Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: "Occupy" Movement is Dying

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 4, 2013, 9:29 a.m. EST by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Early last year (2012) I joined the group "Vision and Goals" within NYCGA of the "Occupy" movement in New York. The group promised a lot and was very active. I sent my ideas to them. Among other things, I proposed the reduction of work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate, with a short explanation. This measure would improve the situation in society and capitalism itself. I spoke by using a vocabulary that even a young child could understand, but adults can hardly understand me. If you ask a child how they would divide nine apples between ten people, you would get a solution. If you ask the same question to an adult, but substitute jobs for apples, then this is an unsolvable problem. Why? People are so predetermined by the accepted way of thinking that they are lost when they hear new ideas. Rather than to reconsider the acceptance of new ideas they prefer to ignore or attack them. The more that people are educated the worse the situation. Social scientists do not accept anything but the existing political orientation. Social progress is prevented.

Besides a great misunderstanding of my work within the “Occupy” movement, I noticed subversion. It came from the activist Patrick Conway. He is very well educated and his skillfulness has won the trust of the activists. He said that my ideas are interesting, but that we first have to find a consensus on basic issues. With this, the discussion of my ideas ends. He insisted on a consensus on common actions of anarchists, socialists, Trotskyists, Marxists, liberals, Democrats and Republicans, which is impossible to accomplish. It seems to me that he tried to prevent any agreement within the group "Vision and Goals." This once very active group now has not a single new post in the last three months.

I recently tried to initiate action within the “Occupy” movement independently. I founded my hub in the Interoccupy group. Interoccupy is supposed to foster communication between individuals, Working Groups and local General Assemblies across the movement. As a holder of a hub, I believed that I would be able to participate in the work of the movement actively. I sent to them proposal actions but have not received any response. They did not publish my proposals which is not surprising because Interoccupy publishes barely one news article daily witch could also be found in the major media. They publish announcements and calls for numerous divided actions of Occupy movement. As if to say to people: run across the world, scream as much as you can, and when you get tired go home to sleep.

The “Occupy” Movement is the only well-known opposition to the established system in the US and the government has had an interest in silencing it for sure. This is not difficult to achieve because the “Occupy” movement is open to all people. Volunteers run it. There is no hierarchy. Anyone can offer their ideas. As such, the movement is very vulnerable to attacks from the inside. I believe that the U.S. government has sent agents amongst these volunteers who are destroying the movement from the inside. There are still some independent groups that operate, but the “Occupy” movement is dying.

Aleksandar Sarovic www.sarovic.com

238 Comments

238 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by owsarmy (300) 1 year ago

I disagree, You are grossly mistaken.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

Centralized control of communication is dead

[-] 2 points by EmergencyAlert (51) 1 year ago

OWS was the tip of the iceberg. Just wait and watch. This thing has just sparked a generation and it will continue to burn.

Keep it clean and non-violent and it will clean-up the violence.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

I heard in the 1980s that police or government agents not only joined groups, activist groups, but also sometimes became leaders or recruited the leaders. Maybe I'm a rebel ...or watch too many movies... What I heard was stories about leaders that never allowed the group to move forward, or told the group to wait.

But I'm not a good judge of this sort of thing. OWS probably has some good reading, some good guidelines to read to lead you in the right direction. Have you read Zachary Bell?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14095-occupy-everyone-making-revolutionaries-not-a-revolution

Chris Hedges might say we are all Subversive if we think for ourselves. Sounds like you are thinking for yourself.

"...Besides a great misunderstanding of my work within the “Occupy” movement, I noticed subversion...activist Patrick Conway..."

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

From the article:

"Organizers find themselves in something like the role of particle physicists studying the readouts of a cyclotron: Something bright and hot happened in Zuccotti Park for a few months last fall. What was it? What was the magical formula.... Can they replicate it?"

Exactly.

[-] 1 points by BilbosRing (2) 1 year ago

Their job to monitor and control all groups. Individuals pose little threat to the government. Only groups can hurt you. The agents get pay bonus if they become a leader. They are motivated. You have to define the essential projects and tasks that will achieve your mission and get consensus on that. Then it doesn't matter who is the leader. The followers have to hold the leaders accountable to do the mission. If they refuse or subvert, remove them. This is how you entrap intelligence agents to do your bidding. Let them come and work their asses off doing your mission. Spell out clearly what this mission must do and make it happen.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good Points. You have laid out the strategic process pretty clearly here.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

You cannot beat your enemy if do not know him. Here I introduce him:http://www.sarovic.com/jacob_rothschild_is_guilty.htm

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well I am certain that government is inside the Occupy. Probably leads it and even finances this web site. Well, volunteers could hardly compete with well educated and paid government agents. But guess what, at the end it does not matter, the smarter will win.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yes, and Forums, Salons, and the French Cafe's of like the 1920-30s were places that people can exchange ideas. I'm not sure if Aristotle or Sochrates hung out in something called a Forum ... but if people can have a "Safe Place" and exchange ideas.... probably makes democracy stronger and make the country stronger.

So I could actually see the government funding a forum for many reasons, but in the end ... maybe democracy wins.

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Not so there is so many sent "in" that it appears like they work so hard to act like it can. To infinity is how far our reach. I know what you mean about proposals, I got the same treatment here in PDX trying to work with the so-called process. Even 99% vs. seems to be tactical to leave room for separation. How can We be all inclusive at same time, not even optional. I have heard of others saying 100% and explaining similar reason. Also mike check GA process is bull shit, at least here it drove away many people because of the stupidity. Does it go this way all over they wanted everyone to repeat after someone spoke what was said every single time which does not make for getting much done for forward motion. I thought that the place collecting ideal etc was a set up and it sounds to be so. It is a challenge to see progress believe you me WE are everywhere all is well because it will well end. Lovin' you keep your goodness of heart you know!

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2037) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Great Forum, except for trolls and unicorn chasers, overt and covert RepubliCon "campaigners."

As a Public Opinion Persuader (the primary function), OWS bit it with cardboard and crayon signs and Woodstock reenactments they allowed Big Media portray, in '11.

My local Occupy grows veggies, very successfully.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Maybe you should file a grievance with the NLRB?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Many in the country, like myself,who feel that wealth inequality is a major and growing problem have been around for a while. Any of us that lived through the 2000 election and saw how the Greens treated Gore. I have spent a good deal of time here chatting with people, over that time as well as reading the front page this has led me to believe OWS is more interested in attacking the system, esp. the White House over addressing the wealth issue that combined with the growing and evident presence of the Greens has cause me to feel that supporting OWS is not worth the risk that another 2000 could occur again. I don't know if this what is driving large numbers of people, I know that many have sworn to never speak Nader's name again. Anyway take it for what's it's worth, I'm not here to convince you. What I'm trying to say here is that there is a huge army of people wanting to take up the battle the problem is and has been that OWS is not.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Then tell these people that there is a solution presented here.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I used to lash out when I couldn't get the attention i thought i deserved

But I got over it, just before entereing kindergarten

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by ldwarpaint (1) 1 year ago

Americans are brainwashed and don't stand a fighting chance against the government and the major corporations who rule the world. When Occupy did have some momentum, the media was able to convince the majority that they were lazy bum socialist who wanted hand outs. I want change in this country and in order to see any type of change mainstream media would have to play a role in opening the eyes of millions of blind sheep to put an end to this corrupt system. The question is how to successfully do this when major corporations rule mainstream media.

[-] 1 points by BilbosRing (2) 1 year ago

Become a major media. How did they do it? Develop a good product, package it nicely, price it right, and promote the bloody b. Jesus out of it.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

If you understand what I am talking about, then you would spread it. It could be more powerful than media.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The other possibility, like Narley said, the movement is "evolving," not "dying."

It may be doing so without you too

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1321) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Only fools and newcomers predict the weather!

[-] 1 points by Narley (526) 1 year ago

Probably not dyeing. More like evolving. Sorry you didn’t get the attention you wanted, but that doesn’t mean the movement is dying. There are sooo many issues. It’s kinda like playing whack-a-mole. You can’t do everything at one time. Just chill a little.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Actually there are few issues and a lot of confusion... some deliberate.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

If nothing changes the movement will die. The government certainly controls the Occupy a lot. I do not have proof but it is logical. Answer these questions. Is control over the Occupy, the government's desire? Does government have means to do it by sending there well educated and paid agents who pretend they work hard in the interest of the movement? Does word betryal exist? If it does, why?

[-] 5 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

This winter has been, and will continue to be a time of introspection for Occupy. They are looking at what they have done wrong, and what they could have done better

There are many bright mostly younger people...with 'backbone' who are working hard on this

But you wouldn't know that because you bailed at the first sign of trouble, and perhaps because your ego got damaged when your silly idea (at this time) didn't get 'air time'

Your pessimistic conjecture sounds a lot like like 'sour grapes' to me

Perhaps this quote from Vince Lombardi will make you think about your lack of chutzpah.' "It's not whether you get knocked down. It's whether you get up."

~Odin~

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

Nice. Some much needed 'Tubthumping' @ OWS never goes amiss :-) and thoroughly inspired by your Vince Lombardi quote, I append a wee ditty by one of my favourite bands of all time :

& watch them subvert the Letterman Show towards the end of the rendition of their most famous song !!! Onwards & Upwards - Together We Are Stronger !! Keep Occupying Solidarity ! Also please consider :

"The current government and the two dominant political parties which feed it candidates are corrupt and serve the interests of a financial, resource and industrial elite." - yes, bro' & if we can't agree with that then wtf is any of us doing here on this forum - unless it's to push our own web-sites perhaps ?! ~{:-o)

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

The Revolution is Love!

Love is powerful when spread. The essential ingredient for the future of the 99%.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

"'Love' ... love is a verb .. Love is a 'doing' word . Fearless on our ... breath" :

Viva OWS - animated above all by 'the spirit of love'. Solidarity@The 99%~*~

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 3 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

I have enjoyed more of your links than from anywhere else. Please keep them coming.

Love is the answer.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

"Love is the answer" - Yes ! Thanx 'aoa' and to follow, please further find :

amor vincit omnia ...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

can also be a noun

His Love for Music

It's one of those verbs that can be referenced as an object.

I need worlds to address this action to object shift.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

What about 'Spirit' ? Noun or verb ? Or Matt - also both ? In any case - you are well imbued with it, so : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUzLQ8xOa9Q & solidarity @ u, yours & all OWS folk everywhere !!

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

"Love" is indeed "The essential ingredient for the future of the 99%."

I still have that button you gave me on #S17

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

My hope is to one day be a part of a gathering or march where thousands each carry a sign with only the word LOVE. Would the police beat a person carrying that sign? They didn't bother me at all on #S17. It would be powerful and the masses would be for us.

The Revolution is LOVE! Love is the answer.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

It all starts with a dream.

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

So true. Then the spirit of Occupy began, which touched people all over the world, who were watching and waiting for the movement to change the world.

I will always remember people all over the world, (even Iran), cheering for us when the movement began. They realize that we the people in the US would have to lead the way, even though Egyptians and others were dying for the movement. Love is the key to reaching the 99%, may the spreading of Love continue to increase.

When Occupy is associated with Love, the movement will grow with momentum that cannot be stopped.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I don't think I am quite as idealistic as you.

Fostering "love"...being there for each other, and building COMMUNITY along the way amongst our fellow revs will be much needed in the epic struggle we have taken on

And in doing so, we must put aside our differences for the Greater Good

But it is only when the corrupt elite feels endangered of losing everything will they succumb to our demands

And i do not see how "love" plays in on that

~Odin~

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

My idealistic desire is for the corrupt elite to feel endangered of losing everything, just as you said. They will not succumb to our demands under any circumstances until forced by the 99%.

Our hope, (demands), depend on actually becoming the 99%. Only Love is powerful enough to make that happen. Otherwise, we would need to hope that we would be able to put aside our differences for the greater good, not as likely or as powerful.

The Revolution is LOVE! Love is the answer. Can the Occupy spirit become Love?

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

A natural bond....a closeness, and yes even "LOVE".. develops between people who are fighting oppression, especially so when the opposing force is so powerful.

This camaraderie should be nourished by everyone in our struggle by us being there for each other when one of us is down either phsically or mentally

Those who oppose us though should be aware of our resolve, and they should feel the heat,

That is not a 'heat' that should be born out of vengence though, but rather us wanting to restore 'justice' in having a government that answers to the people once again

And part of the justice we should be seeking is seeing that these people who caused so much human misery, do hard time in real jails.

And if we have to let young people, who have committed victimless crimes go free...so there is room for the 'bastards' in the prisons...all the better!

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

A great song, very inspiring as well, and it led me to do a little research on the group, hence discovering that they have anarchal leanings. Why am i not surprised?

It is the recalcitrant spirit that anarchists bring to this movement that will sustain it, and radicals and reformers have a long history of working well together.

And now with the lyrics;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LODkVkpaVQA

And another bit of inspiration for anyone of us who feels frustrated with the slow progress of our struggle....as i suggested to a friend, they should take a time-out, and get away...and if they do...they may find that they won't have to go far, and when they are up there, they should ask themselves; How many people down there in the streets have ever, in there whole life stood up and fought for something that they believe in?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgjMdjKw1Og

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

I prefer the original by 'The Drifters', if I'm honest : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puM1k-S86nE but I have seen James Taylor live - in 1986, so : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMJBDj_JkE & thanx 'O'.

Re.The Mighty 'Chumbawamba', well of course I've seen them live and to follow, a couple of links that will sum up the tradition from whence they spring. There is a half hour potted history and some good listening and reading material re. 'The English Working Peoples Resistance Tradition' here :

Further, also by 'TMC' & @ every Neocon, Neoliberal, Libertopian Loon, here on these threads :

Finally, from Max Keiser, Stacy Herbert & The Also Mighty - George Carlin :

You can't beat a good tune - no matter from which era ! Solidarity !! Viva OWS !!!

"When Injustice Becomes Law - Resistance Becomes Duty" (Thomas Jefferson).

per ardua ad astra ...

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I had forgotten that The Drifters did Up On The Roof originally. They also did another great song that many of the NJ Shore residents including those who were victims of Sandy can relate well too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-XMSqgGY8Y

The English Rebel Songs 1381-1914 remind me again that justice does not come without sacrifice. And Thomas Jefferson's quote reinforces that belief.

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

And then; "To all lovers of Liberty, be assured that Liberty and Freedom will at last prevail." ...from a confiscated broadsheet, 1793.

Getting ready for a winter storm here

Thanks shadzy....you are a shining star in our struggle

Solidarity.... ~Odin~

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

Over and 'Under The Boardwalk', I wish Sincere Good Luck to you and all with the Nor' Easter in mind and thus re Solidarity @ The 99%, OWS and the still suffering Sandy victims :

non semper erit aestas ...

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Thanks. The Nor'Easter was not that bad in NJ compared to further north and east, but even so, because some of the dunes were breached by Sandy, the ocean rushed in and covered Rt 35 (the main N->S route) with 2 ft. of water according to NJ's public telly. These barrier islands (which are 2-3 mi. from me) are in a crisis situation especially considering the predicted sea level rise. More and more people will start linking all this to our far bigger problem of global warming.

There are hard questions that need to be asked. One of the top ones here at the Shore in my opinion is; Do we continue to try and maintain these barrier islands (against tough odds) for habitation or do we let them revert to their natural state where the dunes would be higher and more substantial, hence be more protective to the mainland? There are no easy answers, and simular questions will be asked in many other places in the world in the coming years.

When i was looking for the last Drifters link, I came across Stand By Be. That song is very appropiate for the struggle we are in. Being arrested for standing up for your beliefs is a very courageous act, and it can also be a traumatic experience. Having someone be there..or Standing By you is very needed, and it can be a very rewarding experience as I found out.

One of the first people that I met in Occupy was a young lady from France who came from a privleged background. I had seen her take part in different events in the day, and then at night do Jail Watch. There are many other people like her in OWS, and I have so much respect for them.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

Very interesting comment. Thanx and in solidarity & fyi :

From which : "Pay close attention to sea-level rise, he [James Lovelock] says, for this is “a thermometer which indicates true global warming” because it only comes about in two main ways: through the melting of land-based ice and through the thermal expansion of the oceans, both of which only take place on a warming planet. He shows us sea- level data, which is decidedly worrying: in 2007 observed sea level had risen 1.6 times faster than predicted by the IPCC."

Solidarity Odin, to you and yours & @ OWS & OTS !!

pax ...

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

A sobering link which reinforces the belief that there is not enough time to mitigate the effects of global warming, and adapting to them will be a necessity.

While we are in the midst of making the tough choices that we will inevitably need to make, many of us will ask ourselves why didn't we take this more seriously, and act in a proactive way a lot sooner

That is a question we should each answer in a soulful way

~Odin~

On a side note, yes OTS...my contibutions altho min....rigging, carpentry, old guy's perspective, etc..we are getting ready to crank it up in the spring. Thanks for your continuing well wishes, and Solidarity

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

"The Cleantech Revolution" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9noGsz_HVcI & I recommend this.

Whilst the previous "Adapt and Survive" link may well have been sobering, I'm hoping that this doc. will be more uplifting. The only question for me is how we bypass and obviate The Corporations in favour Real, Direct, Democratic Public Ownership. Solidarity 'O' @ you, yours, & all at OTS !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

It's 0200 here, and I just back from NY. I met some more bright, interesting people in OWS. I am also getting to know the trains fairly well now as tonight I took the R, G, L and A trains to and from Manhattan, and two points in Brooklyn. Pretty soon I'll be a city boy. ;-)

Your question, "How [do] we bypass and obviate The Corporations in favour Real, Direct Democratic Public Ownership."[?] The best way that I can think of is to link the pain, and injustices that people have endured and continue to, with the severe detrimental consequences (that will get worse) of letting corps, and big banks run roughshod over our planet, and its inhabitants.

And so as not to be a hypocrite, and to walk my talk...later today I will be making my plans to do some walking in DC on the 17th.

~Odin~

I bookmarked the link and will watch it later today, and thanks

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19957) 1 year ago

Solidarity on # F17 : http://action.sierraclub.org/site/PageServer?pagename=forwardonclimate and metaphorically but in spirit : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8QvxiQWp2g & check the lyrics :-)

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Great song, and that's the spirit we need. I am on a waiting list for the Sierra Club bus which leaves nearby where i live. Once in DC though, i will hook up up with those radical friends from OWS/OTS.

Solidarity on #F17, and beyond

~Odin~

[-] -3 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

new orleans should have never been built, its below sea level and constantly floods from nothing more that a thundestorm. BUT as nagin said its a chocolate city, so billions will be wasted to keep rebuilding it.

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

Hey dumb shit, its pretty natural for a city to occur at the port of the busiest waterway in the nation.

Duh.

Any other dumb fuck D and Rs want to let us know their IQ tonight?

[-] -2 points by auargent (-600) 1 year ago

the site that NO was built on is below sea level,.................dumb idea to build a city there. it floods ,often.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

The debate on whether New Orleans should have been rebuilt is a legitimate one

And like I implied in my previous comment this is a debate that will be taking place in more and more places in the world that are near, or under sea level

Mayor Nagin's "chocolate city" speech was given to allay residents concerns that they would not be allowed to move back in, which was not only a well-founded concern, it was indeed what transpired in many cases. Many of the properties that were owned by poor residents were given to big developers, not because there homes were necessarily uninhabital, but because politicians colluded with these private concerns to act in their behalf.

However your insidious attempt at race baiting this important issue stinks, and it portends a much bigger problem for you that goes far beyond this site. So I will let you, and people like you wallow away, and as we both know, your numbers are dwindling, and you are becoming increasingly irrelevant

~Odin~

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

Thee are still X's on the doors of new orleans. The machine at up most of that money.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Post Hurricane Katrina New Orleans was the perfect example of how neoliberalism advances itself in times of crisis.

The example of that corrupt dynamic that most of us are more aware of, is happening now as we sit behind our LTs, and witness how after the corrupt elite having caused the 2008 crash, we are now expected to pay for it in countless detrimental (to us) ways

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Dear frovikleka, You are completely wrong regarding my ego. Losers do not have ego and I have been looser for twenty years now, trying to get attention to my work. But I became a very experienced loser so that I know very well what does not work. You better take my opinion as advice for your own good.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Anyone who thinks that this movement has not been infiltrated by people from within government, and out woud be stupid. So you are not telling us anything new.

It might be difficult for you to do, but consider that altruistic OWS people in this struggle might not think your idea is NOT a good one, at least not at this time, if ever. I would fall into that category

Then consider how you denigrate people here, especially in your trashing of the Vision and Goals group, who were not receptive to your idea, and then you proclaim the "Occupy Movement is Dying"

Cumulatively all this suggests to me that you are the one who has not only a comprehension problem, but possibly ulterior motives, and definitely a misplaced view of himself and others

And it also indicates to me that you should take some personal responsibility for your life, get a bigger set of balls, and hire a new salesman

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Narley (526) 1 year ago

I don’t think it’s some type of government conspiracy that will kill OWS. If OWS dies it will be because they haven’t been able to sway the masses. Unfortunately, right or wrong, OWS is a fringe movement. People aren’t paying attention. We MUST focus on ideas the people can relate to; AND suggest plausible solutions.

Protests, street parties and breaking windows initially got people’s attention. Now time decide what we will focus on and how we will endear ourselves to the masses.

[-] 2 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I do not believe Government has desire to kill OWS, it wants to control it. The Government expects dissatisfaction of the people so it rather keeps sheep in a pen, organize travel to meadows, and when sheep get tired return them to the pen. So far OWS did not produce any success and I do not see it coming unless it finds what to fight for and how.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2240) 1 year ago

Good analogy the moment it gets somewhere something wil happen linking terror to Occupy I thought for sure there would be an attempt to link it with the Newtown murdererand attempting to stamp us with that stigma Thank gawd didn't mayabe because google has the real numbers on us and our searches and they would have realized the backlash of such an obvious maneuver, instead used that as a reason to disarm the populous good incentive there too hard to argue it but what happens if the economy collapses though and only the corporate oligarchy has the weapons?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

We are far to small for "the government" to worry about us
The Rs are worried about blocking progressive change & protecting their masters.
The Ds are worried about how to push past the filibuster & the House majority.


Do you really think willards "47%" crap would have been so impactful without our 1%-99% ? If you think we have achieved nothing, ask Occupy Sandy.


Virtually all of our goals start in one place-
end "corporate personhood" & citizens united
to sever capitalism from democracy


If YOU want to fight for something - THIS IS IT!

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

We are small but still the worst threat to the government and it worries and acts. Regarding Occupy Sandy, the movement should be far more than charitable organization. I agree with the bold letters but what is teh result?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the result is a dozen bills in congress to pass an amendment
this is NOT an easy goal - but it STARTS with huge support

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

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

Should there be a group to consolidate them all into one, instead of each person taking a slice of the credit...convince all involved to roll it into one with 12 people supporting it?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

There are around one hundred co-sponsors or supporters - athe the Amendments are varied. Bernie Sanders has one of the best BUT his amendment treats unions differently from corporations - a nd gives them extra rights - laudable - but guarantees NO republiclan support.
The 2012 versions are all here:
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com

There will be reintroduced 2013 versions - but as long as the House is in the hands of the 1%, all efforts to get this done will be blocked

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

Clearly the Senate is too, from their action, or lack there of.

Which amendment, in your opinion, goes the 100% of what we are looking for?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com/1_8_BILLS-AMENDMENTS.html
has them all
My favorite is the Move to Amend version
It best covers BOTH CU & CP - whicn most of the others do not


All bills must be re-introduced in the 2013 session
HOUSE: Any Bill not only must pass 2/3 of the 1%'s Rs, they start in the House Judiciary Committe ( 23R 17D) that is overwhelmed by R vermin
such as louis gomert, daryl issa , steve king: (With a majority vote)
SENATE: Reid's spineless filibuster change will also obstruct here
even with a majority - the filibuster stops reform


The only way to get this done is to vote for
ELECTABLE PRO-1% PRO-AMENDMENT candidates

[-] 1 points by Narley (526) 1 year ago

I actually agree with you. The future os OWS will rely on how well they can sway the people. Picking one, two or a few issues the people rally behind is the hard part.

[-] 2 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I offered the best choice. Reducing the work hours proportionaly to the unemployment rate is simle and it would solve most of the problems with capitalism.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I respect your efforts but without a HOW TO DO IT
any effort will go nowhere.

specifically -
I own a hardware store with 4 other employees who work 40 hours per week at $10/hour. If I cut their hours to 35 hours, they get less money & I need to hire "half" of another employee.

How do you propose to force 100,000 employers to do what YOU want?
The $ math may work - but where is the public support for this plan?
polls? petitions? legislation?

again - I am sorry if I am being harsh - but there are goals that have 80% public support & millions of supporters & 100's of legislative actions.

consider momentum - push the ball that is already rolling!

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Agreed, "....push the ball that is already rolling!" Increasing the minimum wage has the support of 70% of the populace according to one survey. That would seem like a good place to start.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Has anyone in congress introduced a bill in the last 2-3 years?
What is the plan to get this past the House Rs?

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I don't know if anyone in Congress has pushed for an increase in the minimum wage recently. Ralph Nader, and I believe Chris Hedges have supported this initiative, and the former thinks that it would be an achievable victorty if OWS led this fight, and hence we coud grow the movement on. I agree.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Pushing for a raise in the minimum wage is an issue that OWS should strongly endorse, and in so doing, it could be a spring-board to future successes

Thanks for the links

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I found from a group of congressional progressives also. Let's see if they push a law. Nobody else will push it if progressives don't!

"To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage".

[-] 4 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

had to reply here. Good link...Thanks. You should consider putting up a post on this. I had one up quite a while ago, as did someone else. Anyway getting behind this struggle could help our larger one.

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I will. Or add to an existing one to avoid the forum clutter and repetitiveness.

[-] 3 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes having the minimum wage tied to the CPI, like SS is, is a must.

~Odin~

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Here is an historical chart that is informative.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Why is fighting for temporally solutions so good? When inflation eats minimum wages then fight again? And what is the benefit if half of the country works for a minimum wage? Shortening work hours will bring full employment and decent salaries to all, forever.

[-] 6 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

A minimum wage that was raised to at least 1968 levels, and tied to the CPI would not be a temporary solution

Considering that has the support of 70% of the people according to one poll, that is an achievable goal

It is not your idea that bothers me so much , but it is your shitty, acusatory, trash slinging, distorting, negative attitude in which you blame other people for your short-comings.....that burns the shit out of me

And it says a lot about you as a person

~Odin~

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You tell him.

[-] -3 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Dear frovikleka, I am happily married and there is no way I might be interested in you a bit, regardless what you write.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Even if i were gay, you would not appeal to me, I assure you.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Then I would kindly suggest you to take a chill pill.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

No you were not harsh. I am not preventing you from any action. My idea is still at the beginning of the process of acceptance. In short I have support from some people but not one follower. However I have to say that the idea I have proposed here will bring greater benefits to people than all of the actions that have public support right now. Once it is accepted by the people, congress, and government, then all of the companies will have to obey. You may have 4, 4.5 or 5 workers, whatever you chose. And you might be required to pay them something more, but still you would not be hungry for sure. Your benefits? Numerous. For example there would be much less chance some hungry people attack and rob you in the dark.

[-] 5 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I would rather tax the rich & corps & create an FDR type WPA & TVA & borrow $ to hire more Americans

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well that is another story. If you hire unemployed people who has to accept whatever you pay them in order to feed their families then you would most likely exploit them. When we establish equal number of jobs and workers the game will be fair whatever market brings, because the market will ensure more fairness than anything else could.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

I will take a chill pill as you suggest, but only after knowing that i have successfully debunked your vile assaults on people that work so hard to see this movement succeed

Now my advice to you. You should go someplace that you are happy. We do not need your negativity, or spinelessness here.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Who have I assaulted? Have you noticed that you assaulted me?

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

You insulted the intelligence of my fellow Occupiers with your pompous statement, "I spoke by using a vocabulary that even a young child could understand....." That was a good inkling in the way you would react to anyone here who was not receptive to your idea, albeit behind their back, I'm sure.

It's no wonder that you have not been able to sell your idea for the last twenty years

Even here with your post, your proposal has gone over like a led balloon

Is it because we lack your supreme intelligence? lol OR is it because we get turned off by your nastiness to the people we consider brothers in this struggle? OR is it because we think it is a shitty idea at this time???

I'll put this to you as simple as possible (my turn to be pompous). This movement is about SOLIDARITY, and your thread...starting from the title has shown nothing but a lack of it, and that says a lot about your character, or the lack of it in this case.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I am genius and geniuses are hard to understand. You said: "Anyone who thinks that this movement has not been infiltrated by people from within government, and out woud be stupid." Well, many people here do not bellieve in it and you call them stupid. That is assault. And your language is ...

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

OK, your point is well taken, and I take that back, and apologize to anyone that I might have offended.

IF you are indeed a genius, you would know that they often are lacking in social skills, but that does not give you license to treat people like shit

Anyway, you do not have to be a genius to know that if you are trying to sell something, you do not start by insulting people right from the gitco, and seemingly do your best to try and create dissention in this movement

Considering you're a genius, that's not only offensive, it's stupid!

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I have not insulted anyone. You do it.

[-] 2 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Just like Occupy is taking an introspective look at itself

So should you

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

The whole consensus model was a fraud. Designed to prevent OWS from moving forward. Feel good / accomplish nothing -- that's the David Graeber way.

I know nothing of this Patrick Conway, but thanks for naming him and sharing your opinion. The frauds, if that is what he is, should be called out.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

You sound like a conspiracy theorist. It's not because things are possible that they are real, or even probable. Unless you have evidence that the government controls Occupy, then this idea is just words in the wind.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

If thigs are desired and nothing could prevent them than they are probably real.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

That's lazy "intellectualism" that leads to nowhere. You should do more work to find evidence which would raise the probability of your claims quite a bit, until then they are mere conjectures. Not worth our time. Come back to the table when you have done your homework and you can provide evidence for your claims, then we'll listen.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

"Evidence" requires that someone actually be willing to go out and do some actual work at something, as compared with sitting around pondering abstract (and most generally, remarkably silly) theories. So far, there's no evidence that anyone around here is willing to do any such thing. All hat, no cattle.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Hey people, no one has power to investigate government so that no one can find the evidence. Let them stay. The point is we need to find ideas that would unite the Occupy movement and then the owners of corporations and the Government would not be able to beat you anymore. One of these ideas for sure is shortening work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. This is a simple measure that could bring the widest possible benefits to the people.

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

Here is a real easy solution:

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

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Great. And what's your plan for doing this? Where's the substance? Where's the detail? When can we expect you to start moving forward on this idea?

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well I defined everything in my book "Humanism" available free of charge at www.sarovic.com. I have started moving forward on this idea twenty years ago and was unsuccessful because powerful people prevent new progressive ideas even to be heard.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Who do you represent?

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Myself. Why, do you represent a party or a group of some sort?

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Then don't use "we". I am alone.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

I use "we" to give my texts more authority, It's a writing tactic.

[-] -1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Well put Narley.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

OWS committed suicide with a glass of Green Party lemonade.

Not a complete waste though you did find some new camping buddies, too bad the rich will just keep getting richer, soon you will have to show your GOP ID to vote, but no worries...

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

You're outta touch, go back to sleep factsy.

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So I remember when you suggested I change my id, I told you it would be against my beliefs to do so, why have you changed yours? Your desire to divert OWS from effective action has not wane.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Yes I have been steadfast in my belief that partisan politics has no place in OWS, if that's what you mean

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

no comment on the id change? that was what I asked about I've no question about your intent....

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

As you know factsy, the pyseudonym 'Odin' was banned for having stuck up for the principles of this movement

That was not done for the sole purpose of doing so, but because unlike you, I believe in them

And I too have no question about your "intent"

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A quick glance around the site will revel the speed at which those that oppose aligning with political parties are banned.

[-] 1 points by frovikleka (2563) from Island Heights, NJ 1 year ago

Ho-hum

~Odin~

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

The issues are not what make or break Occupy, the path to solutions is. Issues existed before Occupy and they will continue to exist long after Occupy. If Occupy can't show progress in finding solutions to these problems, real practical solutions, then it will die and another movement or system will take it's place.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

I'm sorry I can't come up with all the solutions we need, or have some shining vision of utopia, or at least a bright light at the end of the tunnel. But I am only one man. That is best left for other minds than mine -- working together democratically.

All I advocate is process, a political strategy of civil disobedience, protest and issue advocacy, leading to an election where our dissent Constitutionally suspends government. A second election for delegates to a convention follows, where democratically elected citizens from every state can consider the totality of our circumstances and propose practical and Constitutional solutions for democratic ratification in every state...

The Constitution is our social contract. There may be pervasive civic ignorance about this fact, but it is fact nonetheless.

Since we are self-governing, we have inherent power and authority to democratically exercise control and restraint over government when it ceases to represent us, as well as resolving those issues which gave rise to this problem. We do this between ourselves, in convention and open debate, and by ratification (or not) of whatever the convention proposes.

It's not a perfect process. It'll be a dogfight. There'll be compromises made by all.

But perhaps if we can agree on this: The current government and the two dominate political parties which feed it candidates are corrupt and serve the interests of a financial, resource and industrial elite.

It will reduce people's fear of this: The devil we don't know is worse than the devil we do...

[-] 3 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

can't fix stupid http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

we can not affect much change, even as a "democracy", because the elite and congress do whatever they want to as our representatives. As the rich are in their castles, and the people are in La la land, mired in their religion, distractions, and faith, or parties. they have a wall of separation--the popo.

we don't have much freedom of speech or assembly. We have given up on that.

as long as the appearance of a safety net remains--despite most losing faith in Congress: the people have their bread and games, and their heads not understanding much due to their mindsets and programming, they are tolerant believing that things will improve, and believe we are on top of the world. They want to be optimistic. that wealth inequality is worse than it has ever been is not important. there is still enough faith in the system.

wealth inequality, banker fraud, and corrupt congress should continue to be ows focus.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

People could hardly agree what would be wealth equality. Banker fraud is another hard battle but I could not see enough valuable benefits from it. I cannot see how congress might not be corrupted in a corrupted society. What would OWS theoretically get by investing an effort in these actions?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2603) 1 year ago

A national minimum wage of $11.65 -- whatGreen and Justice party advocated http://www.ontheissues.org/Rocky_Anderson.htm#Jobs , as what would have resulted if a more true tracking of inflation to national minimum wage. That would help. Controlling the increases in medical costs, not contained under Obamacare, which benefits the insurance corps and mandates people buy what may or may not be a good policy....even people with crummy insurance now pay through the nose if there is a medical problem that needs drugs. This is another issue we should as a people demand fairness, yet the republicans and Obama did not negotiate on what is good for the people.

Bankers were mostly rewarded with millions. Fraud is hard to prove on the upper level bankers, apparently,

Billionaires ought to pay a bit more than multi-millionaires, who should pay a higher rate than middle class.

There are some basic things people would agree on if the Congress would work for the people, and not for the rich, who they hope to be some day.

[-] -1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Minimum wage is OK to fight for, but wat is the benefit if half of the country earns minimum wage. Shortening work hours proportionaly the unemployment rate will ensure full employment and bring higher salaries to the people than a minimum wage is. And if Occupy accomplish this it might became a serious political power. It may even go for elections and brake this two corrupted parties.

[-] 1 points by Narley (526) 1 year ago

I agree.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

When the NYCGA could not produce one person that would make ART5 a demand, I knew it was going to die a failure.

The one hope I had is that people would stand in defense of the contract which guaranteed the rights they used in protest. Socialism it turns out, can run on social fears and the socialist origins of ows made people afraid to stand and support what is logical.

[-] 0 points by KellyWinni (0) 1 year ago

We have many fresh and (www.hotdvdmarket.com)hot dvd TV series to you to enjoy!

[-] 0 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

The proposal of the reduction of work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate suffers from the objections of the people who are already underemployed. Mandatory cutting of work hours means reducing their means of living so they of course object.

It is a good idea for people who are living far above subsistence level (who include the vast majority of the Americans) because it can reduce their stress level by giving them more balance in life and better perspective of what life is really about. People were deluded by Capitalistic market economy to strive for money and more money, not knowing that the striving itself will preclude them of the time and perspective to enjoy spending that money. This hoarding of money also stops other people from getting their turn at having the money so many people suffer.

The U.S. federal reserve tries to create so much money that everyone will have a lot but it does it through the pockets of the wealthy banks and that is the crux of the ineffectiveness of its monetary and credit policy.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well let’s solve the problem easily. The reduction of work hours would affect only full time jobs.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

We should make it a mandatory option to be offered by larger (with 50 employees or more) employers to all full-time workers. Perhaps the number of working hours should also be optionally distributed differently in a week for fitting around the employees' living schedules. Making the provision of the options mandatory by government fiat will take away the rather unnecessary and unequal negotiations between the employees and the employers.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

In response to the statement regarding working hours and peoples living schedules, could you answer a couple of questions for me: What is the basic purpose or goal of a business? Why does a person / company hire workers? If you are not sure what I mean, that is ok, and I will answer to a response. Hint: it has nothing to do with money.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

The basic purpose or goal of a business is to harness various resources (land, capital, labor/technology) to satisfy stakeholders' needs and wants. By stakeholders I mean customers, employees, shareholders, and management, and in that order of priority.

For a larger employer, the flexibility often exists to allow different working hours for different employees. Let me remind you that in laying off people, managers of these businesses very often state that 7% cut across the board will not hurt the business because employees are largely interchangeable. Also in our information age, work can be done in time-shifted periods without much disruption because synchronization can be well mediated by the communication and information technologies used. The most frequent reason for inflexible working hours is to let the managers look good and exercise petty authority through imposing face-time on the employees.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Partially correct. The goal is to meet the customers needs and wants (quality service or product) The method is to use land, capital, labor, etc. in an efficient manner that will satisfy the owners (shareholders, etc). The use of labor is a partnership between the business and the employees to accomplish cetain tasks to meet the goal of the business. Not sure why you went into layoffs. But here is why I asked. By mandating work hour reduction, flexiblilty of schedules, wage negotions, etc. you are inhibiting the basic goal of a business. It would create additional bureaucracy that just adds unecessarily cost to everything. Now I do believe that is a great thing when companies offer flexible work schedules, work at home, etc. Those companies use these incentives or benefits to attract better talent. But i am sure you are aware that this is not possible in all work disciplines. Business need to have employees present when they require it, it can not be the other way around. Legislating this would create so many exceptions it would become impossible to regulate and would be very unfair to certain types of business, resulting in cost and loss of competitive advantage. In response to the layoff comment, I will agree that some companies state that, but usually that is for the market and not necessarily for the actual employees. I know from experience, that It just means "do more with less"!

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

I went into layoffs because managers often see employees as interchangeable cogs so regulators should just take their words at face value and require that any business that had put out statements similar to "7% across the board cut will not hurt the business because employees are largely interchangeable" be required to provide flexible working hours. If layoffs can be done with a meat cleaver blindly applied, it should not matter for the business if some of the meat is sometimes missing.

The fallacy of your definition of a business is that you have succumbed to the mind-arsenic poison put out by the elites to pitch hoi polloi against hoi polloi. There are sole proprietorships which do not have employees nor managers. Some never really turned highly "profitable" but can nonetheless satisfy the owners. Efficiency can mean many different things for many different people. Your stating "efficient manner" without explicitly stating "to whom," "for what," and "at what monetary conversion ratios" makes me suspect that you are measuring efficiency in the capitalistic way of ratios of money.

The Canadians have very frequent metro trains available so commuters can get to their destinations in "efficient manner" as measured by "time spent to arrive at desired destination (converted to money equivalent as required by Capitalism) divided by the money spent to procure the ride." From a different perspective, due to those metro trains being rather empty, the Canadian metros are run in a very "inefficient manner" as measured by "passengers delivered to desired destinations (converted to money as required by Capitalism) divided by the money to provide for the running the ride of the metro train."

The great genius and sin of Capitalism is one and the same, reducing the value of most things to a single number indicating money. Life is much more than that. A thriving business does not have to be a "monetarily successful" business in the capitalistic sense. Life is a process, an experience. Why do you think that some artworks command astronomical figures of money whereas others are nearly worthless monetarily? Why do some people treasure their family photographs as "priceless" and yet they can fetch nearly zero value on a capitalistic market? Answer these questions and you may discover the fallacy of the capitalistic value system.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Efficiency in this sense only means "best possible way". It applies to everything: conservation of resources and materials, time required, labor productivity, etc. and yes, in the end, it equates to COGS. This applies to any business whether fortune 500 or sole proprietary. One issue is sometimes a non ethical owner will exploit the labor or resources to apply this efficiency rule, which is more a regulatory issue that remains unresolved.

As for the Canadian metro, it sounds like politics is mixed into the business of running a railroad, which is why one would have the mixed data. Of course there are things better measured for "the public benefit", but in the end, it is either a benefit or a burden to the taxpayers. You can not run a system that taxes the many for the benefit of the few.

As for the price valuation of art or personal treasures, that is strictly a supply / demand question. A personal photo is priceless to the owner because it is the only one available, yet there is no other demand outside that individuals market. It is more emotional than anything else.

Now that might be a bit callous, but I agree that the capitalistic system has its faults. The value system does have a tendency to get a bit skewed, but would you not believe that it is based on emotional response vs pure value? I would agree that art works valuation is something that approaches the ridiculous. And yes, I agree that a business that is doing just fine is sometimes not seen as successfully by others. This I would blame on the emotional and sometimes greedy elements that take over our thought processes. For example: how many times have we seen a vey good company get taken over for its parts, where the winners are the buyers and the Losers are the workers and sometimes even the market. I have been in that situation twice so I know firsthand from both sides. Would like to see how that could be limited but with public companies, that might be difficult. The employee shareholders never have enough clout to have a say so. The problem though with any economic system is that valuation will always be a problem as people will always either under or over value something. The market is the only means to have some control on that, but not always. When emotion gets mixed in, things get a bit out of alignment. I have no answer for that part of the equation.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

I raised questions because they may jog your thinking. I really believe that we fancy ourselves as rational beings but ultimately we are all bound by our emotions (there is no escaping our biological wiring). The challenge for us is to make our reason control our emotions sufficiently but I ultimately value my life mostly on an emotional basis because I can relate to that much better than reason although reason enables us to have a good life.

Capitalism is a good approximation but it is definitely not the answer because we overstretch monetary valuation beyond its domain of proper application. Many problems have different optimal solutions based on the different perspectives taken. Early birds get the worms. If you were a bird, get up early. If you were a worm, sleep late and do not poke your head up. It is really cruel for the worms to be ravaged and eaten by the birds. It is ALSO delicious and happy for the birds to have satisfying meals and be fattened up or bring the worms back to their babies. Ultimately, it admits a philosophical revelation that all are good and all are bad are NOT contradictory. Nothing may really be changed but a change of mind can still be a breakthrough.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Great closing sentence. I always appreciate a great reply that makes me look alternatively at something. Not always an easy thing to do. Thanks.

PS. We sure got off the post topic!

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

Not really, I think. Occupy movement could die and yet it could still live on in the minds of all of us who had interacted with each other. The ancient Greco-Roman culture is still with us. Christianity is still around whenever and wherever two Christians gather in Jesus' name. In modern physics, two particles that have once interacted can seemingly have instantaneous correlation even if they are many light-years apart. It can die and yet it lives on -- a little bit like the life-cycle of the slime mold (where boundaries between individuals and the super-organism, and between life and death are very fuzzy).

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

who is the world competing against ?

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Matt, I am not sure of your question to be able to answer. Please re-state it or elaborate.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

That is fine to me

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

Good. The proposal has merits for some people driving to work because cutting a day's gasoline cost can help their budgets (also their commuting time and reduce air/oil-extraction-and-processing pollutions), now that we are pushing $4 a gallon of gas.

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

It brought many people into political activism that never would have otherwise.

The amount of interest and the numbers at rallies are a shell of what they were.

While some of the better organizers are out doing their things, nothing can compare to the power of Facebook to get the people out and active. And that level of activeness needs a shot in the arm, for sure.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Facebook doesn't get people out and active. It gets people to sit and stare at a computer screen for hours on end and pretend they're connecting with everyone and doing something. It's the 21st century opiate of the masses. There's a reason smart parents limit the amount of time their kids can sit at a computer, but regrettably, it can't be enforced against adults.

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

Facebook is an incredible organizing tool, and is one of the main drivers of organizing any event, including political ones, in the 21st Century.

You are confusing trolling through facebook vs organizing with facebook.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Agree and well said. People actually believe they are doing something because they "like" something, tweet or follow. The term "wastebook" is very appropriate. All this "great" social media is making a lot of followers but few leaders.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

That's one of the main reasons why they can't get a job or don't have a job. They have no "face to face" communication skills let alone "coping skills".

[-] 0 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

For those whose work hours are reduced to provide additional employment, is pay reduced as well?

Some forecasts predict that, as far as production is concerned, twenty percent of the world's population will provide one hundred percent of all productive labor in the near future. That assumes of course, that technological development follows its current course and pace as well as plentiful energy for extraction, transport, refining, transport, manufacture, transport, assembly, transport, market...

What becomes of the other eighty percent? Threat labor?

[-] 2 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

Your very concern about pay shows that you are still under the spell of money. What we should be truly concerned about is how to enable people to create and own their livelihoods. Monetary compensation for work is but one of many possible means. There were times past in which money was not even invented yet but people survived and prospered anyway.

Money is good for organizing global production and commerce but it has been subjected to so much manipulation by the elites that it is time to explode the myth of money so alternate means of exchange can grow.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I have explained how to reach moneyless society here http://www.sarovic.com/marxism.htm

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Money is merely a convenient form of value storage and exchange. It's an abstraction for converting excess perishable crops into long(er) term value storage because it is a commonly agreed upon medium of exchange of known or set value. The "alternate" means of exchange you mention will be just another form of money because "money" is useful.

No, not under the "spell" of money, though I do know many whom are... greed is an ugly sight.

I simply live in the world, not some imaginary "parallel society" with a fuzzy vision of utopia somewhere down the road...

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

The elites created the money we use with an implicit promise of trust in preserving its value. Of course, they have breached that promise repeatedly and constantly and in fact much worse by generating huge amount of near-money and promisory notes, they had nearly brought down the entire world's financial system, in the process causing sufferings of countless innocent people.

In any breach of contract, once a party has violated the contract, the counter-party is not bound by the contract any more. That is the very rational basis for abandoning the money created by the elites.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

There were times past in which money was not even invented yet but people survived and prospered anyway.

Times in which commodities were few and simple.

In our day and age, with the vast number of products out there, we need a system which represents the value of stuff; money. Removing money means going back to a barter system which would fail miserably with all the commodities and services we have today. And, still there would be problems because money only represents value, it's not value in itself. Value would still exist without money, so people would still be greedy and corrupted in order to amass that value. Kings used to store gold or wheat, now they store money. Same problem.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

The problem started when we wanted commodities and services from worldwide. Having learnt how the global access of these have already led to the hollowing out of the abilities of the U.S. to provide a future for its population (and in fact corroded nearly to the basis of our military strength), we should smarten up and go with our own little forms of "money" used only locally. Money is like an email account whose password has already been hacked by the elites and used for their freeloading on the others. All that one needs to do to counter that is to open up many many email accounts with new passwords.

In fact, in situations where huge amounts of values are exchanged, the titans involved in the transactions do NOT use money. The elites created money for use by the lesser mortals. The foundation of money is trust in the value it represents that will be honored. Where there is trust, nearly anything non-perishable can be used as money.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Exactly. The problem is not with the idea of money which is used to symbolize value, it's with how this abstraction is used. In a system without money, value itself would be misused in much of the same way. That's how it was before. King's would take over crops and gold from the people.

The anarchists are right in saying that the problem is not money, but the political structure. With a proper governance model, money would be used appropriately.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

Money was a good invention but its having been corrupted means that we need replacements and a new and better governance model for it. Local circulation of money can be easily built on trust, no matter what the money is made of as long as it is non-perishable and can be divided or combined. We do not have to go back to a barter system. Nor is there anything lost if we still keep a very small reserve of the money created by the elites so that we can still exchange some values with "outsiders." It is like having multiple e-mail accounts and a widely readable blog.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

There is no problem with money. The problem is with the idea of loans, debts, interests, etc... These things would exist with or without money. Money is just representation of value, nothing more. It's very useful and is going nowhere. Thinking of worlds without money is a waste of time.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

We have a "hull-breached" situation with our money or maybe I should rephrase it as a problem with all kinds of "near-money" that can be created nearly at will in order to "satisfy" human lusts. Interest rates have historically been significantly higher than the growth rates of the total productive capacities of economies. They have been the ultimate source of the recurrent financial crashes. Our monetary and credit system is broken and thinking what to do to fix it may not be a waste of time. Do you have any suggestion?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I agree, but there is a way out. First we need to recognize that money is not the only value. We need to encourage real values to blossom. Today's society suppresses them..

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Those who work less are paid less. But when there is no unemploment, employers would have to fight for emoployees by rising salaries and benefits. Here is a simple explanation: If there are a total of two workers applying for a total of one work position, the competition amongst the workers would lower the price of work and the worker who gets the job would most certainly be exploited. If there is a total of one worker and a total of two available jobs, the competition amongst the employers would certainly raise the worker’s wage. Shortening work hours should maintain equilibrium among workers and work posts. Companies should be forbidden by law to hire overtime as long as unemployment exists. By eliminating unemployment workers would be able to get higher salaries, greater purchasing power, and capitalism will profit from it.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

You are assuming two things that are not reality: that all employees can perform any job and that there are enough jobs in all geographical areas so that the reduction of hours would not be so great as to make individual earnings go to minimum to reach zero unemployment. Neither is possible in real world. And the equilibrium you reach is not higher wages due to low unemployment, but division of total wages paid necessary for zero unemployment. No one would make enough to provide enough demand and the whole structure collapses. In the real work, there will always be unemployment to some level. Even in the current system, when unemployment goes below 4%, ithe economy is considered to be at full employment and usually requires some intervention to control inflationary pressures. In your proposal, there would be a significant wage/ price spiral.

[-] -1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

By reducing work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate, unemployment would exist only if some people would not want to work, but that is really not unemployment. Market will fix all your concerns. Let assume a region have a huge unemployment rate of 40%. If the regional government reduces work hours 50%, all workers would get the job. What would happen with salaries? There would still be 10% unoccupied work posts. Why in English does not exist the word for it, but unemployment is a well-known word. Employers would have to fight to get workers by rising salaries and benefits. Certainly there would not be a huge difference in division of wealth among the people. Unemployment exists only to let employers pay employees less and there is no other reason.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

While you avoided parts of my response, let's discuss your answer. How does reduction of hours by 50%, which immediately reduces ones are home pay by 50%, allow for any reasonable consumption activity? No wages would rise by anything near that. You are also assuming that everyone wage would rise? Why? All those employed already have a set wage. For what reason woud a wage be increased other than annually in the normal raise or adjustment cycle. You are also assuming everyone is performing the same work, or has same experience or skill, which is absolutely not the case. How would a business operate under such threat of oversight. Planning would be impossible, uncertainty would reign. Training expenses would increase, efficiencies would decrease, all impacting COGS. Those working less hours now do not have the disposable income to feed the demand engine, then what: layoffs and more reduction of hours to hire these workers. This proposal is a spiral downwards, not upwards. These theories are so full of holes, it is not possible to go into all the details on tis forum. Anyone running a business recognizes the basics of human resource management. You hire what skills and value added people you need to run an efficient operation. Division of same tasks with excess labor equals high cost and lower productivity, first step to bankruptcy.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Hurry up and slap the shit out of him.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

??? May I ask why are you here? Is that the best contribution you have to a discussion about economic issues? Aleksander and I are discussing the issues with his thoery and all you bring to the table is "attack and win". If you want into the conversation, then bring something meaningfull. He and I have disagreement. Is that a problem or is only your view allowed here? If you have a view point, do you agree with the theory, if so why, if not, what do you see wrong with it? What is your solution?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

??? To make sure that you don't find new and ingenious ways of justifying under employment. Again-not that it is any of your business. :D

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

And who is justifying unemployment or under employment? Please respond to what I asked about aleksander's theory , if you have anything. Otherwise your comment is some what embarrassing. Why the attitude and attack dog theatrics? Is there an issue with disagreement or opinion? What is your agenda here? For me I just like to converse on topics that I find interesting to discuss, and maybe each of the responders actually get some thing useful or learn something new, maybe even find some solution or common ground. This forum is disintegrating with your continuing comments like above. How about a change? Is that what this movement is all about?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

My agenda right at this very moment is precisely what I said. The only embarrassment right at this very moment is that you showed up for this version of it. : D

But, I have watched you in action before. I am well acquainted with your agenda.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

I showed up for your version of what agenda? You are incorrect, i have no agenda here. So you monitor. Great. What else? Instead, why not take part in the discussion if you believe I am supporting unemployment (which I am not as I have been there twice). It seems that you have an opinion since you believe that I am attempting to justify something. Why not enter the arena? My point on this thread is that details matter. There is not a single fix for this type of problem. Job sharing has been around for years, but in this proposed idea, it is government enforced, which I believe is not a path forward. How about a response that deals with the topic rather than some pithy comment like the one you started with above. You have avoided my direct questions so far. Why is that?

[-] -2 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Yes 50% reduction of work hours will reduce 50% of their salaries. However new 50% employees will earn another 50% of the money. So the total amount of money intended for consumption will not change. This will present a sort of solidarity, I’ve read the Occupy movement stands behind. Wages would rise because empty work posts will force the owners of the means of production to offer larger salaries in order to get a worker who already works somewhere else. When a worker wants to leave than his employer had to increase his salary in order to keep him. This is so called a chain reaction. And you understand it well because you are educated well, but you do not like my idea. I wonder why? I am little bit lazy to respond to your insinuations because I know you do not believe in them. For example what education is needed for Wall-mart workers?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Apologies if I seem to insinuate or offend. It is not about liking an idea or not but rather breaking it down and and examining the parts to see what is working or not working within it. You are correct that I do not believe the theory. There are some parts which are interesting but in total it does not work. One issue is when you reduce wages by 50%, disposable income goes toward zero for that earner. The other unemployed that is now getting the other 50% (in theory), has little of no disposable income either. Just as a reference for this discussion, disposable income would be above the expenses required for normal living. I am not in disagreement on why wages rise in low unemployment, I have seen it where I live in the past. Lack of workers brought wages at local McDonald's up to $3-4 /hr above minimum wage. But this was due to a more lack of people close by willing to work there and that wage increase brought in outside help. But your restricting the ability of one to earn more by cutting the hours. No one would agree to that. And you do not address the inefficiencies in many business models that your theory is attempting to be applied. Unskilled positions is not the issue at places like Walmart. You are proposing a theory to the whole but have not evaluated the effect to parts within the whole. Not everything is large business, "means pf production", etc. No small business could use this model, which is the highest percentage of the workforce. Please address the productive inefficiencies of this theory, which is probably the biggest flaw.

[-] 2 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I don’t get why would disposable income go towards zero? Plus take into account that I took 50% unemployment as an example. In reality it’s about 10%. So 10% less disposable income is far away from zero. I said the same way unempoyment reduces wages, tha lack of workers will increase them. And you may understand that the eliminating of unemployment may cover this 10% on the expenses of employers. So what we might get here is less work for the same wages, full employment, and more equality in the distribution of wealth. Isn't it great? So you believe that the productive inefficience is the biggest flow. I like it. We are talking here about 10% of jobs which concerns you. Other jobs keep the same workers with the same skills. From these jobs I freely estimate that maybe 10% jobs require same particular skills that unemployed might not have. Bureaucracy may increase it to 50%. That means your concern may affect at most 5% of jobs were workers would require additional training or education. So what, it might be just a little bit more than it happens today. The point is benefits of the new division of labor are far greater than flaws. Once such division of labor is accepted by law, small and big businesses will have to accept it and that will bring far better capitalism.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Any reduction of disposable income leads to potential recession. When looking over an idea, you must evaluate from all sides. Workers will always benefit when there is scarcity of labor. But what happens on the business side? You need to understand the whole economic picture. When COGS are impacted, it is significant for a business bottom line. The business becomes less competitive in the market. You keep failing to understand business operations. I would love to see full employment, but not in the manner proposed. If a workers hours are cut to add another worker, do you feel that there will be solidarity or animosity? Some might be rather pissed about the new rules. They rely on that income which is now removed from them. So what would prevent them from having two jobs? Who pays for the training, the added costs? It just is not simply absorbed, it gets passed on. Do you see the spiral effect? You just do not present enough detail to explain things other than simple statements that the market will sort it out, or the company must obey the new law, etc. The statement of less work for the same wages is not something any business would accept. If you were managing a business, would you accept that as a operating rule? I do not think so. One other flaw in your proposal: under your system, if there are too many workers, that would equate to the automatic adjustment to lessen work hours to add employees. Then you state that when there are not enough workers, the wage would rise based on scarcity. Would not the hours just increase instead? No wage increase would occur, the market adjusts. You do not understand efficiency of operations. If hours are shortened, you may reach the point where 4 shifts operate instead of the standard three. Do you realize what you have created by doing this? I will know by your answer to this question if you understand operations management. You have not addressed existing labor contracts. You have not addressed why people would be willing to have less money in their pocket. I need you to address all the questions here and in my above posts to see how in detail you would make this work. As I read through this entire thread, most people who understand business operations and simple economics disagree with your theory and point out multiple flaws and issues. Do you think there might be a reason for that? Anyone can propose great theory but one must bring it further to a practical use, with details so people might be able to understand and then support it. You have complained that your theory is being suppressed, etc. but in reality it is being rejected as unworkable. If you really believe that you are truly correct, show me. Give me the details. Show me test cases, data, the "if this / then that" statements, how to get there from here, cost of implementation, estimated timelines, etc. show me that you have discussed this with other people such as production managers, owners, union and non-union labor, small and large business, service sector labor, etc. Can you do that?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

No I cannot do it. This is the job for teams of scientists. Plus this is just the first step of a completely new economy. I do not have time to develop details when work is still needed on the broad picture. The point is this is solvable one way or another. Briefly: Shortening work hours has nothing to do with recession and spiral effect. I think it would still be possible to work 2 jobs part or full time, but not overtime. If there is not enough workers than of course the policy may extend work hours. 24 hour shift work might be a problem, but it’s solvable, not perfectly but still. Unemployment has been a permanent state which put workers in a bad situation. When we eliminate unemployment workers will automatically get to a better situation which will raise salaries. Employees might not like me because that would go on their expenses. But it’s just.

[-] 2 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

It is not for a team of scientists. It is for both labor and business to work together with some government regulation ( less is better) and others with economic expertise. No politician should be allowed in the room. The basis of your theory (less hours equals full employment) is fine on paper, but can not be realized or proved in actuality. In the scientific world, you have a thoery, but that is all. You do not have a proof for it. This is where you need to adjust your proposal. Learn to be flexible because right now, you are not, you only repeat the theory. Also, by your answer, you do not comprehend business operations and resource management. If you are going to proprose a workable theory, you must have some working knowledge of the what it is you are trying to prove. This clearly you do not have, nor do you appear anxious to do so. A pity. If I was in your shoes, I would be reading, discussing all facets of business, employment, economic theory,etc. I would find the experts and challenge them, and when wrong, adjust and go at it again. As an engineer, I had many ideas, many failed and were trashed. Did not stop me from trying again with adjustment or complete new method or solution. That hard work and effort rose me to the top in my professional discipline . You can not stay fixated on something. You must recognize a bad idea so you learn from it and improve. Believing you are right in your mind does not mean you are right outside of it.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I cannot see big problems with shortening work hours but a lot of benefits. I will return to it one day. Everyone can continue the development if interested. Tomorrow I will post here "The Future of Democracy."

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

You can not see the big problems because you are not comprehending what is being said to you here on this entire thread. Then you state "everyone can continue to develop if interested". Now that has to be the laziest statement you have made. No one will continue to develop this soley based on your assumptions. That is your job. I have given you lots of information, but now it is time for you to dig in and figure out what you need to do to make this work. It may result in failure of the idea. But that is not a failure of the person trying. To me that is just part of a future success. But if it do not even try, then you not only fail as a person, but also fail in doing your part in contributing to this society with the given tools that you have. And that is a real shame. I believe you have great intentions, but you have got to try harder than you have.

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Dear engineer4, I am an engineer too, but also I am a genius. I am suggesting you to cool down because my new article is coming in two hours.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

If my tone offends you, I apologize. Was not trying to be offensive but am having difficulty with some of your responses. It just seems that you disregard all opposing views without good justification or some proof of your theory. If you are an engineer, then you understand my logical process, line of questioning and detail requirements.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well it came to my mind that overtime work might still be possible. Overtime hours price would be multiplied by let's say coefficient 1.5. If after that, employment would not increase, then work hours would be set shorter. This means more hours would be multiplied by 1.5. Properly set market is a miracle.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

In case you were not aware, Most OT is already priced at 1.5 the hourly rate. That is only applied for hourly workers. We have not even started discussion of exempt workers, whole different ball game. As stated before, lack of detail unfortunately prevails in your statements. I am not sure if you even comprehend work flexibility needs for short term market actions (i.e. overtime) vs long term outlook planning for permanent employees. And no, you would not have more hours of OT. You are assuming that anything more than the set allotted hours means OT. No, that would not be the case. Usually the set point is as follows: 40 to 48 hrs is 1.5 rate based on weekly basis, on daily basis usually 8 to 11 hrs is 1.5, after that it is 2x. You are assuming that the rate change points would be altered to meet your proposed shorter hours. That would not happen, especially with the constant adjustment that would occur based on available workers ( unemployed). And how would you adjust as the disciplines are all different. For example: Assembly workers might be on a 36 hr week, but mechanics are on a 38 hr week, electricians on 40, etc. some people would then be getting overtime at 37 hrs, others at 39, 41, etc. might not be a very happy workplace. Do you understand what I am explaining to you?

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Once is set for example 36 hour week, everything above that is over time for all by the law. Yes I am aware that employers might pay temporary overtime hours multiplied by 1.5. If the unemployed workers are not employed let's say for three months, than government (local or central) would set new reduction of let's say 3 hours. And the total work hours would be 33. Then employers will understand that might be cheaper to them to hire than to pay 7 hours overtime. And there is a good answer if they do it or don’t.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Last reply to this thread. I find your answer that "additional benefits will be covered from the profits of the owner" does not make any sense. Why would any owner do that. The cost will be passed on to the customer. You can not just penalize every business this way. Everyone will suffer. Even a small business owner would have difficulty. I see that you just can not discuss your theories very well and then you state that "you will not invest the time because it is not my priority". That is such a cop out. If you are going to post theories, be ready to discuss and defend your position with facts, not assumptions and opinion. It is becoming increasingly clear that you are not understanding this subject.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

but it is too early to talk about it now.

paradox

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I have had at least 15 year experience discussing things with other people over Internet and some of them I was not able to convince. You look lik eone of them. So what? I have given here enough material to make some of the readers take my ideas into consideration or get back to study me later. This is about a long run. The owners will cover additional expenses in order not to lose the competitive power on market. Other choices would be losing workers or customers. What you really do not see is that workers are exploited and developing the market of work will put them in a more just position. Economy will be tough as it is market economy today. Employers would suffer something more because they are privileged right now. All of this would make a better economy and society. When this goal is accomplished huge development of economy will come which will increase productivity and stability but it is too early to talk about it now.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (272) 1 year ago

Consider this: a company has 120workers for line production, each make 80 units per 40 hr week to meet current demand (96,000 units). The employes earn $20/hr (800/wk) The company is mandated to add 10 unemployed workers (due to another local business failure) so hours are reduced to 36.92hours to absorb the workers and still meet demand. The wage expense is the same $96,000 / wk. but the company incurs more cost from having additional worker benefits to be provided ( benefits would not be reduced for the others). Other administrative costs would increase. So item price would need to be increased. But current employee hourly wage would remain the same except that take home pay is now reduced from $800/wk to $738 wk per line employee. Customers would possibly buy from another source, reducing demand. The business would be forced to do the following: layoff or reduce hours to keep current levels of full employment. So where is the benefit of any of this? No one is happy. In response to your set hours, show me where the cost / benefit is. You are stating that all workers would benefit, yet some disciplines actually would benefit more than others. How would you cover 3 shift operations. How would you cover areas where staff is required at all times?

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Benefits of additional workers will be covered from the profit of the owner. Then everything you mentioned above remains the same. Benefits come from full employment, workers would easier find new jobs, and employers would have to pay workers more to keep them. Workers would have more money to spend. Spending grow economy. Shift work may be solved in many ways including closing one of them. The point is I am not going to invest work in it because it is not of my prime interest.

[-] 1 points by Renneye (3328) 1 year ago

I'm also in Southern Ontario. I see you're in Toronto, and also that you are well versed in business. You might be interested to know that Paul Hawken is speaking at the Sheraton Centre tomorrow Feb. 6th. He's a world renowned ethical business guy you might enjoy. His speaking tours are very memorable and refreshing. Here's his site...

http://www.paulhawken.com/paulhawken_frameset.html

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Thanks Renneye, I do not believe in economists who have access to major media. They just try to polish the bad situation. If they propose changes acceptable to people they would not be published. This is what my experience tells me. Sorry

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Supply exists to meet demand. It doesn't matter if you split the supply fulfillment between two workers for the same level of output.

The problem is there is more labor supply than there is demand for it. Splitting it into parts is not the same as increasing demand which would necessitate increasing supply.

Two people making 1 widget v one person making 1 widget - does not grow the economy. It will not increase demand in the economy. Only increasing demand will increase employment. Not splitting the same level into parts. So instead of 1 person having the purchasing power of the economic output of 1 widget, you have 2 people that have half the purchasing power. That doesn't grow the economy.

Unemployment is necessary. 4% is optimal. It provides slack and flexibility in the labor force. Otherwise you have increased inflation.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well I am not here to help capitalism but people, even though by helping people I help capitalism as well. On the long run capitaliism is doomed to fail because there is no such thing as permanent grow and without grow capitalism cannot make profits and without profits it cannot exist.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Nice theory, but practical reality is that there will never be zero unemployment, especially if eighty percent of humans are seen by capitalists as economically useless (insofar as their labor is not required, their consumption of goods and services is limited) except as threat labor. That becomes a race to the bottom (which we are now experiencing courtesy of corporate globalization)...

[-] 0 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

if we try hard we could go down to four hour daily work and reach 100% employment for sure. That would give us free time and still good salaries. Emplpoters would suffer with lower profits.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Yah and then they would start laying people off - Do you own a business?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Laying people off, means new reduction of work hours. Employers would have to hire or close the businesses. They will hire. The only thing that would dramatically change will be less powerful employers and more rights to workers. That would bring long needed justice in the production processes.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

You still didn't answer my question - do you own a business?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Are you some kind of authority that I have to obey? If not, then use a magic word to get the answer.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well the reason I ask is usually people whom think they know what's best for businesses don't know a thing about operating or managing a business.

So that's the reason I asked - do you own a businesses?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Well you asked the question arrogantly so that you will not get the answer without using the magic word.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Hey it's already apparent by your outlook towards businesses that you have no experience dealing with the day to day operations/managing to make any kind of educated statement when it comes to how businesses operate.

Now if you want first hand information on your "theory" about working for less hours go out and interview business owners then come back and post your results.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

This will force companies to hire people who are not qualified for the job. It's a great motivation to move a company towards more robotic automation.

[-] -1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Excellent, that would make work hours even shorter and employers would still have fight for employees and that would make salaries larger.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

The problem with your idea is that you assume each worker is similar in intelligence and capability. You also must realize that for this idea to take place it would have to be global because we live in a global economy. A company which must employ many more workers because of work limits, must train more people, has more logistics to deal with, etc... A lot more overhead. Such a company would not fair well in a global economy unless these rules would apply to all other countries. Manufacturing is already overseas because of such a problem; workers are paid less and work longer hours. The only thing you'll do is send more work overseas.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Everything would be the same but work hours. All difficulties would be solved by the market as they are solved today. However, employers would earn less because workers would earn more. That might increase their desire to move overseas. That might increase unemployment but also it would find the balance in shortening work hours. Overseas companies are profitable as long as they could sale in the West. So the owners of the corporations could not give up from the west. Global agreement would be beneficial but it is not necessary.

[-] -1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

You're living in dreamland. The US government isn't interested in silencing OWS, it's ignoring it. You may want to do a little research and consider OWS's attempts at civil disobedience during the democratic and republican conventions. OWS folks couldn't even get themselves arrested -- the cops just ignored them and left 'em sitting in the street looking silly.

The reason everyone is ignoring OWS is simple -- OWS is a tiny group of people who show no evidence whatsoever of being able to accomplish anything. There's the occasional pointless and harmless -- and tiny -- protest (and once the anarchists stopped vandalizing things,the cops realized they were harmless, and so left them alone) and a lot of really silly and unrealistic talk and posturing about replacing the entire political and economic system with some unknown something, but there's absolutely no there there, and everyone except OWS knows it.

If OWS had any juice at all, the dems would be pandering to it for votes and the repubs would be demonizing it. The fact that neither bothers to do anything and just ignores OWS is telling indeed.

You all may not like hearing it, but I'm telling you, out there in America, OWS is a nothing. And until it proves it can actually do something, it'll remain a nothing.

[-] 5 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

No, now I'm sure you are listening to the powers that be. Which is okay. Most Americans are not that subtle or discerning.

Every on the ground description of OWS reflects a kind of Woodstock Revolution. Okay, you don't respect that. But OWS is more accurate in reflecting the kids feelings, the youth of the USA, and the solid meaning behind the Anti-war movement in Vietnam, the counter culture, the thinking in US universities, and the thoughts of new employees entering the workforce.

Not sure I'm going to put this into words. You probably see that Foxnews messed up big time by saying that OWS was nothing as a result of OWS asking for nothing and having no leaders...

But think. You know that the US Government will infiltrate and interfere with organizations with leaders, ...and if there are solid goals they will develope a mission, a vision, and objectives to make OWS obsolete.

So, OWS out-foxed the government, and Foxnews, and avoided a lot of intrigue. Citizens today are allowed to go about their business and live their lives. Hm.. maybe OWS saw the way Chinese People were treated, and they decided to avoid some problems. Sounds pretty Foxxy to me.

You say OWS is nothing. I think you are nothing. And I'm not being agressive. The fact is you have a point. If OWS can not produce results that can be measured, then OWS does not really exist to the Political System. But that is where you have been watching too much Fox News. The whole USA know that the US Government is bull Sh**ing the public about War. Everyone knows the the US Government is covering up crimes in the Finaical Crisis. No one in the US trusts Congress. Everyone can guess that we have had a banker take over of congress even if we can't prove it yet.

You all may not like hearing it, but I'm telling you, out there in America, Congress is Nothing. And until it can prove it can actually do something ... it will remain nothing. We don't need congress - no matter what the Narcisists think up there.

In conclusion: You are living in a dreamland. You are a True Believer. You still think there was never a Creel Commission. You are in denial of the power of propaganda. You have given up your soul for a career. Your kids will have to deal with the things you don't have the guts to deal with. You have let the political system go for 30 years or so... and it got away from you. Did you think the 1960s paid off? Did you think we recovered democracy in the 1970s? Well, we didn't. Your USA is corrupt. You can act like you are confident, like you know what is up, but you let your kids down. The system is too large and too risky for your kids to ever really have the same life you did. They face many more risks. I hope you kids are safe from the workforce and from the financial risks if they invest money or try to secure a pension or retirement.

There are a lot of confident people in the world. But you and me, we blew it for our kids. There is no free speech in the US. There is no Free Press. There is no longer any privacy. There is no longer any constitution. We have a Fascist State with Social Programs. It has not been a democracy since like 1910. Remember the Bank Trust. Well, they clearly have figured out how to use military strategy to get their people into all our institutions. Consider a US Economist. They keep straining to say the same things they ahve been taught. But Fraud is not in there language or text books. The long term models for economic don't work with deregualtion and fraud. Okay, think of the media. If they can't stop unjustified wars, then what are they worth? They in fact got in bed with governemnt and the US military to support the runup to the war in Iraq. Freedom of the press, no I don't think so. Watch a couple of documentaries. Read War Is A Racket. Do a search for Banana Wars. Are you totally stupid and bent to earn a few dollars or get a promotion?

You are the problem. OWS is the Solution. Get on board. We lost democracy like in 1910 or before the farm depressions of 1880. How do we Expand Democracy? Democracy is Limited in the USA. Let's broadcast that to all the world.

If you travel you will find people that say, yes, all leaders are like this. They want war, they want power, they are not for the people, they are not for democracy.

Why don't you get it? William K. Black & Richard Riech say you have to be careful and not be a Cynic. If you become a Cynic then you give up, you can't help, and you are not in the Movement to fix anything or to get Justice.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

I'm not ignoring you, I'm quite busy and traveling. I'll respond in detail when I get some time.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Ok, I'm sorry for venting on you. Clearly OWS is a Social Movement, and respresents change, and has some power to be recognized, has some options available to it. Clearly, if you identify yourself as a leader of a social opposition group, you have to be prepared for you life to go public and be changed forever.

You maybe be a good critical mind. Science is a philosophy of using critical analyisis and is the supposed philosphy of choice in the West.

However you should be aware of quasi science. Anyone can publish a study and get it published in the MSM. Not all studies are created equal. But also... Science should remain open to new ideas ... while retaining this friction of criticism. maybe it is like a marriage. You can't disrespect your mate and hope to be a good man.

The friction of criticism is supposed to test new ideas. In actuality, History and Science changes every year, because the process requires disbelief of most ideas. This is very true in the West where our univesities and our highly paid capitalist professors benefit from control, control of information, publishing, personal power, personal stature, and status.

I'm not saying that science or history in the West has poor methodology... I don't know enough about it. It is the Search for Truth. But the search for Truth is also subject to the influence of money, capitalism, conservatism, militarism, lobbying, Industrialization of Media, Medicine, Agriculture, Military Science, Economics, Education, and Finance.

Economics does explain much of the activities of humans.

I do think we need to keep Capitalism & the US Constitution despite my previous statements above. Corruption is the enduring fact of life in the West or the East or in South America. Structure and Law discourages Crime. You can't stop crime. Structure make the Stock Exchange and Comodity Exchanges work. Without Law and Structure banking and markets are lawless, fraudulent, and uncertain. There are clear limits to deregulation and .... in general deregulation of banks and markets is impossible.

In the words of William K. Black... we have created a Criminogenic Environment.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

My theory is the government is inside OWS. I offered ideas that would bring power to the people but has been prevented from reaching the audience inside the OWS for a year now. If I write articles that could not change anything then I would have access to all Occupy news. Any conclusion? You may find my ideas here www.sarovic.com

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

There's no evidence whatsoever that the government is controlling OWS, and you have adduced none.

Have you considered the possibility that the the reason your ideas don't get any traction in OWS is that the people in OWS don't ever actually do anything except sit around idling chattering about farfetched political and economic theories and ignoring any opinions or facts that are contrary to their own? Consider it -- you might find that it would explain a lot.

Meanwhile, you still haven't provided any details on your own great theory. So tell us -- how do you plan to achieve this? When can we expect you to commence?

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

My philosophy might be too intellectual for the average American so that I started one emotional (sensational) movement that migh change something. It is here http://interoccupy.net/sarovica/?doing_wp_cron=1360015219.2270510196685791015625 Wish me luck!

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

I certainly do wish you luck -- you'll need it; and not because the rich and powerful are keeping you down.

I might observe, though, that writing a book isn't exactly getting started on the execution of an idea. What I had in mind was more along the lines of actually starting a business or non-profit, or lobbying a politician to change the law, or maybe running for office yourself with this as your platform. You seem to be making the same mistake everyone else around here makes -- you confuse talking about an idea with actually doing something about it. They're really not the same thing.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

"actually starting a business or non-profit, or lobbying a politician to change the law, or maybe running for office yourself with this as your platform"

You seem to gravitate towards a very concrete set of actions. However, all truly great activists do not need to have actions done by themselves directly or even remotely connected to their names. The greatest action is done through the invisible actions. If there were a reaction, would you consider that there had to exist an action even if you could never find it?

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Well, let's just take an example -- Martin Luther King. He certainly did a lot of symbolic things -- gave lots of inspiring speeches, led lots of noble demonstrations, and so on and on. But he also had a very effective political organization that got people registered to vote, and got the law changed so they could vote, and and he had a feller named Thurgood Marshall running his law department that spent 30 years litigating civil right issues in the courts and winning landmark decisions like Brown v. the Board of Education that changed the law and the country-- and put Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. To be sure, the demonstrations and speeches were important, but they were merely one component of a very carefully orchestrated set of strategies designed not only to move public opinion, but to change the law and the legal and political establishment themselves.

I might also observe that MLK's speeches were made to vast crowds, and his demonstrations not only drew large numbers, but were also calculated to demonstrate the moral superiority of his cause (e.g., enduring the firehoses and dogs in Birmingham) to the world.

I don't see anybody here managing anything like any of that. Talking to a couple of dozen people on an internet chat room ain't quite the same thing, at least in my book. If it is and I just can't see it, show me the reaction, because I don't see that either.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

I have no intention to lead anybody because I believe that people should lead themselves. Also it is too danger. I have offered much better ideas than King and Kennedy did and ideas cannot be killed.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

But ideas can wither on the vine if no one ever does anything about them. The world is full of great ideas that were stillborn because no one took action.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

If no one takes action, that means the situation is still OK.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

We are smart enough not to want another Martin Luther King. We all know where he had ended up even though he purportedly adhered to non-violence. There had to be a Lyndon Baines Johnson willing to work assiduously for the cause for Martin Luther King's agenda to be realized and the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy created the sorrowful power. Martin Luther King was the figurehead but the total circumstances made him into what he became. It was not the man alone who had created the total circumstances. At best, one can steer them somewhat but control of them is definitely an illusion.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Well then, what's your alternative? What's being done to implement it?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2736) 1 year ago

The most effective way to prevent the decapitation of an activist movement is to have either no head or far too numerous heads to decapitate. Who is Sparticus? He does NOT exist or we can hear "I am not Sparticus!" "I am not Sparticus!" "I am Sparticus!" "I am Sparticus!" "I am not Sparticus!" all over the place from nearly everyone.

The U.S. government conducts "public diplomacy." An activist movement can conduct exactly the same thing.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

First what you need is an idea. I am promoting it now here to Occupy Movement. Well I would be more successful if OWS publishes me officially in their news but they do not want it. I leave conclusions to you...

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Certainly you need an idea first. But then what? That's always the sticking point around here. Lots of ideas, no actions.

[-] 1 points by Aleksandar (43) from Toronto, ON 1 year ago

Actions exist, but they mostly follow ideas that cannot bring benefits. If you people do not understand what I am talking about then nothing will happen. If do, you would demonstrate new labor division proposal. If other people recognize benefits they will join you. Once the goal is set then the change is only the matter of time.

[-] 0 points by EmergencyAlert (51) 1 year ago

OWS is the government. You are the government. You live in a democracy. For the people, by the people. Just become politicians. You can get votes, make legislation and change the system. That is the way. Make your political platform and planks and go door to door and explain it to people and ask for their votes like Obama did.

[-] -1 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Decision making systems based on consensus will always fail if there are too many people involved. Get three friends together and they'll quickly agree to where they should go hang out, get 20 friends together and the group will quickly break up into various subgroups each going in their own direction.

You should take the Occupy ideas that speak to you and start a group which is not related to it. Don't use consensus if there are many people. Use whatever system works best with the people you have in your group.

You don't need Occupy. You just need people doing actions.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

BTW, in response to your anarchists' dilemma, I'm strongly of the opinion that anarchy can't succeed in anything bigger than a very small group, certainly not in running a business or other complex organization. In a business, there are too many decision points that require very quick responses and the organization itself must be nimble generally, or it'll get eaten alive by the competition. Long, drawn-out consensus-based decision processes would be fatal because of an inability to move quickly enough to respond to events. The worker-owned businesses of which I am familiar (other than very small ones) have hired professional management for exactly this reason.

More generally, in even moderately large groups (e.g., the OWS NYC general assembly), in the absence of very tight cultural or religious bonds, the process rapidly collapses of its own inertia due to squabbling and in-fighting. That's why the only successful long-term communal organizations tend to be religious (e.g., the Hutterites) or with very strong cultural bonds (e.g., Israeli kibbutzim).

And more generally still, many, maybe most, people, want strong leadership. Some may just not want to be bothered with having to make decisions, some may be afraid of the potential chaos that they suspect will be the fallout from a consensus-bases process, others may think that it's just good sense to hitch your wagon to somebody that's smarter than you are; others may just be pack animals that like the comfort of a strong leader. But the bottom line is that I think that the anarchists are kidding themselves when they imagine that what everyone really wants is that completely horizontal decision process. Leaving aside the practical difficulties, it's just not what people want. I'm not suggesting here that that's either good or bad, but I think it's reality.

[-] 0 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

I agree with everything you stated, but there's one point that could be debated. The idea of anarchists is to have a whole society based on anarcho-communism, not just pockets here and there. In such a society, businesses would not be competing against each other like they are in a capitalist system. The goal of the businesses would not be to make as much money as possible, but would instead be to sustain the population. In this regard, the aspect of being nimble isn't so important. Businesses that can't keep up would be shut down and that would be a decision from the whole population. The workers would be placed in a new business. Everybody would be working for the greater good. This is how it was in certain cities of Spain in the 1930's.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

I don’t think the anarchists have thought through the practical problems associated with their approach. First, unless they have some magical process by which they'll take over the entire country in an instant, they'll necessarily be working out of pockets for some period of time, probably an extended period of time, and trying to extend them. And during that period of time, they'll be competing against other businesses. And that cumbersome process will be a significant and likely fatal impediment during that time.

Second, the decision process will be further encumbered by the fact that you will have lots of non-qualified people involved in making decisions that require a high degree of technical expertise. In a large and complex enterprise, there will be a great many such decisions in many complex and technical areas. Beyond the pure drag of debating mountains of technical details about some complex decision with a mass of uninformed people that feel the need for input (and the need to educate them before you can even get that far), the input from the average worker will in many cases not be a benefit, it will be an impediment to good decision-making, and will in many cases lead to subpar decisions. The only way to get around all of that is to have de facto leadership positions in technical (and here I speak broadly, to include, law, economics and accounting and so on) areas, which gets you away from your horizontal decision process.

Third, in a very large or geographically distributed entity, you can't really have pure consensus driven decision-making. Suppose, for example, that the anarchists could in fact take over the entire United States. You simply can't have a general assembly of all the people of the United States gathered in a single location, nor could you get input from any but the tiniest fraction of them in some sort of virtual assembly. Nor could you do so for a large or geographically distributed organization such as a railroad. You couldn't get everybody together in the same place in the first place, but you also couldn't afford to shut your operation down even if that were possible; and the same issues of real participation would arise in any virtual assembly. So you'd have to have representatives sent to some assembly, and therefore your best case scenario in the real world would be a competent representative democracy.

Fouth, anarchists are very naïve in that they assume that everyone will play by the rules. History offers no support for this notion. The fact of the matter is that some people will want power. Some among them will try to get it. And some among those will succeed in gathering people around them and creating an organized faction. And from an anarchist standpoint, that's a real problem. A well organized faction under the leadership of a strongman willing to indulge in a little violence will rapidly gain the upper edge. He can move in a very agile fashion and respond very quickly to events because he's calling the shots by himself. And attempting to deal with him by means of a geographically distributed horizontal consensus process would be a disaster. That's one instance in which quick, decisive action is absolutely required -- the one place you most certainly can't have consensus and horizontal decision-making is in the Army when you're trying to fight a war. There, you must have strong leaders, and people willing to take orders from them.

So, the anarchists would have to defer at least temporarily to a strong leader of their own to get them out of the jam. And of course, as has happened so often in the past, that leader, having gathered round himself an army of followers who are now loyal to him, and having prevailed in the war, might well decide that he liked being on top and that he really didn't feel like relinquishing the power now that he had it. And so once again the anarchists would be hamstrung by their own decision processes, because he (or she) has an organization that can move and adapt rapidly, has single goal and purpose, and is answerable to one master; and everybody else doesn’t. All of this has happened in every period of history and in every country in every part of the world where there is a power vacuum. When it does, you’re lucky to get a reasonably enlightened despot. If not, you get a Stalin or a Hitler. Or as in Spain’s case, a Franco.

[-] -2 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

Sure, of course. Anarchism is a theory that falls apart when put into practice. That's why anarchists don't like to put it into practice. If they did, you'd see Occupy starting a whole bunch of anarcho-communist run enterprises. They know that putting their theory into practice would negate it and it would be the end of that. Anarchism is better kept in the warmth and comfort of books.

[-] -1 points by penguento (362) 1 year ago

Q. How many anarchists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A. All of them.