Nato Welch ([info]natowelch) wrote,
@ 2003-03-26 17:15:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:capitalism, charters, cooperatives, corporations

Yet Another Dissenter's Manifesto
In order to "save the masses", you must first be able to look them square in
the eye and tell them that they don't know what's best for them. It is
difficult to use the excuse that they are "misinformed" or "ignorant"
anymore, in this day and age of information availability. anyone who really
wanted a neutral or balanced opinion can find one. Intellectual poverty is
not something Americans suffer from for lack of opportunity.

As a result, political messiahs of liberal and conservative bent alike are
required then to assert that people are instead incompetent to govern their
own affairs, and this is the fundamental sin of condescension.

Americans are ruled by industry because *they want to be*. There is dissent,
yes, but it is futile and arrogant to continue to persuade "America" -
meaning a majority of Americans. It is as pointless to preach to those who
will not budge as to the converted.

What then, must the dissenters do? Take the willing, and make an effort to
create communities of solidarity and real power on the smaller scale in which
they find themselves, rather than pining for a day when all people will think
as they do. Don't continue to waste your spirits away in repeated
"educational campaigns" that, with time, yield decreasing returns in
converts, and turn into coercive propaganda. Once the information, the
ideas, and views are in the open, and available to the public, they will
compete on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas rather than the
merits of those who promote them. This is the information age, for crying
out loud. Making one's thoughts available is a trivial exercise.

Decide where you're going, then discover who's coming with you. Never get
the order mixed up. Some of you know who said that (Sean Kennedy, in his
Virus Manifesto). Your decision about the changes you want to make or see
in the world should never be based on persuading a large number of people to
cooperate. You have to recognize who is with you, and make it work with the
resources and connections that you have.



Form economic support networks. Take care of each other. Start spending
money on those in need who agree with you politically. Be prepared to offer
temporary support to the underemployed among us. Many of you certainly
already do this.

I would go one step further, by encouraging more private enterprise among
us. Recognize, take up, and exploit the freedom and power that are being
used against us by big industry.

I would suggest that the largest reason workers don't own the means of
production is that they don't want it. The stock market system may have some
discriminatory barriers, for certain, but these exist on the larger-scale
corporate level (companies on the scale we would be operating on are easily
accommodated by LLC structures, which are by and large unregulated). In
addition, the bureaucratic barriers to buying stock in your company pale in
comparison to the lethargy and apathy the average worker has been
conditioned into by those privileged classes who DO own stock. Our attitude
needs to change. Given that in this day and age of corporate lobbying,
private industry wields massive power in the arena of legislation, it
only makes sense to acquire the same sense of civic responsibility in
regards to one's employment or business as one would expect in one's
participation in democratic governance (especially, I might add, when the
average person's employment typically consumes FAR more attention and effort
than one's involvement in politics).

I'd like to pioneer a company charter to spread among fellow dissenters of
capitalism; one that establishes and upholds a convention that all those
involved in a company's work are granted an equity stake of voting stock in that
company, in proportion to the value of that person's contribution of time
and attention to the company's business. Employment with companies that are
not than traded on the open market, and refuse to
entertain requests for ownership should be temporary at best. If dissenters
are truly serious about economic equality, then making progress into a
workplace that agrees with them is important, and isn't something that's
implausible to achieve.




(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]zer
2003-03-26 06:55 pm UTC (link)
Well stated. In addition, though, I believe that people can be trained (read: coerced, brainwashed, socialized) to want that which is not good for themselves / good for the world / good for each other, and this is a Bad Thing.

In regard to what you say, though I'm not sure if you know about it, this organization is amazing, and even successful!:
http://www.mondragon.mcc.es/ingles/menu_ing.html

I plan to start with a printing/media co-op of some sort when I live in Calgary, which I'll be sure to work into updated NR stuff. I think that all of this makes a lot more sense when we stop thinking that the current structures of institutions are inevitable and immutable, which I suppose is obvious, but I still could not stop thinking only in terms of states and corporations for a long time. Speaking of which, I've just started reading "One-Dimensional Man" by Herbert Marcuse, which is bloody brilliant if you have the spare processing cycles (of the brain) to spare.

< / rambling >

(Reply to this) (Thread)

bookmarked
[info]natowelch
2003-03-26 10:10 pm UTC (link)
One Dimensional Man

people are conditionable, for certain. conditionability is jsut another way to say that human beings have extraordinary powers of intelligence - learning, assimilation, changing, growing. The problem with consitionability is in the source of the conditioning; Our particular values favor the maximum amount of self-conditioning over external conditioning; the more you feedback upon your own behaviour, the better off you are.

I've been thinking about your absolutism some more, and, while still failing to find a real independent meaning for it, I can certainly support and endorse the virtues of consensuality being a kind absolute good. In that sense, I'm not sure whether to say that external conditioning is not good, because it's still perfectly consensual.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]zer
2003-03-27 09:34 am UTC (link)
I just thought that I may attempt another angle on this sort of absolutism involving the idea of harmony and progress (which may even at times contradict each other, but often also help each other).

Of course, I don't know the ultimate Truth or any of that, but there are general ways to live that are harmonious (sustainable, balanced, causing least suffering) with the world and each other and which are conducive to progress (advancement of knowledge of world, selves), and there are ways of living which destructive to harmony (consumerism, domination by profiteering corporations with no controls) and destructive to progress (hmm, religious/police states; I think we have technological progress well in hand, but it is applied poorly). So the best way to live (in harmony, with intellectual growth) is how we -should- live.

Maybe it still doesn't work for you, but I'll try again another day!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

not quite
[info]romulusnr
2003-03-26 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Instead of going into it, I'll let my favorite dialog from The American President illustrate my response:

PRESS SECRETARY:

People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

PRESIDENT:

Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

[emphasis mine]

I hope you see the point. I'm not in the mood to rehash it atm.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: not quite
[info]natowelch
2003-03-26 10:20 pm UTC (link)
This isn't an argument, it's an unsupported refutation.

What you're aying is that the problem IS ignorance and a scarcity of exposure to diverse viewpoints, and that, when properly exposed to full debates, people will obviously see that they're wrong, and change their behaviour.

Why is it, then, that every major issue American society has engaged itself with in the last 5-10 years seems to be split right down the middle? The democratic process seems to have crushed or assimilated all marginal minorities that have appeared in the last century; now all that's left are 50/50 splits. Look at the war - massive protests, with lots of people unable to even locate anyone they know who actually consents to it. Look at the last election - there was only massive controversy over the recounts in Florida because those few votes MADE THE ELECTION. the nation was split down the middle, again. There's no consensus, just two tough, roughly equal opponents. the debates are everywhere.

As much as we like to fantasize about big brother media control, free speech is alive and well. dissenting opinons have NEVER BEEN EASIER to publish and obtain as they are today. All it takes to find them is an enquiring mind and an internet connection, which are in no short supply in the US.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: not quite
[info]romulusnr
2003-03-28 08:39 pm UTC (link)
First off, your evidence of pro-war and anti-war protesters as proof of a national 50/50 split proves only that those who go out of their way to make major vocal expressions of their views are split 50/50.

Which makes perfect sense, considering those with strong enough viewpoints to feel the need to make a spectacle of themselves over it are going to tend to have opinions that are more extreme.

But this doesn't prove that the wide majority of people, who aren't going out of their way to protest something, are also split 50/50.

Moderates rarely protest.

But, secondly, regardless of the moderateness of the populace, America is a dualist nation. In every area that we are competitive, there are only two viable or prominent sides of the conflict. Republican vs. Democract, NL vs. AL, AFC East vs. AFC West, man vs. woman, black vs. white, defendant vs. prosecutor, the list probably goes on.

And the competitive nature of Americans, coupled with this constant and ever-present American duality, means that Americans have to pick a side. Whose side are you on? Us or them? Most people don't care about the details of your particular shade of grey, even though they know that those shades exist. What they really want to know is what side of the line you are on.

Most American polling is done this way as well. Media outlets that can afford to collect well-sampled national polls don't want to confuse the issue by having too many shades of grey. Having three sides makes it too difficult to tell who is winning. There's no satisfaction if you only have plurality on your side. Besides, majority rules. What matters is your side is winning.

Thirdly, because of the self-perpetuation of this duality, for no good reason, the alternate media outlets and alternate viewpoints suffer from a lack of support due to their obscurity, which means they can't afford to advertise, which means they can't afford to increase their prominence and thereby increase their support.

On top of it, they aren't as good-looking as major media outlets. Major outlets specifically target themselves to be appealing to the common mindset, which is more interested in attractively presented content than actually redeeming content.

It is only the intellectuals that a) seek out and b) entertain the absorption of the alternate outlets and viewpoints, because unlike the people of the mainstream, intellectuals realize that content is king.

Beyond that, most people can't see beyond the end of their own nose. Most alternate-viewpoint outlets on the Internet have a national or global worldview. Most people aren't nearly as cosmopolitan and only care about their own neck of the woods. Outlets that don't provide local information aren't going to attract hardly anyone.

On top of it, most of these alternate viewpoints are too advanced to be understood by most people. Others are unfortunately the exact opposite and are unresearched, without much basis and poorly written. The rest fall into their own self-redundancy to the point that the only people who can tolerate them are the people who write them. Not to mention that there are thousands of these alternate outlets and viewpoints (especially in the blog age), whereas there are probably no more than four channels of TV (the existing popularity of which generates any of the Internet traffic to news sites -- only, of course, to their own) at any given time acting as a major news outlet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

agreed
[info]natowelch
2003-03-30 11:07 pm UTC (link)
You've done a lot of my agrument for me, by introducing some more good thoughts on the sources of the division. Thanks!

In regards to your last point, about the complex alternatives, that doesn't mean that people are ignorant - it means they're STUPID, in essence. It's not that they're unbaware of the alternatives, it's that they aren't sophisticated enough to comprehend them. The only chance to implement those solutions, then, is a government by Philosopher Kings. I leave the task of ascertaining the feasability of such a scenario as a completely different exercise...



(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]walpurg
2003-03-27 02:00 am UTC (link)
"tell them that they don't know what's best for them"

Your point reminds me of one Nietzsche made about arrogance:

"Our social order will slowly melt away, as all earlier orders have done when the
suns of new ideas shone forth with new warmth over the people. One can desire
this melting only in that one has hope; and one may reasonably have hope only if
one credits his own heart and head, and that of his equals, with more strength than
one credits to the representatives of the existing order. Usually, therefore, this hope
will be a piece of presumption and an overvaluation."
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/human8.htm

(Reply to this)

good advice
[info]walpurg
2003-03-27 02:18 am UTC (link)
"Take the willing, and make an effort to
create communities of solidarity and real power on the smaller scale in which
they find themselves,"

Strangely, this is my dream - which may be slowly turning into reality.

The easiest way to form of subculture is online. The connections, networking and info. flow make it easy. But IMHO it lacks some of the necessary (but not sufficient) criteria for community - namely: proximity.

Our current communities are based in nuclear families. The nuclear family is a brief and unusual blip in human evolution - it hasn't been around long and it isn't our typical state of living. Many people think this isolation and lack of community is a problem and has lead to "atomisation", alienation, extreme individualism and sexual dysfunction. History illustrates our typical state:

"As a fundamental unit, the nuclear family has no special identity in the early environment of human adaption of 110,000 years, nor does it seem to have much of one in the future, if current trends are any indication (since its value as a production unit has now been lost).

In the early environment of adaption (neolithic period), groups of four sizes seem to have existed. The "intimate" group is comprised of significant others (emotional bonds), usually an immediate household unit (symbolic/stylistic bonds) of about five persons.

Next in size is an "effective" group, based upon friendship bonds, which might be comprised of a lineage (material/exchange bonds). Collectives of this type consist of about 20 persons. Twenty is the limit in size for discussion-based decision making, if information technology is not employed."

(quotes from http://secureid.org:8100/Lists/Immortal/Message/20.html)

This would explain I prefer the idea of a group of 10-12 people - it is somewhere between an intimate group and an effective group. When groups get a little bigger (around 30 - known as a "band" or "deme"), individuals acquire a social identity and shared worldview in them. So with enough people you can create a lasting culture out of a small community.

I want a chosen family of friends and lovers, for a free and caring community. I believe my sense of alienation is partially due to physical isolation from loved ones (its at least 2hrs train ride away to someone other than the woman I live with). For sure, extended seperation from loved ones has lead to severe depression - and then a massive high on being reunited.

Even without 30 people, a smaller group can have its own culture and is theoretically immortal.

"Even if one individual leaves or dies, the group's culture can reproduce itself. The fundamental requirement for collective survival is the satisfaction of the basic human needs for sex and companionship."

(from http://secureid.org:8100/Lists/Immortal/Message/14.html)

If our basic needs aren't met, we are living in a way counter to survival - i.e. we are killing ourselves with loneliness and repression. This is probably why suicide is the greatest single cause of violent death around the globe and almost equalled deaths from homicide and war combined in 2000, according to the World Health Organisation.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=339010

As Margaret Mead put it: "99 percent of the time that humans have lived on this planet, we've lived in groups of 12-36 people. Only in times of war - or what we have now, which is the psychological equivalent of war - does the nuclear family prevail, because it is the most mobile unit that can ensure the survival of the species. But for the whole flowering of the human spirit, we need groups, tribe, community."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: good advice
[info]walpurg
2003-03-27 02:39 am UTC (link)
If you are able to gather an off-line community of like minds, then coupling this with Nate's other suggestion - getting into business - should have you set up. Alternatively, if you don't want/can't do business, then self-sufficiency would be ideal - a small farm or gardens on an area of land big enough for all (this could turn into a small cottage industry itself).

One day I might just head over to a commune in GA or PA which have invited me to join in. The realisation that mass groups of people can't be converted to my views has come at this time too. The most I'm interested in doing in putting my thoughts *out there* and allowing curious minds to consider them. Non-curious minds would be a waste of time, and as they won't find what I do, it won't matter.

Take one of my projcts - safesex.biz. Yeah, so going is slow. But the ultimate plan is to have a matchmaking system (of the kind you find all over the Net) with a difference.

Once you've entered your data at sign-up you will get alerts from your cellphone after activating search/negotiation functions.

A major advantage of the system would be alert you to the fact that a match was within range, which would typically be a travel time less than some value you specify. It would typically not be screening those who you run into at a party, etc. So, what we are trying to do is give the user an alternative to manual finding and flirting.

Think of it this way: When a friend loans you some small amount of money or buys you diner a mental note or verbal agreement is adequate. However, as the amount gets larger, a check is appropriate, and if it is really large it should be a certified check. We should have the
possibility of securing our bodies, from infection, abuse, etc., as least as well as we secure our funds. We have recently heard a sad story here about someone who discovered too late she had been duped into marriage and having a child. This should be avoidable with the system described. Also, in certain cultural frameworks, communication about sex is effective blocked, except for culturally defined rituals, ie, marriage.

The system promotes a sexual sub-culture of non-monogamous relating and casual sex. We're not pressing for any changes in marriage laws or the like (though the issues are flagged) because once enough people are doing this, they can't be stopped.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…