Brainstorming New Political Systems

The political system needs a good deal of reform. Now with corporations able to pump as much money as they want into elections, there is going to be a much larger amount of corruption than before. So I think it would be a good idea to try to dream up different political systems that would avoid the pitfalls of corporate domination and moral bankruptcy.

1. Electing Ideas. I do not think that politicians should be the prime electees. Voting on broad goals (not specific things, like the referenda in CA often take the form of) would be a much more fruitful system... the system wouldn't get stuck in personal attacks and mudslinging, and corruption would be a much less endemic because it is much harder to corrupt ideas than it is people.

2. Electing officials through a series of trials. We should have a set series of tests and trials that officials have to pass through to become elected. These trials would put the skills of the candidates to the test, and all trials would be broadcast and chronicled by the media. People would have discussion forums to discuss how the candidate did and who was the top competitor. And trials could last a long time. One trial could be One trial could be managing a small government agency. Another trial could be to live on welfare for 2 months. The trials would be designed to both test the individual as well as acquaint them with the country (or state or whatever) they are going to govern.

3. Local Townhall meetings to set general goals of the bureaucracy in small areas. Included in this are a webpage forum for people to discuss things.

4. Some sort of public forum that is more participatory than the current media structures. I am not sure what that would look like.

5. Organized volunteer public works - the government should be more involved in organizing people to improve their locality.

6. Free, voluntary education programs. Basic for any thriving democracy to thrive.

Ok, that is all I have time for right now.

Purity on the Left

There are far too many people on the left who have purity issues. They see capitalism as impure (which it is) and try to cut out any connection with it from their lives. This is a DRASTIC MISTAKE. Personally, trying to maintain one's own purity is really self-righteous and selfish. Socially, it removes the influence all of us have over the society we live in. And with regard to the movement it is such SUCH a hindrance to effectively organizing and bringing about change.
To further explain what I am railing against, let me throw out a few examples. I see far too many people on the left simply refusing to befriend people whose ideology is counter to their own... whether they are capitalists or other sects of the left, like Maoists. There is such a stigma against some of these groups that people are afraid to interact or have them around.
<  rant >
(an html joke, for those of you who are wondering what the "" is about)
Life is messy, people. Do not expect to be able to live by one's ideals, it is good to attempt it, but taking it to the level of a dogmatic view of purity is just going to cause pain and turbulence to one and the people around them. Condemning people for their failings will not change them, the only effect it seems to have is it makes people feel superior, which creates such a negative environment.
The biggest failing of the 60s New Left was it's purity driven mentality, it utterly destroyed the movement. Divisions and hatreds developed because people were arrogant enough to believe their way was the only way. I do not want to see that happen again. The greatest success of the New Left, ironically, came from its rank and file members making a compromise between the ideals of the movement and living in a capitalist society. By living differently but still interacting with society at a fundamental level, they have changed American and global culture drastically. So much of the hatreds they railed against in the 60s have much less influence now. Racism is merely the most obvious.
What does this teach us about succeeding as a movement? That it is messy, that you have to have real relationships with people who disagree with you and that you can't shut yourself out of a dirty world for purity's sake. It is like Thomas Merton (a kick-ass activist monk from the 60s, like so many of the prophets of social justice, he died in '68) said, "In the end, it is the power of personal relationships that saves everything." This is literally true, societal change does not come from over-throwing the government, it comes from making friends with people who disagree with you. It comes from convincing young people to change the way they behave. It comes from loving those who you see as your enemy. It does not come from sequestering yourself from the world and not listening to the minds of your fellow humans.

< /rant >

sds at Brown

8 members of Students for a Democratic Society at Brown are being brought up on disciplinary charges for entering University Hall when The Brown Corporation was meeting and trying to present them with a petition signed by 1000 students, faculty and staff. They are being charged with allegedly hurting Brown University employees (i.e. Brown police). None of these injuries required hospitalization. But this raises some questions. Why are only 8 of them being charged? Does the University administration think that sds intentionally hurt people? Or is this just some authorities scared to lose their power, so they are trying to make an example out of a few people to scare the others off. That is what it seems to be. They are just out for retribution for a very public disruption of a Corporation meeting and the threat that 1000 supporters wanting democracy presents to this governing group.

These charges are arbitrary and unjust, and it just seems like they were created to have something to charge sds with. I am happy, however, to see Brown sds in the news so much, and making such a large impact on the minds of students. That takes organization, time and effort. I know that if sds keeps this kind of pressure up, they will have some measure of success.

I hope, though, that sds arranges a face-saving way out for the Corporation to take. Giving them an out will allow sds to determine the way this ends and provide a win-win situation for sds and the Corporation. Sds will get some consessions, and the Corporation will get this embarrasing issue out of the news and out of people's minds. Then sds can start another round of demands, make a big fuss about it, get alot of media coverage and support, and give the Corporation a way out that benefits both groups. That way, we achieve their consent to doing what we want, without the often fruitless battle of chicken that two groups with indomnitable wills tend to fall into. There is no sense in a total war mentality that demands the complete surrender of an opponent when one's opponent has a strong sense of pride that will always prevent them from taking a step that they feel will humiliate them. Better to understand this about one's opponent and use it to one's advantage than to try to force capitutlation, because that almost always will never come.

The same goes for the Corporation. If they understood sds, they would try to work something out, because sds is not going to be cowed by a disciplinary hearing or even having some of its members suspended from school. That will only back sds into a corner and cause them to fight harder. But no, the Corporation is arrogant enough to think it can ignore the widespread wish for more democracy at Brown and do as it wishes because it is the authority. More democracy would teach Brown students how to be better citizens and how to compromise and resolve conflict. This would be an objective improvement in the atmosphere at Brown as well as the educational environment. It is so sad to see a group charged with improving and sustaining the Brown community can have its vision of clouded so thouroughly by pride.

Thoughts on the future and Obama

I can't lie, Obama has moved me. And while I hope he institutes a progressive policy, it would not surprise me if he did not. Politicians have a responsibility to the public to do what the public wants, and if they think the public wants them to do A, they will probably go along with it. So while I am celebrating Obama being elected, I do not buy the "he was being centrist to get elected, he is really a progressive-wolf in centrist-sheep's clothing."

I would say the most moving part of his story, though, and the reason I am more hopeful of his ability than most other politicians are his self-reflective nature and his community organizing roots. Atleast according to various exposes of him in various forms of media, he spends alot of time contemplating himself, trying to develop self-knowledge. Self-reflection is so key to so much in my life, that I can't help but have some confidence in a leader who appears to have a similar relationship with it. That and various anecdotes that speak to the kindness in his heart give me cause to hope.
Now, if he can manage to transition his campaign arm into a grassroots organization with the purpose of passing progressive policy, oh man, that would make for an interesting future. The creation of a Democratic grassroots "machine", so to speak, that would have a progressive agenda of its own, plus an ameniable President and congress could be a recipe for significant change.

This is a rare opportunity. If the left can mobilize a grassroots mind-changing campaign along side a policy changing campaign, then we could see some real change. I hope sds manages to jump on this opporunity, because we could sway large numbers of people if we can manage to get our voice out there in a relevant and meaningful way.

Another interesting development that Obama's campaign's extreme grassroots nature could produce is a substantial uptick in the pariticipation of the public in our government. It could be the beginnings of a culture of participation, which will only lead toward participatory democracy. I wonder if Obama realizes the impact he could have on the way government works if he can transition his grassroots campaign organization into a more permeanent institution.

This campaign has also shown that you can get marginalized groups mobilized and involved, as well as the average citizen. They just need to be inspired and she the disillusionment that our system of government seems to naturally produce in people because of its unresponsiveness.

A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

Strategy for Changing the US... Take 1

I wrote most of this about a month ago, and was going to add more, but life became really busy, so I decided to publish this as is, since it has been a month an a half since I wrote something.

The question in front of us is not naming the system, or even understanding it, but figuring out how to rebuild it and our society to reflect our highest vision. The people exist to do it. The resources exist to do it. The motivation exists to do it. The only reason it has not happened is because we don't agree on how to do it and we are not organized enough to implement it. We need to understand

This is my first try at setting down a skeletal strategy to restructure our entire society to make it more human, democratic, sustainable, and a generally affirming way of life. This strategy is still in bits and pieces at this point, but I think there is some worth in writing it down so i dont forget.

1. Create local democratic structures. Not sure what these will look specifically, but I imagine them as General Assemblies for non-administrative decision-making, with working groups (open to everyone) to execute tasks. If working groups become too large (What a problem that would be! Too much participation, is it possible?), then they can be split into several working groups that coordinate activity. The judicial system would stop being punitive, and become a rehabilitating presence. It would consist of a system where people would share their grievances and perspectives with each other, as well as consensus-based sentencing.

This really needs further study and experimentation in my opinion, hopefully with some resources behind this endeavor.

2. Non-violent Army. Just a really cool idea that has been stuck in my head for a few years now. They would have the discipline and cohesion of a regular army, minus the extreme hierarchy and violence. They would put their lives on the line for others, just like violent army soldiers and they would be extensively trained in conflict resolution, non-violent tactics and strategy, as well as human behavior. The non-violent army would be trained to confront violent forces as well as other non-violent forces. They would go on campaigns against various injustices across the country, mobilizing thousands. Again, resources are the key problem, as well as research into how to do it. The know-how is extremely important. Hopefully we will be able to create the equivalent of army manuals for the nv army.

3. Parallel Structures. With some local democratic institutions in place, these towns and counties could start forming parallel structures to state and federal governments. These would do everything that an organization composed of the entire community should do, including provide social services (police, hospitals, firefighters, general social support, protection and help)

Democracy and Violence Part 2

Some more rambling thoughts on democracy and violence. WARNING, THIS POST CONTAINS RAMBLING, INTENSE BRAINSTORMING AND STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS WRITING.

I think I need to do a more in depth analysis of violence.
Let me start by explaining something about human cultures. We have commonly held beliefs about the way things are accomplished. A simple example of this is the way we make circular holes in things. We make circular motions, like a drill. Indeed, the drill motion has become so accepted as the way to make a small circular hole that we are prone to interpret holes in ancient artifacts as produced through a drilling motion. But they often weren't. It is easy enough to make a circular hole with other carving motions. When a culture vests a certain amount of belief and confidence in a means, then they start to believe that everyone does it that way and that other ways do not really work.
This is what has happened to our culture with violence. Violence is seen as THE method to force people to do things, to force their consent. So people on both sides of the conflict tend to obey this misconception... the forcer will believe the forcee will accept it, and the forcee believes that they have no choice. As a result, the belief is reinforced because everyone consents to go along with it. There is nothing inherent about violence that makes it have this power, it is a social construction and nothing more. It is one of many social constructions that need to be dissolved before democracy can be installed.

Having large numbers of people solving conflicts through violence (either personal or state violence), as happens now, will not work for a democracy. Using violence to solve a problem does not actually solve it. In fact, it complicates the matter. It denies the right of the victims of the violence to have their concerns addressed and it assumes that those imposing the violence have the right to value the issue of contention over the person. In a democracy, people are the most important thing, they should be prioritized over everything else.

Violence is done out of desperation. Resorting to this type of action assumes that the victim is unreasonable and will not be persuaded any other way. It shows how little control someone has over a situation if they resort to violence. This is the difficult position police are put into. They are invested with the responsibility of keeping the peace, and controlling a situation. When they lose control, they get desperate and they get violent.

Right now our society lacks the social institutions necessary to conflict resolve on the spot. The police are the only institution vested with immediate conflict resolution, and they tend to do it by arresting one party. If there was a common belief in a system that involved real, on the spot conflict resolution, then the police would not be forced to resort to physical force and violence.

The act of forcing someone in this way is anti-democratic. Democracy is about discussion, compromise, consensus and understanding. It is not a results-oriented method of governance, it is a people-oriented method. Violence places results over people.

So far, I have said:
1. Violence and democracy have different priorities
2. Violence and democracy have contradicting products
3. Violence does not produce circumstances conducive to democracy.
4. Violence is used (ineffectively) in the stead of democratic institutions of conflict resolution.
5. Violence is a social construction that is thought to be practical, but ends up not being in practice.
6. Violence undermines the democratic prerequisite that citizens need to be able to make decisions free of oppression
7. Violence as a means to force consent would be replaced with other institutions under a democracy

Things I wish to explore further: How violence effects the victim. The ends produced when one uses violent means. And the chaos factors in democracy and violence.

Democracy and Violence Part 1

Well, I am concretely defeating Bucky when it comes to keeping up with my blog. He can consider that a challenge to try and catch up.

So, this is my first stab at trying to articulate why violence is anti-democratic.
Democracy, by its very nature, is supposed to uplift and equalize, to empower and enhance communication. To facilitate understanding and to bring about consensus. Violence is the opposite of this. It is forced disempowerment, a diminishing and isolating means that tends to breed hatred and more violence. In fact, it often destroys power through death. It attempts to undermine the power of a nation not through turning that power to a different mindset, as with democracy, but through the physical act of destroying people and the inherent power they have. Indeed, it undermines power by both destroying it and by forcing consent through fear.

Violence, in our culture, is believed to be an effective way to force someone to do something. I interpret this as forced consent. The person believes they have no choice, even though they do. They can refuse to be coerced and allow themselves to be harmed... indeed, to force the attacker to use violence out of their own desperation to control other people.

So, violence is used in two ways to try to consolidate control: 1. destroy power through removing number of supporters. The worst examples of this are genocides. 2. Forced consent through the threat of violence; most notable emotions involved are fear, a feeling of helplessness and hopelessness.

Democracy can not be created through a process of destroying power and/or forcing the consent of others. The whole point of democracy is for everyone to be able to affect and/or make the decisions that impact their lives. A system such as that depends on people's trust of each other and willing consent to be a part of the system. You can't get people to participate, I mean REALLY participate in the way we want them to, by threatening them. Nor will killing them get them to participate... for obvious reasons.

Now, that that basic argument is kind of out there... many people will rebut with the argument: There are people out there who are oppressing others and exerting coercion and forced consent over them. How do we deal with them? Would it not be prudant to force these people to consent to stop oppressing? And sometimes people will even take it as far as "Isn't a violent revolution necessary to overthrow such an oppressive system as this, it is so violent that it will respond to nothing but violence."
My answer to this is: That is a false situation. When one group oppresses another, they are forcing the other group to consent. All the oppressed group need to do is stop consenting, and they will, with sacrifice (sacrifice that is required for any kind of fighting, whether it is violent of non-violent), be able to end the oppression. The power is truly in the hands of the oppressed, since they are always more numerous. They could (and have in many historical instances) easily and non-violently thrown off the shackles binding them. This is how you build a democratic society, you create democratic institutions in the effort to overthrow oppressors. Using democratic means will create a democratic system, while using violent means will create a violent system. But I digress... violence will only serve to undermine democracy, because it will make the group who were the oppressors not want to participate in a new government, which would probably not be democratic if it were built out of the flames of a violent revolution. So already there is a problem of a (probably) large minority of people who do not want to participate, and are willing to actively oppose whatever democratic institutions had come about. This creates a situation where the people trying to build a democracy start to believe they need to actively take control, or force consent to the democracy from the actively opposing minority. And that is just plain anti-democratic. We come back to the problem of the impossibility of building a participatory democracy by forcing people to agree to democracy. That is just not how democracy works.

So far in this brainstorming session, I have explored what the means of violence produces (i.e. destroying power, forced consent) and how these products are incompatible with the project of democracy. Violence, as a means, simply seems to be ineffective at producing democratic outcomes.

I want to explore this more, but it is late. So I will put off further discussion for another post. I still need to explore the impact of forced consent on people more, and the products that non-violent means produce. I should also explore the chaos factor from both violence and democracy.

In other news, I got my California License!

Random Musings and Organizations Rant

Have you ever noticed how often politicians and other pundits will frame things as "war on" something. Like "war on terror" "war on poverty" "war on the middle class"... even that crazy "war on christmas" that was in the news a few years back. I wish we could frame struggling to do something in other terms than war.

I must say I miss new Daily Shows and Colbert Reports. I wish the media companies would concede that they make money off of internet showings of their tv shows, and give the writers their fair share of the ad revenue. It is the writers that create this media, so I see no reason why they should not get the benefits of their hard work.

I have been thinking more about Republics and Democracies. It is interesting how a Republic will willingly and overtly recognize the power of the people they govern, yet ignore what polls say is the overall belief of the society. They tend to listen to people who make the effort to contact and pressure them (like lobbyists). This power to influence is an inherent human power, and can be exercised by anyone... but it is possible to amplify this power. Organization is the primary method to achieve this. If you have a bunch of people working to push an opinion on any other group, their collective ability to do so is far greater than the sum of their uncoordinated individual abilities.
This means that the policy decisions of a representative in a Republic will always be slanted toward those who have the organizational abilities to amplify their power. This is true now, as it was back in the Roman Republic. Only now, we have large corporations that can mobilize tens of thousands of people... the people under employment in that organization. There is one hitch, however, the decision-making of the organization is what directs the amplified power toward a specific goal. So, if there are a bunch of people working for an organization, who have no ability to affect the general direction of the organization, they have no ability to direct where their power is being aimed.
I think this is why corporations have become so powerful, they are very large organizations with no accountability to those who compose the organization. They invest the power of all those people in a group of stock holders, a governing board, and/or CEO. These small groups are able to wield the power of the thousands working in the organization. However, they cannot wield it just as they please, they MUST, by law, wield it to make money. This means that the leaders in our most powerful organizations are bound, by the government, to make decisions that will only increase profits.
Such a weird system, if you ask me. But this is why lobbying has become such a problem. The government requires the most powerful organizations in our society to lobby it to increase their markets and profits, and for not to lobby it for any other purpose... no matter what the people in those organizations wish. The only solution to this, that I can see, would be to change corporate law to return the corporation back to what it was before the late 1800s... when corporations were only allowed to exist for the public good, as opposed to the profit of stockholders.

I think this is an important connection... and it also makes me wish that there was a large national organization that was supposed to act in the public good. Cause while the government is supposed to fulfill this role, it clearly doesnt, and it needs to be pressured to fulfill its role.
So we need to create a large organization to act for the public good.

What is the government?

I have been thinking about the concept of "the government." It is a tricky idea, because it has mutated into such an odd organization. It used to be, mainly, the forum for the public (or those appointed by the public) to make decisions about what needs to happen for the benefit of the entire public; a tool to enact those decisions; and a social space for conflict resolution. Hence, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. But, it has separated itself from the public and ceases to play this role in its entirety.
I have come to the conclusion that the government should literally be the public. It should not be this conceptual "other" that is has power over you. It should be the place you go to exercise your power. But how would one construct a government that is re-merged with its community?
I do not know the answer to that question, yet. I am certain it would look quite different from the government we have now, which gives off an aura of all-powerfulness and authority. It would embrace participatory democracy, certainly, but I am still trying to figure out the institutional organization. I have managed to narrow it down, though, to some needs and goals. The decision-making arm needs to be directly democratic, and have a vibrant and accessible public forum for the discussion of issues and problems. Every citizen should feel able to engage in these debates and input their opinion, while being able to directly act on their beliefs through regular referendums. I think we should elect ideas instead of people. Of course, necessary in this system would be a culture of participation and consensus. This would be harder to create than anything else.

In other news, I have not heard back from the PIRGs about whether I got the organizing job with them or not. I guess that probably means not. oh well. And sadly, the ac adapter cord for my laptop has stopped working, so I have had to order a new one of those. My laptop will be out of commission for the next week. I have been thinking about starting to look for day laborer jobs until I find a long-term job, so I will atleast be able to make alittle money to support myself. I will probably start that after I get back from Christmas.