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.




(Read 10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

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)


(Read 10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

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