Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Governance and politics in a post 99% Conglomerate world

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 24, 2013, 3:45 a.m. EST by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you've been posting on the topic of new systems, a one world government, or at least thinking about the future of democracy, this is for you.

We're desperate to regain control of nations, constitutions, rights and freedoms. We know that it's only the winners of the corporate capitalism game that have control.

Let's say 99% Conglomerate IS the vehicle we used to get there, Phase 3 of the Conglomerate is now over, and capitalism as we knew it (back in 2013) has expired. A completely new capitalism now exists - it now exists as a form of libertarian socialism. Large corporations are powerless against people and do not equate to people. They have no rights and must adhere to rules defined by the people in the Conglomerate's Post-Phase 3 Constitution. All "large" corporations can only exist as worker-owned and operated entities with strictly enforced workplace democracy.

Now it won't be up to me how it all turns out, it will be up to the members of the Conglomerate: Subsidiary owners and employees... basically all consumers, 99% of the global population (who can communicate in a meaningful way).

OK, back to the future as I imagine it.

Forget political parties, they expired too. No parties compete for power or divide the nation. That's all history now, an antiquated tool. There is no President or Prime Minister. The entire structure of government has evolved.

The new framework can be called Departmental Governance. Forget where you live; there are no more borders, politically speaking. You choose which "constituency/ies" you belong to. Each Department has its own constituency, but rather than electing/voting in Department leaders, you evaluate them. Without delay, you can pull them from power if need be, and the next best candidate takes the position instantaneously.

What are Departments? Think of them as sub-nations, autonomous silos of governance. They are the separate pieces of government with separate administrations and fields of expertise. Here is a short list of Departments, to make the concept fully understood: Department of Justice, Department of Economics, Department of Environment, Department of Scientific Research, Department of Transportation, Department of Infrastructure, Department of Human Services, Department of Energy, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and Wellness, Department of Recreation, Department of Employment, I feel like I could go on forever.

How do you enter a Departmental Constituency, in order to influence the decision-making of government? There are a few ways:

  1. Be employed by or volunteer/donate time/money to the public-sector in that Department.

  2. Be an active member in good standing with the political opposition (the NEW AGE political parties).

This doesn't mean much to you now (two separate chapters), but just know it's possible for anyone to be in the constituency of none, one or many Departments.

How do you run for a leadership position in your Department? You must fall into the category of #1 above; associated with the public-sector. If you've met certain criteria, you can spend a large portion of your work hours, paid full normal wages, doing the activities of leaders. You are on the list of people the Departmental Constituency evaluates on a regular schedule. You know many people in your Department and they know and seem to understand you. They are familiar with the issues your Department faces on a day-to-day basis. They have a much better understanding of how your Department operates, and what it needs, than someone in any other Department.

What are the typical leadership activities? Here are the ones I can remember of the top of my head: studying, writing, public speaking, traveling, mentoring, representing, decision-making in Legislative Court (hope that's a good word for it, I won't go into rules of the court now or anything else about it.)

What are the evaluation criteria? That's one I can't decide on. I could happily go many ways. For example, my current favorite implementation is virtues (I know, sounds silly). I think all Departments should share common virtues, such as Competence and Integrity; however, each Department should have their own set of virtues democratically decided to determine their best-fit leaders. Justice might want a strong, bold and unwavering leadership, while Human Services might prefer a more compassionate breed.

What about interdepartmental interaction - conflict and cooperation? Again, another chapter so I'll ambiguously summarize. A few Departments have special roles. Justice, Scientific Research, and Economics are the main (only?) ones. When work needs to be done involving two or more departments, then roles and tasks will be simply defined. When there's conflict, the Justice Department comes into play.

It's getting late and my brain is shutting down, but that was fun. I hope you enjoyed reading and have some thoughts on it.

Back to Topic References: http://occupywallst.org/forum/conglomerate-and-dgrc-topic-references/

7 Comments

7 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I'll elaborate on the Legislative Court (third-last paragraph of original post), describing the structured Departmental decision-making process. It sounds a lot like Direct Democracy to me. (not sure how the copy-paste will turn out so I may be editing.)

First it's important to understand that this is where your Department(s) leaders are making decisions that affect you and your government. Leaders must be on their best behavior and will face harsh criticism and poor evaluations if they do wrong, as the people are watching in real time.

.

Legislative Court is a branch of Justice, with these elements:

  • Neutral group (students of law)
  • may pause debate to clarify situations and options

  • Citizens

-weigh-in electronically without disrupting sessions

  • Opposition Party representatives

-go toe-to-toe with decision makers

  • Special Judges

-final arbitrators if no resolution is found after round 2

.

There are up to three rounds in legislative law-making.

-If a decision is indisputable, there should only be one round.

-If a decision is controversial, there could be up to three rounds.

.

Round 1:

  • Department Leaders present proposition and justification

  • Political Party representatives present opposing arguments

Following Round 1:

  • Parties meet to determine if objectives were met

  • Decision is made to pass legislation or initiate Round 2

  • Individuals apply to be a new voice in the next round, should they feel their message was not adequately conveyed

.

Round 2:

  • Same as Round 1, plus…

  • Summary of popular opinion is posted (citizen weigh-in)

-determines leader-citizen congruence

-should not significantly affect law-making

*wavering leaders have questionable character (a core virtue)

Following Round 2:

  • Same as Following Round 1

.

Round 3: Intervention of Justice Department “Special Judges”

  • Same as Round 2, plus…

  • Three Special Judges review the case history and observe Round 3

  • Special Judge selection process:

-a pool of lawyers are available, indeterminable which will be selected for any case

-must decline if mandatory conditions are not met: neutral, objective, unassociated, anonymous, unknown, sworn to secrecy

  • Their secret votes combined determine the final outcome

Special consideration must be taken to eliminate potential corruption

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

"What are the typical leadership activities?"

The ability to follow through. The ability to keep going when everyone else has quit, wants to quit. The ability see ahead and predict.

The ability to understand what hard work is, accept that there are no other alternatives, and follow through with it. Year after year after year.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

In this system, if they don't do their job the way they're expected to, they get yanked and replaced without delay. And don't get paid too much.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

I will only vote for this if phase three guarantees equal hourly pay for everyone regardless of their position .. whether it be .. on the top of management .. or the janitor.. EQUAL PAY for everyone.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

I can only guess what the people will choose, but workers determine the wages for P3 Subsidiaries. P1 and P2 Subsidiaries won't employ enough workers to make a difference there.

Post-P3 is a whole other ball game. We will only be able to democratically decide during P3, not before.

[-] 1 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

Your making the rules for this game.. you may need to make a promise to the people to attract them at the p1 and p2 level .. an offer of equal pay across the board where every worker recieves the same salary as the top manager .. would be a great attraction.

Let them see and experience equal pay from the start.. this will do two things: 1. open the door to a new possibility, and 2. give the idea of equal pay a chance to develop and be experienced .

With p1 and p2 using an equal pay system from the start ..and during p3 if people than decide to remove equal pay so be it.. but to not give equal pay atleast an opportunity to show itself and what it can accomplish .. is a suppression of good ideas.

[-] 1 points by Kavatz (464) from Edmonton, AB 1 year ago

If you want to try to influence the Conglomerate's decision-making to take this direction, by all means join. Someone out there who understands people might take your side. I'll tell you right now though that no one is going to force small-business P1 Subsidiaries to pay their employees an equal wage.

I think you are misunderstanding something. A home hair stylist doesn't go into business one day and hire 2,000 people the next. Only P3 Subsidiaries will be big operations with many workers.

P1 Subsidiaries may not have managers. Your idea just won't work, especially in this time and place, with this economy and workforce. Forget enforcing equal wages in P1, and I'll be stunned if people go that way for P2 or P3.