between old forms of society moulded around capitalism and new forms of society that prefigure what comes next.

...

Is it utopian to believe we’re on the verge of an evolution beyond capitalism? We live in a world in which gay men and women can marry, and in which contraception has, within the space of 50 years, made the average working-class woman freer than the craziest libertine of the Bloomsbury era. Why do we, then, find it so hard to imagine economic freedom?

It is the elites – cut off in their dark-limo world – whose project looks as forlorn as that of the millennial sects of the 19th century. The democracy of riot squads, corrupt politicians, magnate-controlled newspapers and the surveillance state looks as phoney and fragile as East Germany did 30 years ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capit...

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

To fight them we will have to inspire this:

We will not return to a rational economy or restore democracy until these global speculators are stripped of power. This will happen only if the streets of major cities in Europe and the United States are convulsed with mass protests. The tyranny of these financial elites knows no limits. They will impose ever greater suffering and repression until we submit or revolt. I prefer the latter. But we don’t have much time. - Chris Hedges

which is no easy task.

It's happened before.  France had the French Revolution, the Americans had the American Revolution.  Not Canada, though.  We had a bunch of drunk guys sitting and negotiating Confederation. 

La Marseillaise wrote:

Arise children of the fatherland
The day of glory has arrived
Against us tyranny's
Bloody standard is raised
Listen to the sound in the fields
The howling of these fearsome soldiers
They are coming into our midst
To cut the throats of your sons and consorts
To arms citizens
Form you battalions
March, march
Let impure blood
Water our furrows

Star Spangled Banner wrote:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.

Oh Canada wrote:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

Unlike America and France where they were kicking ass, in Canada, for the Confederate fathers, it was glorious when they were actually sober enough to stand up on their feet  (on guard for thee) without falling down.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

I have to say I am surprised. If it were up to people here Occupy would not have happened because it was unnecessary given all the existing organizations we have + the NDP.

You read what you want to hear.  To me, it never seems to have much connection to what is written.

Quote:

Either that, or it's usefulness is over, or you think it's dead. Or maybe it is just fatalism, you don't believe we can succeed so why bother trying?

If someone had linked to the call to occupy Wall Street when it was first announced and suggested we do it in Canada too a few members would insist it couldn't be done and/or wasn't needed and/or it wouldn't be any use and everyone would agree and that would be the end of that silliness.

You are making stuff up as you go.  This is all baloney.

Quote:

I was completely shocked that Bush won a second term. How did he do it? Why do so many Americans support the right?

You don't seem to have much political sense.  You are constantly shocked and making predictions that don't come to pass.  Yet, you are arrogant when people try to explain things.

You rail on and on about the oligarchs yet you are smitten with Justin Trudeau.  And then you are shocked when people vote in ways that seemingly don't make sense.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:
Yet, you are arrogant when people try to explain things.

You don't believe you could possibly gain any meaningful knowledge from me. You are at least as arrogant as I am. You just think you are entitled to it and I am not.

wage zombie wrote:
You rail on and on about the oligarchs yet you are smitten with Justin Trudeau.

Must every thread be a bash Trudeau and supporters thead to satisfy you?

I'm interested in addressing the problem of global oligarchs and thinking about how to disempower them through appealing to the 99%.

What is your purpose in participating in this thread?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country. This is a class war but we aren't up against the middle class, or the upper class, or the merely wealthy. It is a subset of the uber-rich. We can't fight an enemy that doesn't have a name.

Here are the names:

1. David Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet and family $30.74 billion. 

2. Galen Weston $11.38 billion  

3. Arthur Irving, James Irving, John Irving $8.23 billion 

4. Jim Pattison $7.88 billion 

5. Edward Rogers III and family $7.40 billion 

6. Lino Saputo and family $6.24 billion 

7. Paul Desmarais and family $5.58 billion.  

8. James Armstrong Richardson and family $5.05 billion.  

9. Jeffrey Skoll $5.01 billion.

10. Carlo Fidani $4.58 billion. 

11. Harrison McCain and family $3.79 billion.

12. Wallace McCain and family $3.68 billion. 

13. Daryl Katz $3.59 billion. 

14. Bernard Sherman $3.50 billion. 

15. Clay Riddell $3.41 billion.

16. Fred and Ron Mannix $3.40 billion

17. Mark Scheinberg $3.23 billion.

18. Jean Coutu (pharmacist) $3.21 billion

19. David Azrieli and family $3.12 billion.

20. Alan Zekelman, Barry Zekelman, Clayton Zekelman $3.10 billion 

21. Frank H. Sobey and family $3.00 billion. 

22. Frank Stronach $2.94 billion.

23. David Cheriton $2.89 billion.

24. N. Murray Edwards $2.83 billion.

25. Francesco Aquilini and family $2.80 billion

 

So, once we round up these enemy oligarchs, what do we do with them?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country.

We don't easily outnumber the 1%?

Like, say, 99 to 1?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country.

We don't easily outnumber the 1%?

Like, say, 99 to 1?

We certainly do and as this is brainstorming I am certainly willing to listen to your argument that we should target the 1% rather than just the oligarchs.

I think aiming at the entire 1% dilutes the message and provides cover for the .001%.

I don't know much about the French Revolution but I think they just targeted aristocrats not the merchants that grew wealthy off them.

It is my opinion western oligarchs hide behind the 1% and politicians and corporations. The Carlyle Group and the Bilderberg meetings are tools that they use to manipulate world events.  Think tanks like The Project for The New American Century are at their service.

iyraste1313

"Do you think the oligarchs will just sit back and take it? They will make Canada scream for mercy through stock markets and other financial vehicles such as credit agencies. They will make us hurt until Canadians insist on pipelines to stop the pain...."

My point is to focus on the system itself, that the oligarchs most of whom benefit from, from time to time!

The system is an integrated whole consisting of its key players, the corporations especially the financials and a system of rules and regulations, all based on the logic of money, confidence and privatized credit creation....yes the stock market and its system of privatized money creation is a key one....

These are the institutions that must be targetted! Boycott the corporations...invest your subsistemce income in the community alternatives...in global fairtrade alternatives!

yes they will make Canadians scream....so precisely why we must build an alternative bottom up community based alternative...perhaps marginal at first...but will accelerate in growth as the system continues to fail into collapse...

if we don't have such a system in place when the collapse date happens (stock market crash, real estate bubble burst, ad nauseum...) (October?)...we will be under a horrific martial law with C-51 as our official constitution

NDPP

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country. This is a class war but we aren't up against the middle class, or the upper class, or the merely wealthy. It is a subset of the uber-rich. We can't fight an enemy that doesn't have a name.

Here are the names:

4. Jim Pattison $7.88 billion 

 

So, once we round up these enemy oligarchs, what do we do with them?

I don't think there is any need to "round them up" or do anything at all to them in order to disempower them but all ideas are are worth putting out there during brainstorming.

At least theoretically in a democracy oligarchs can be overthrown without violent revolt.

I'm sure this BC Billionaire's chief flunky ex NDP BC Premier Glen Clark will assist in any way he can. No?

Pondering

iyraste1313 wrote:
My point is to focus on the system itself, that the oligarchs most of whom benefit from, from time to time!

The system is an integrated whole consisting of its key players, the corporations especially the financials and a system of rules and regulations, all based on the logic of money, confidence and privatized credit creation....yes the stock market and its system of privatized money creation is a key one....

These are their weaponized tools. To destroy the weapons would also destroy our lives as we know them. Even if that would mean huge improvement within a decade the initial pain for the majority of people would be high, higher than most people appear willing to pay.

I think that is one lesson to be learned from Greece. No matter how badly the system has abused them, no matter that they know it is the elites of Greece and Europe that have destroyed their economy, they would still rather subject themselves to abuse of Europe than take the risk of separation from the Euro. They may even be right. It is easy for us to call Tsipras a traitor or a failure but he was right about one thing. He did not have a mandate to leave the euro. It's also easy to be critical of the people for not giving him one, but I suspect if Greece had dared to leave the Euro enormous powers would have been brought to bare to ensure abject failure or at least as much pain as possible before success could be achieved. Preparing humanitarian aid was a not so veiled threat.

iyraste1313 wrote:
These are the institutions that must be targetted! Boycott the corporations...invest your subsistemce income in the community alternatives...in global fairtrade alternatives! 

Boycotting is not harmful, it is even useful against some targets, but boycotting won't touch Dupont or Halliburton. All the alternatives being created are absolutely essential. We need the new model to transition to. The more established it is the easier it will be to expand it expotentially. There are individuals and institutions all over the world creating solutions.

iyraste1313 wrote:
yes they will make Canadians scream....so precisely why we must build an alternative bottom up community based alternative...perhaps marginal at first...but will accelerate in growth as the system continues to fail into collapse...

Look at Greece and even the States. Collapse doesn't necessarily result in revolution.

iyraste1313 wrote:
if we don't have such a system in place when the collapse date happens (stock market crash, real estate bubble burst, ad nauseum...) (October?)...we will be under a horrific martial law with C-51 as our official constitution

C-51 will never be our official constitution. It will be contested in the courts and our courts have proven to be quite robust in that regard. The courts are also being used to challenge the government's right to be borrowing from private banks and paying interest which is against the best interests of Canadians.

The collapses will happen but that doesn't mean people will be willing to risk whatever they have left to transition to a radically new system.

The situation in Quebec is instructive. The corruption is so deep and endemic that people thought it was normal business practice. 30% higher prices for payoffs isn't exactly subtle. In Montreal we were asked in an online referendum if we were willing to give the same asphalt contractor who had supplied us with subpar product new contracts. We voted no. They still got hired because there were no other companies available. They had a monopoly. I think they should have been told they would get no contracts and been given an opportunity to sell their plants to the employees who had not been involved in the corruption. The government could have sponsored co-op development.

I don't think it will be possible to have as sudden and severe a rupture as revolutions have caused in the past in ostensibly democratic countries under capitialism especially in the wealthier countries like Canada.

The alternative is to have a fast (50yrs?) but orderly transition based on changed priorities driven not by allegience to a particular party or leaders but through understanding how we are being screwed over and by whom. How planned obsolescene, manufactured scarcity and charging what the market can be forced to bear rather than by the value of goods robs us and fattens the coffers of oligarchs.

We don't have a common currency with the US, but we do have NAFTA and we do have the North American Security Perimeter. What do you think would happen if we try to get out of those?

There are gazillions of solutions that would allow us to live in harmony with each other and with the Earth with all our needs provided for and more with no net degration of lifestyle for the 99%. They are spreading at a glacial pace. Who is in the way?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We certainly do and as this is brainstorming I am certainly willing to listen to your argument that we should target the 1% rather than just the oligarchs.

I wasn't actually arguing that.  Just making the point that the 99% already outnumber the 1%.  Outside of, say, Monaco, I think the poor outnumber the rich anywhere you go.  We don't need to define the 0.01% in order to outnumber them.

Quote:
I don't know much about the French Revolution but I think they just targeted aristocrats not the merchants that grew wealthy off them.

Guillotines were slow and inefficient.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
We certainly do and as this is brainstorming I am certainly willing to listen to your argument that we should target the 1% rather than just the oligarchs.

I wasn't actually arguing that.  Just making the point that the 99% already outnumber the 1%.  Outside of, say, Monaco, I think the poor outnumber the rich anywhere you go.  We don't need to define the 0.01% in order to outnumber them.

Quote:
I don't know much about the French Revolution but I think they just targeted aristocrats not the merchants that grew wealthy off them.

Guillotines were slow and inefficient.

Hmm, well this person seems to agree with you.I don't agree with everything in this article but there are some good points.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

Since the first ziggurats rose in ancient Babylonia, the so-called forces of order, stability, and tradition have feared a revolt from below. Beginning with Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre after the French Revolution, a whole genre of political writings—some classical liberal, some conservative, some reactionary—has propounded this theme. The title of Ortega y Gasset’s most famous work, The Revolt of the Masses, tells us something about the mental atmosphere of this literature.

But in globalized postmodern America, what if this whole vision about where order, stability, and a tolerable framework for governance come from, and who threatens those values, is inverted? What if Christopher Lasch came closer to the truth in The Revolt of the Elites, wherein he wrote, “In our time, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses”? Lasch held that the elites—by which he meant not just the super-wealthy but also their managerial coat holders and professional apologists—were undermining the country’s promise as a constitutional republic with their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility.

Lasch wrote that in 1995. Now, almost two decades later, the super-rich have achieved escape velocity from the gravitational pull of the very society they rule over. They have seceded from America.

iyraste1313

 but boycotting won't touch Dupont or Halliburton.......

I\m reminded of my first experience with the activists and communities of the indigenous maya uprising, last fall, where they shut down Halliburton here successively for 3 day periods.....boycotting was mentioned by way of building the alternative institutions...certainly not the only tactic to be employed, when the timing is right!

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The 1% really isn't our target. Our target is a much smaller group of people. So small that we easily out number them and their minions in every country. This is a class war but we aren't up against the middle class, or the upper class, or the merely wealthy. It is a subset of the uber-rich. We can't fight an enemy that doesn't have a name.

Here are the names:

......

So, once we round up these enemy oligarchs, what do we do with them?

I don't think there is any need to "round them up" or do anything at all to them in order to disempower them but all ideas are are worth putting out there during brainstorming.

At least theoretically in a democracy oligarchs can be overthrown without violent revolt.

Pondering

iyraste1313 wrote:

 but boycotting won't touch Dupont or Halliburton.......

I\m reminded of my first experience with the activists and communities of the indigenous maya uprising, last fall, where they shut down Halliburton here successively for 3 day periods.....boycotting was mentioned by way of building the alternative institutions...certainly not the only tactic to be employed, when the timing is right!

To me success is taking power away from them. Shutting down for a few days here and there is an annoyance. It may matter a great deal to people locally but these companies are so massive they are as powerful as countries.

I think that in a democratic society it will take the growth of alternative institutions and a relatively smooth transition period for people to support radical change. It will only be supported if people see their lives improving.

The Venus Project proposes a tempting vision but it is unlikely to happen any time soon:

http://www.straight.com/blogra/venus-project-moving-forward-toward-what

but it does make interesting points:

https://www.thevenusproject.com/en/faq

It is not enough to criticize, point out the shortcomings of society, or advocate that people of high moral character be elected into office; this would do little to advance civilization. What is needed is the intelligent management of the world's resources, and a comprehensive and workable arrangement of environmental and social affairs that are in strict accord with existing resources and the carrying capacity of our planet. Even with the election of men and women of impeccable character into government, without available resources and advanced technology, war, poverty, and corruption will prevail no matter how many new laws are passed or treaties signed. It is not democracy that elevated our standard of living, it is our resources, water, arable land, and new technology. Rhetoric and paper proclamations are irrelevant in the management of human and social affairs.

This is the problem I am trying to address:

No government in history has ever planned ahead and directed society into the next phase of social evolution. Established orders want to perpetuate themselves. Unfortunately, it may take an economic breakdown and people becoming disillusioned with their leaders before they will seek an alternative social direction Social change was always brought about by economic collapse, corruption in government, abuse of the population, etc. Governments are generally comprised of businessmen, lawyers, and other self-appointed individuals with personal and corporate interest rather than upgrading society as a whole.

Just because that is the way it has always been doesn't mean that is the way it always will be. Civilizations have advanced based on discovery and invention. The ability of ordinary people to communicate instantly worldwide is an advancement more powerful than the printing press. Mass communications are in the hands of the people. Things go viral over a period of a few months or overnight.

What you had to say about the rich and powerful being resistant to such a society in many cases is true, however if they keep using automation in their industries, as they have to in order to compete, millions of people will be replaced by machines. This includes not only the assembly line workers but also doctors, engineers, architects and the like. As they lose their purchasing power, the very industries that depend on them can no longer function. This will bring an end to the old outworn monetary system. It is not a question of them giving up their industries; it is that their greed will eventually render them obsolete.

That could easily take another century. Free trade is all about finding new markets so that corporations aren't dependent on local consumption. The monetary system is manmade therefore can be manipulated however it needs to be to survive. It is the ultimate chameleon. The 2008 crash resulted in a recession not a depression because the system was manipulated to make it so. Many economists and even the IMF have declared trickledown theory a failure. I've read articles saying that a deficit isn't that big a deal. If it comes to a point that they have to give people more money to buy stuff for the global monetary system to survive they will. That recognition exists right now. It is said that Greece is some kind of neoliberal experiment and that may well be true because to internationals a failing country is just another opportunity to buy up property and industries cheaply.

I don't want to wait for some sort of Armageddon to achieve dramatic change. If the masses realized how much more wealthy they could be just by delivering common services collectively they would demand it. Imagine how much cheaper socialized broadband would be. What if a crown corporation set up all cell towers and rented space on them to providers. Canada Post should be updated and called Canada Communications. Despite all the efforts of neoliberals Canadians still want public medicare and are in favor of expansion to cover dental and drugs.

 

 

 

Pondering

http://rabble.ca/comment/1516762#comment-1516762 From post 816

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
There's an addage in American politics repeated by everyone left and right: if you're explaining, you're losing.

Not just for political parties either, for any attempt to influence the masses.

iyraste1313

"So, once we round up these enemy oligarchs, what do we do with them?"

I can't help but mentioning the ongoing occupy the oligarch rallies ongoing here in Chisinau...the point being that the oligarchs must be kicked out of government! This is their point! (Rallies attended by all sectors, including some beefy military types! What scares the authorities here is that they will seize the administration buildings!)

Plus a heady boycott the oligarch's campaign may be a good start to build a progressive movement in Canada...end to the fascist system in Canada! That is of course the elimination of the agents of the oligarchy throughout the governemnts' regulatory bureaucracies, the end of oligarchic control of the elections, the end of oligarchic control of the media etc.

 

Pondering

From dictionary .com

noun, plural oligarchies. 1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 2. a state or organization so ruled. 3. the persons or class so ruling.

"Oligarchs" doesn't even catch whom I see as the ultimate repository of power. Air travel created a new breed of people who aren't from countries even if they are technically citizens of one. They grow up traveling between the enclaves of the insanely rich.

They probably identify more with either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world but have greater alligence to wealth than to country. They are not a formal organized group but they work through international corporations and institutions. They rarely show themselves as individuals or families but we know who they are. Even so the finger direct guilt is rarely pointed at them.