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)

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)


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

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