babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
The Demand is a Process: The Demand Is a Process - YouTube
Also: Minimum wage must be a fully livable wage in the province's most expensive city. (Subsidized by high-income and investment taxes.) End tar sands and frakking. EI should be available to all unable to find a job. Higher student loan offerings and debt forgiveness for those unable to acquire fixed income for extened period. A massive make-work program across as many industries as possible. Provincial healthcare needs to be expanded and cover dental as well. Public transit should be actuall OWNED by the public and free for all, otherwise it is a disproportionate tax on the poor and environmentally conscious. Corporate salary caps. Massive electoral reforms. (Direct or "Cloud" Democracy is a much more feasible possibility with current technologies.) Cut military purchases and expenditures drastically. Completely revamp RCMP and PD training, especially for "less-than-lethal weaponry." Immediate prosecution for officials that allowed the often illegal and rights-violating crackdown on G20 protestors to occur. Immediate end to Canadian support for Israel until it recognizes and dismantles the human rights violations and apartheid state it has created in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Massive transparency and accountability increases in all levels of government and decision-making. Citizen review panels at all levels of government and governmental institutions, operated by citizens from a wide berth of origin, ethnicity, income, gender, and sexuality. Immediate end to political lobbying.
And there's tons more. So, more importantly, we demand a horizontal, participatory democratic structure and process to replace our current parliamentary elections that allow a minority government held in contempt and dissolved to be immediately re-elected with in a "majority" that is not actually representative of a majority of Canadian citizens.
I think we need to get everyone in one spot for communication before we can decide demands. We would like a functional discussion forum that includes all Canadians, not just the ones that can get to a large city assembly and be heard. (In addition to, not instead of the Occupy movement.) Then the first thing to decide would be how to make our decisions reality. What we have been asking for is:
1. Greatly increase transparency so we have the information to make governing decisions
2. Allow creation of bills online by citizens, drafted, debated, prioritized and voted on in public by the public.
3. Require online discussion and voting by referendum on all bills.
We also support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.facebook.com/pages/Take-the-Square-Canada/179698132104089?sk...
and we want to use the Bank of Canada to control our debt: https://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=179698132104089&topic=258
Talk to us on Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/TTSCanada or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/Take-the-Square-Canada/179698132104089
.
Good point, andit leads me to observe that this really is the theme behind the "Occupy ---" movement is that it is an indigtment against polical parties.
It used to be that we saw political parties as agents of change, but the very fact that people are in the streets in many nations means that they are not. That's why some of the more vocal early critics of the "Occupy Wall Street" were Democrats. (or, as they have become known as, "Republicrats")
Quite a laundry list of ideas.
And that's a great thing.
But what needs to be done as some point, is to look at them all and tie them together in a few ideas that allow the issues that those ideas represent to be attacked successfully.
I just want to emphaszie this post, which just about nails the question in the OP. Also, it's good for Spector's ego to know that some people agree with him.
http://thismodernworld.com/archives/6027
A slogan for #OWS
That is a great poster, eastnoireast. Thanks!
First nations rights,
The dangers of the North American Union,
our desperate Environmental reality
yes, I really like the poster - it isn't rocket science
I think that is the best approach. If everything is a priority, then nothing will get done.
What people are outlining are very important issues to radically alter the system. Scaling it down to one slogan destroys the diversity of demands that we all consider essential to making a better world. We need to revel in plurality and diversity of demands.
Not try to streamline the message so things are made invisible.
I agree that making the rich pay for their crisis is fundamental. But even the Occupy wall street protest had multiple demands. It caught steam, because everyone knows this is bigger than one demand, we have a chance to demand more, so why limit ourselves.
I also want to be clear, that solving the colonial situation for First Nations will not come by rights. It will come by destroying the Canadian state's ability to intervene, its not a policy change that is needed by itself, we also need to make canada ungovernable when they attempt to do it. Its actually on us to revolt. The existence of Canada is predicated on the Indigenous lack of self-determination.
That's not what I meant. In fact, everything IS a priority!
Naomi Klein said it best:
The 99 percent is taking to the streets from Madison to Madrid to say “No. We will not pay for your crisis.”
That one slogan sums up dozens of demands!
"We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore."
The focus of the protest should be to have Government support of local industry in bringing their products and services to the local market place at competitive prices, which could also later translate to competitive pricing in the global market place.
Let's consider what has happened over the course of recent decades as a result of various trade agreements and the like. Essentially, this has made it easier for larger corporate businesses, for instance, large retailers, to move across borders and into a greater number of communities - often offering hundreds of jobs to a local community. However, what if many of the goods that these companies supply are produced in other nations and as part of alternative economies; furthermore, what if the products that fill such a large retailers shelves across all of their locations rely on the central distribution of said products? A store that creates 300 jobs, could potentially cost 1000's of others based on supply chains alone. Worse yet, such large companies have the added price advantage of stocking their shelves at discounts that are often provided to volume purchases. This makes it difficult for smaller retailers that might base much of their business on more localized products to compete at the lower prices offered by the larger competitor. If and/or when these smaller stores end up closing their doors as a result of their consumers taking their business to the larger retailer where prices are lower - even more jobs could be lost in the greater community.
In addition, the larger company will likely offer jobs with "competitive wages" and compensation, in part because publicly-traded shares rely on both profitability and creditworthiness of the corporation. After all, wages add to over all operating expenses. So really, what is a "competitve wage"? Basically it amounts to a reliance on people competing against their own demographics to provide the required skill set at the lowest cost to a business, while still attracting people to compete for a position. You'll notice that the benefit of potential employees was not mentioned in that definition.
Meanwhile, as this sort of company operates in a community, perhaps creating a net loss of jobs in the local economy and also paying employees no more than is necessary, the corporation itself has an ever-increasing profit margin and better creditworthiness. This is quite different than it's average employee (especially frontline staff) who must continually compete with an ever-increasing rate of inflation that does not truly represent the higher increase to the actual cost of living in most communities - competing while their wages and salaries remain relatively stagnant. Even those individual incomes that increase based on raises due to inflation continue to lose ground with respect to the purchasing power of a dollar as the actual cost of living grows much larger. In addition, the money supply, interests rates, borrowing opportunities and many other things will be based (in at least part) on inflation - making each less accurate. Especially when a possibly decreasing GDP (or lack of substantial growth in GDP) is also considered - affecting the creditworthiness of not only the individuals within the community, but the community and government itself. As a result, people might continually look to more conservative forms of government that operate under similar guidelines to the larger corporations themselves - cutting spending, etc. However, as more people might now be reliant on the programs and services that are subject to spending cuts, these required services must now be provided by individuals themselves in a less regulated private sector. Over all, while the community might be more creditworthy (and attractive to more large investments/corporations) - the individuals that live in the community might now have to rely more heavily on credit and the associated debt just to live.
Of course, we'll be told that the average household income has grown - but this is simply the result of more incomes being earned per household, not a result of individual incomes themselves increasing with any sort of significance. This also weakens the community over all, as fewer families are able to sit to a family dinner and stress tends to be on the rise, as do the related health concerns and the demands on health care and other systems in order to deal with them. Remember, that this might be the result of a larger chain that provides less healthy choices for individuals to consume (after all, something like a tomato continues to ripen after it is picked - so each tomato might be picked earlier to be shipped from elsewhere, meaning it only has the nutrients of a younger tomato, too).
If governments were to focus on attracting better employers, rather than larger companies and also focus on allowing locally produced goods better opportunity to compete - everything could be offset. Whether cost of living, increasing wages to beyond "competitive" and the number of jobs available in their communities. Of course, we could also start to make our own "smarter" choices as consumers, when we are able.
No thanks. I'm not interested in capitalism-lite. This doesn't solve the problems of exploitation, ecological criss, indigenous self-determination, etc.
Are you sure about that, Giniw? The problem isn't capitalism, itself, it is in our own shunning of the responsibility of ensuring that we are not simply buying goods and services that allow its current incarnation to take such a foot hold. If we were to spend our money on the goods and services that were provided by better businesses (in terms of employee treatment and/or community involvement, etc) it would be those businesses that had the greatest success whether in revenues or the open market.
If government was to take an approach that reduced the cost of locally-produced goods through subsidizing supply-chains and their productivity, it would create more employment opportunities locally and also increase the salability of goods to a greater number of consumers. As such, the consumer base would actually be supporting its own interests - allowing the local economy to flourish and also supporting better companies and employment standards. All of that, in turn, could sway the open market toward companies that follow similar paths - especially if a greater number of global citizens were to take a similar approach. Over all, better employment within a community also reduces the amount that need be spent on social programs and the like, on a per capita basis.
There seems to be a few recurring themes on the We are the 99 Percent website that are also relevent to the situation in Canada:
We Are the 99 Percent
A few of the recurring themes seem to be:
- Too many low wage jobs/ the inability to make work pay
- Lack of jobs that pay adequate wages
- Huge debt levels from student loans
- Expensive tuition
- Lack of adequate health care
- Working too many hours without overcoming poverty
- Lack of affordable adequate housing
- Great poverty for the many amidst huge wealth for the few
- Capitalism is failing
A lot of people are suffering and finally this is being exposed despite the mainstream media's lack of coverage.
One common issue in both the US and Canada is huge student loan debt levels and the inaccesability of post-secondary education. Unfortunately, More and more Canadians are being overwhelmed by huge student loan debt loads while politicians have failed to make this a central issue.
Nope. Actually, the problem is capitalism.
Can The Occupy Wall Streeters Set Up Camp in Canada - by Brent Bambury
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/08/f-vp-bambury-wall-street....
"The three-week protest is to hit the streets in five Canadian cities next week. Do we share the anger..?"
CBC's take -
I agree with you gary, except I don't see it as something that needs to be managed by government. THe problem is that the government is already influenced by those multinational business interests to begin with.
Most of what you're talking about is our job, as I see it.
But more to the point, (as has been mentioned already) I think you'd have a hard time fitting that all on a placard. And once you get beyond the growing gulf between rich and poor I don't think everyone is on the same page here.
M. Spector is right - keep it simple and focused.
Personally, I still believe that shorter placard messages could be based on the idea of "Government support of local industry in bringing their products and services to the local market place at competitive prices, which could also later translate to competitive pricing in the global market place."
This is perhaps a longer-term or more drawn-out solution to the "growing gulf between rich and poor" but to simply carry an ill-conceived placard that reads something similar to "End Capitalism" is likely to accomplish little, if anything at all. What exactly should capitalism be replaced with? While I commend everyone's committing to the idea of change via "Occupying Canada," I am starting to wonder just how many of those protesting actually have a decent or thorough understanding of how the system actually works.
In addition, I would also have to disagree that this is not "something that needs to be managed by government." An unfortunate reality of the separation of classes, as a result of gaps in wealth & income, is that many consumers are forced to consume goods and services at the lowest price point, rather than choosing options that are better for both the individual and the community as a whole. However, with Government support in bringing such options to those of lower income (by subsidizing local businesses along supply chains, and providing tax incentives according to more ethical operations, or through volume share purchases in such ethical businesses, etc.) nearly all problems across the system can be addressed simultaneously.
I would contend that there are problems that will not be avoided, regardless of any simpler approach taken by the "Occupying" crowds. For starters...
- If the wealthy corporations and banks are simply made to pay for their own mistakes, then after this has been done (assuming that most do not sink), everything goes back to business as usual. The same way of doing things that caused the current situation.
- If people simply refuse to work toward this system, I'm sure that such people will constitute a minority. How long will they last before they find themselves in need of returning to the system?
- The end of capitalism and the current economic system. Again, to be replaced with what? This view is often quite narrow and usually incorporates thinking that money is not real or that corporations provide no real value. Both of these assumptions are QUITE FALSE.
- Heavier taxation of the wealthy. This might work, so long as every jurisdiction around the globe follows suit. Truth be told, flat rates of taxation for individuals regardless of wealth/income is the fairest system of tax. For example, if every US citizen paid 20% as a flat rate, for every $0.20 contributed by the least wealthy 20% of Americans, about $168.00 would be paid by the wealthiest 20%. The numbers aren't a whole lot different for Canada. Regardless, perhaps corporate tax rates could be a little bit higher than those for the individual. Remember that if these rates go to high for corporations, they can always move their headquarters to somewhere more agreeable, which impacts the economy negatively.
For all of these reasons, an all-encompassing approach that uses the current open-market systems to our own advantage and sways them toward more ethical business conduct is a better option.
Just saying...
One additional thought…
Perhaps some of the placards should read: “≤20”
The idea being that copyright, patents and other forms of intellectual property protection should not be extended beyond 20 years. This would allow ideas to enter the public domain where anyone could use them as a basis for further creation(s), for which they could reap the financial benefits offered by intellectual property legislation over the next 20 years. This rather than ongoing extension of idea ownership by corporations and the like that restricts both new ideas from being created or rewarded, as well as centralizing wealth to only the few.
I assume you want numbers to show up at these events.
You might get more attention from liberty folk if you focus on:
-Demilitarization
-'Corporate Veil' (assuming that means limited liability)
-Corporate welfare
-Accountability and transparency (police, courts and politicians)
-Anti-corporatism
I didn't read it above, but you could consider 'sound money' policies. Inflation is a tax that hits the middle class the most
You might get less attention from liberty folk if you focus on:
-Entitlements (living wages/guaranteed incomes/pensions/education/healthcare)
-Nationalizing banking or energy
-Anti-capitalism
I am on board with the natives but the rest of the liberty community tends not to talk about it much.
Good luck.
Ah yes, sound money policies not unlike the dregulashun mess of the last 30-35 years. Three decades three recessions.
Partial list:
1) All political and related administrative offices, and also the ability to influence or participate in political decision-making, shall be free of any formal or de facto disqualifications due to non-ownership of non-possessive property or, more generally, of wealth.
2) All political and related administrative offices shall operate on the basis of occupants' standards of living being at or slightly lower than the median equivalent for professional and other skilled workers.
3) All political and related administrative offices shall be subject to immediate recall from any of multiple avenues, especially in cases of abuse of office.
4) There shall be full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement.
5) There shall be full independence of the mass media from concentrated private ownership and management by first means of workplace democracy over mandated balance of content in news and media production, heavy appropriation of economic rent in the broadcast spectrum, unconditional economic assistance (both technical and financial) for independent mass media cooperative startups - especially at more local levels, for purposes of media decentralization - and anti-inheritance transformation of all the relevant mass media properties under private ownership into cooperative property.
6) There shall be an ecological reduction of the normal workweek even for working multiple jobs - including time for workplace democracy, workers' self-management, broader industrial democracy, etc. through workplace committees and assemblies - to a participatory-democratic maximum of 32 hours or less without loss of pay or benefits but with further reductions corresponding to increased labour productivity, the minimum provision of double-time pay or salary/contract equivalent for all hours worked over the normal workweek and over 8 hours a day, and the prohibition of compulsory overtime.
7) All predatory financial practices towards the working class, legal or otherwise, shall be precluded by first means of establishing, on a permanent and either national or multinational basis, a financial monopoly without any private ownership or private management whatsoever - at purchase prices based especially on the market capitalization values of insolvent yet publicly underwritten banks - with such a public monopoly on money supply management inclusive of the general provision of commercial and consumer credit, and with the application of "equity not usury" towards such activity.
8) There shall be overt, subtle, and covert enactment of explicitly confiscatory, despotic measures against all capital flight of wealth, investment strikes, and other elitist economic blackmail, whether the related wealth belongs to economic rebels on the domestic front or to foreign profiteers.
Others off the top of my head:
1) The abolition of legal personhood, most notably with respect to corporations, and the prohibition of legally defined political contributions made by non-government entities other than eligible voters.
2) The combating of residential gentrification and speculation by first means of expanding resident association guarantees beyond the privilege of homeowners and towards the formation of separate tenant associations, limiting all residential writs of possession and eviction for the benefit of private parties to cases of tenant neglect, and establishing comprehensive tax and other financial preferences for renting over home ownership.
3) The institution of affirmative action policies based either on income and other socioeconomic factors or preferrably on class, especially in the sphere of education.
I also agree with the main thrust of Spector's point about focusing on fewer issues, particularly a couple of issues that would isolate the 1% and unite the 99%. Shopping lists are great for educating people but how would one ever translate 30 or 40 demands into practical campaigns to reach the objectives? Are they building a "solidarity" movement - e.g. to advance First Nations or student interests or a broad movement with demands that affect the entire (or most of the) 99%?
I doubt things can (or should) be reduced to 1 single issue (but if it was, it would seem to be that taxes are central to isolating the super-rich 1%). Another central issue is the undemocratic way in which legislatures are elected and implement their policies. Electoral reform is long over-due.
The problem with that approach is that it has been tried again and again and has failed to make substantive change outside the single issue.
All that does is repeat the There Is No Alternative line.
I'm not suggesting that we should dump single-issue or better single-themed campaigns, but proper agitation stems in the first place from proper theoretical and policy education.