Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: ~ The Great Occupy Divide ~

Posted 1 year ago on May 30, 2013, 9:49 a.m. EST by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Capitalism (or variations of) VS. Socialism (or variations of)

A bird's eye view of Occupy (figures are speculative)...

  • 1% of us are Corporatists (Fascists) ...
  • 49.5% of us are Capitalists (or some variation of)...
  • 49.5% of us are Socialists (or some variation of)...
  • and the majority of us are Anarchists (we do not like rulers or rules) ... < edited per tommylee . thx

How do we Unite ?

  • WE could all have a vote... and majority rules ...

but... we all know that we are Anarchists ... and we don't like rules ...

  • so the simple thing is to design something new ... something that provides All the desires, goals, concerns, ideal, etcs... of both sides of the 49.5% divide.... at the same time...

can we generalize and simply call all of these things ideologies ?

(my background is math, so maybe some economists may wish to jump in and correct my attempt of definition) ... but here go's ... we need somewhere to start....

~ these are the goals (ideologies) ... I'm not suggesting that they are fulfilled ~

system A ... is designed to provide...

  • individual freedom - each and everyone's right to choose what they want to do ...
  • economic prosperity - the development of economic prosperity for all...
  • a free market, - a competitive market... such that the consumer determines the market success
  • private ownership of resources... the right for individuals to own what they develop....

system B ... is designed to provide...

  • economic freedom - freedom from economic oppression, each and everyone's right to equal economic opportunity...
  • individual prosperity - each and everyone's right to equal access to non monetary prosperity, such as healthcare, education, etc....
  • a controlled market - a market designed to produce only what is needed....
  • public ownership of resources - each and everyone's right to equal share of the resources....

if we can now agree that neither system A or system B are working at ideal levels anywhere ....

so ... what we end up with is systems working in some form of compromise ... applying non-ideal exceptions ....

what if instead of compromise ... we developed a System C that incorporated all the goals ?

system C ... is designed to provide...

  • individual freedom - each and everyone's right to choose what they want to do ...
  • economic prosperity - the development of economic prosperity for all...
  • a free market, - a competitive market... such that the consumer determines the market success
  • private ownership of resources... the right for individuals to own what they develop....
  • economic freedom - freedom from economic oppression, each and everyone's right to equal economic opportunity...
  • individual prosperity - each and everyone's right to equal access to non monetary prosperity, such as healthcare, education, etc....
  • a controlled market - a market designed to produce only what is needed....
  • public ownership of resources - each and everyone's right to equal share of the resources....

~ If we can agree to this approach... the next question would be

  • how we put any system so varied, (part based on private ownership while part based on shared ownership)....into practice in the real world ?

(got to cut this short) .... but imo... we need two different "Sources of Capital" ...

one that supports and props up the "private ownership" element's ...

  • A Federal Reserve Bank ....

and one that supports and props up the "shared ownership" element's ...

  • A Social Reserve Bank ....

44 Comments

44 Comments


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

Just like in the early 20th century, there are people here who want varying degrees of reform, or revolution in terms of a systemic change

And just like in the New Deal days, having radicals (I'm one) in amongst us was used as leverage to get so much more than we would have gotten without them

The really big difference between now and then though as i said in another post is the degradation of our planet with capitalism

What we will end up with is difficult to tell now as it will depend a lot on seen and unforseen circumstances

For now though, we are all pretty much on the same 'page' in agreeing that this corrupt system needs to be transformed into something much, much better

~Odin~

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

~Odin~ ;) I'm with ya ...

The really big difference between now and then though as i said in another post is the degradation of our planet with capitalism ...

I agree... and I am thinking like this...

  • if our new system provided for all the goals... and one of them was... ~ each and everyone's right to equal share of the resources ~

  • then it would be in violation for some or a few to waste our resources ... .

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

Thanks. It is definitely time to take advantage of this crisis...think out of the box, and go for the sea change we need.

~Odin~

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

give everyone a basic living income funded by the taxing collected at the top by the capitalist.

That way if the capitalist want money the will strive to serve the people to get that money

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

yeah.,.. but we have been trying to do that for centuries... and the pendulum always finds itself swinging back to corporatism ....

Matt ... imo... in today's modern world we also need to focus on the creation of new "social & economic opportunities" in the face of new technology advancements which are removing jobs as well as worldwide industrial expansion that is moving jobs....

imo... if we create a new / additional source of capital ... which is not necessarily driven by monetary profits ... as it is driven by social profits... then not only would we expand new opportunity (and therefore new jobs in the art's, research, entertainment... etc that otherwise would not exist because they are not monetarily profitable enough) ... but we will also be able to provide necessary services that are currently provided for through taxation....

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

there was once a vision that machines would do 100 times the work of a surf that people would be free to pursue leisure and creation but that's 50s science fiction

People with big dreams want to direct others to do their bidding

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

People with big dreams want to direct others to do their bidding

agree... but imo that's because our system is based only on monetary profits... if we "also" implemented a social profit system ... maybe it would attract those that want to share the wealth... maybe ?

[-] 1 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

Anarchy has nothing to do with an absence of rules, it's only about the absence of hierarchy. There can be as many rules as needed to create and ensure the stability of an anarchic society. In fact, you'll probably need more rules than for a hierarchic system. Perhaps you got confused with an absence of "rulers" which is quite different.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hmmm ... r u sure about that ? ... that's not my definition ... but you might be right .... as your definition ... ;)

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

looks good .. I'll study it tonight ; )

[-] 2 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

Yes, I'm sure. It's the dictionary and scholar definition. Your definition is wrong. Anarchy is to hierarchy, like atheism is to theism. It states nothing about rules, only about the absence of hierarchy.

If you want to define a system without rules, you'd use the word lawless. You could thus have a lawless anarchy, or even a lawless hierarchy.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

ok... I looked it up... and I stand corrected ... an absence of rulers, might be more accepted.... thanks.... I'll make note

I'm an old guy... from the 60's.... we described Anarchy as a society where no rules or rulers were needed.... because everyone wanted to share... like a healthy commune ... and we all knew that ..that was a near impossible goal... as John Lennon ... wrote Imagine ... years later ... :)

[-] 1 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

I think it's important to remember that anarchy is extremely fragile. Anarchy/Hierarchy are not two possibilities of equal value. For example, if you have 10 people, the only way to obtain anarchy is for all of them to have equal power of decision. However, for hierarchy, there would be an extremely high number of possibilities since any one of more people with more power would create it. In this sense, anarchy is a very special state of political systems.

Also, the second any one person in an anarchy obtains more power than the others, the it is back to hierarchy. Anarchy, when left unchecked, very quickly becomes hierarchic once more. It's as if hierarchy is almost more natural.

You need a lot of rules to keep anarchy stable. Just like you need a lot of rules in a society to ensure that everyone remains free. That's because the freedom of one person depends on other people respecting that freedom. Freedom and anarchy are not constructs that depend solely on individual actions, they depend on actions which are related within society; i.e. actions which take into account the freedoms of everyone.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

;) I know ..... it can and does get extremely complex trying to define something that provides for all.... that's why I believe... as a stepping stone... we might simply try to give "social profits" an opportunity first ... ;)

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

i am passed the point of talking with others about ideas. red and black or death. end of story.

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

You need to stop your focus on trying to please everyone. There is no need to please the unrighteous.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

PS... you are miss-reading me...

  • I'm not trying to please everyone....
  • I think there are many who belong in prison....

  • I am simply trying to identify what it is that we all (except for the fascists) want in an Ideal social and economic system...

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

When you look at Capitalism vs Socialism .. they are both constrained by a limited monetary system. try consider an unlimited hour-coin system where there is absolutely no limit to how many hour-coins can be printed.. It is a piece of the puzzle you need to create world wide satisfaction.

If you like I could explain it to you.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

the last time I heard of an "hour-coin" .. was when I was in middle school .. and down in the triple xxx district ... ; )

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

Everyone on this site suspects of you to be a 1% plant BradB .. here to disrupt and dismember occupy.. is this true?

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hehehe .... I'm not a plant ... I'm from the animal variety

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

For the record, BradB are you an ows supporter? answer yes or no

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

yes... an OWS supporter & contributor ... why would you think not... because I disagree with your Libertarian/Socialistic Ideas ?

PS... I don't disagree with the ideas... I disagree with the ability of them to ever get into practice as presented ... I've told you this many times ... ;)

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

you 've been unable to grasp the concepts of my ideas .. so your disagreement is therefore invalid.

You do not even understand how the greed of high profits kills the economy.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

come on PS.... everyone here understands how the greed of high profits kills the economy....

most of OWS economic arguments are over what is better , Capitalism or Socialism

[-] 1 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

Why are you trolling him? Because he has a different opinion than yours and you are unable to defend your position with proper debating?

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

now... ;) For the record, ProblemSolver are you an ows supporter?

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

I would have to answer; no. With this explanation: ows refuses to hold petition signing events.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

ok PS... what is an hour-coin ?

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

"Everyone" is untrue. For the record, I've never given it one iota of thought either way.

[-] -2 points by ProblemSolver (79) 1 year ago

that's because you are not "everyone" .. you are a sock puppet..

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Wow. And who, pray tell, am I supposed to be?

Wait, . . . wait. Lemme guess.

Mr. T, I presume?

[-] 0 points by tommylee (-5) 1 year ago

Who cares? Even if he is, the only thing he can do is postings and comments, both of which can be debated. I never understood this fear of plants. Just debate properly.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

hey ProblemSolver ;)

ok... I made joke of the hour-coin... because I took your statement of "If you like I could explain it to you."

as condescending ... but maybe you were simply offering info.... so I apologize if so ...

and I am interested ... what is an hour-coin ? ...

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

Smash the entire power structure down to nothing and let the communites figure it out.

Im not sure how they would, but I know humans always find a way when they are engaged.

Communities experimenting with different aspects of it would be fantastic.

[-] -2 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Any solution probably should include the promotion of voluntary poverty.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

HC, why?

why does anyone need to live in poverty ?

[-] 0 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Simple living is the self-recognition that there are more important things out there in the world than material wealth. I'm not saying people Should be poor, I'm just saying that a life void of wealth is much richer than one with wealth.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 1 year ago

I'm kindda with you there HC... but my kid's are grown... I don't need to pay many bills anymore.... I have the luxury to enjoy life w/o much money ;) ... and I like it much better than the rat race ;)

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

Yah, for sure. Simple Living is not acesticism those either. Thoreau and the Buddha both suggested The Middle Way. You can live and maybe should live your life how ever you see fit. Material posessions are not evil, they shouldnt be the primary focus of someone's existance. If you want that fancy new Tv or car or shoes or whatever, they by all means go for it, but dont base your whole damn life worrying about who has the stuff and how you can get it from those who have the stuff.

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

a guess variety is not always in the cards

[-] -1 points by HCabret (-327) 1 year ago

I said how I feel about poverty. I'd didn't say that everyone should agree with me or that my statement was fact.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6287) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

There are a surprising number of people that do, in fact, choose to be homeless, which I would definitely equate to a life of voluntary poverty. I just finished Googling "I choose to be homeless" and was surprised at the results.