h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah, OK, anhaga. Crossed purposes.

No - I can't comment on the local Edmonton protests (and haven't much wish to ). If you don't feel they're as relevant to parochial concerns as the local protestors do - fair enough. All part of the democratic tapestry.

Presumably, though, you're not necessarily generalising you disinterest to the more Important places of the world?

'you're not necessarily generalising you disinterest to the more Important places of the world?'

No, I'm not. As I've mentioned a number of times.



I was thinking a little further about this and I've managed to crystalize some thoughts further:

Here we have functioning parliaments at the local, regional (Provincial), and national levels which were peacefully elected (with corporate donation limits in place, BTW) by our electorate within the last few years -- nationally and locally within the last few months. Personally, I don't think an ad hoc, self-appointed local parliament meeting in a park is particularly needed nor inherently more democratic than what we have sitting in City Hall in Edmonton, in the Provincial Legislature in Edmonton, or on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

I'm sorry. Even if I agree with some of the things they say, they don't speak for me. I didn't vote for them. I have reprentatives I did vote for and I like them.

I am genuinely trying to clarify. If you' feel you've said some of these things before...well I wasn't in the thread from the start...and what I saw wasn't clear to me.

Can I perhaps put it to you that your local protectors may be making connections between local and international issues that you haven't yet seen? (i don't know this for sure. maybe they can tell us?) Further, they may have less faith in the democratic process than you do? (that one's maybe the clincher).

Whatever your differences - perhaps you shouldn't simply dismiss them as an irrelevance? Disagree with them or not, on aims or tactics, they're part of your democratic culture.

Your antipathy is noted - but I'm afraid I don't the full reasoning behind it. Doesn't it just amount to 'Well I happen to like my MP' or similar?

No. It amounts to I feel set invested in our democracy and in the historical development of our society. Yes, like, my MP but I despise my PM. I have great respect for our system, a respect based.on a fair amount of historical study.

Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss those twelve people in the park. But they definitely shouldn't dismiss our democracy. I don't take Occupy Edmonton very seriously because they seem to be a few people yelling in a room full of a great many people having a polite discussion of.the problems of the day. The issues they are raising (apart from absurdities such as 'find free energy') are already being addressed in the established forums.

>>It amounts to I feel set invested in our democracy and in the historical development of our society.

Perhaps this is it, then? Perhaps they feel less invested? Perhaps they have reason to feel that way? After all the younger generation appear to have a less bright future than we had.

And, OK, there are other forums. And here's another one! These things don't work in a vacuum but feed off one another. I doubt you'd expect them to just leave it all to politicians, whether good politicians or bad, whether democratically elected or not. This is what is called 'Community Involvement'. They are part of the cultural/political environment which shapes political decision making.

But if it's not your kind of thing? Meh. Make a difference some other way. I'm not sleeping in a tent myself, either, but I can kinda see what they're at.

anhaga has a point here about the potential for democratic deficit in all this. After all, if this was a Tea Party-inspired rightist 'give us back our taxes, hang benefit claimants, and send 'em all back' populist campaign or occupation that was claiming to represent the silent majority, I don't think my response would be very polite. I might even regard it as pretty sinister and even anti-democratic.

Problem is, in the UK at least, conventional politics don't appear to be working. We have a crisis of capitalism, and the only response available to the electorate is to elect a party that's even more capitalist. Our electoral system is set up in such a way that there's a very narrow range of options. We had a chance to change it, but a combination of breathtakingly misleading and dishonest campaigning (on the one side) and incompetence (on the other) meant that we didn't.

The debate is framed very narrowly, much of the media is right wing and pretty partisan (although not on the American scale) and so a lot of voices and opinions just don't get aired. When there was a huge protest march against cuts to disability benefits, much of the media completely ignored it - presumably because there was no violence.

So.... how to get the issue of inequality back onto the agenda?

Well I share the disquiet about the demand deficit. *However*...can we really criticise unless *we* can articulate what the demands should be? 'An end to inequality' - yes, good. But *how*.

I have my own views on this, of course. . I don't think the world will become a nicer place because everyone decides en masse to be nicer.

And I don't think that folk in tents in the financial centres of the world will do it, either. They're part of the picture - but only a start. *However*...we won't get anywhere starting with an attitude of 'They're not doing it properly.' It should be 'OK - and what *we'll* do for The Revolution is...'

I intend to continue to engage with the institutions of my society.

Ah. And all political discourse has to be with those institutions?

Heaven forfend that people should go off-piste and make up their own institutions.

Shall we change our names, ed?

I'll be Ed Burke and you can be Tom Paine.


Funny how this conversation already happened two centuries ago.

Should anybody be interested, I've popped this little thing on my blog:

http://primevalmudd.com/occupylsx-and-the-olympics/

Don't go wandering around the site: there be swearing. Lots of it.

An apt comparison, anhaga.

'A la lanterne, les aristos!'

Here's what I think.

In the case of the Occupy The City protestors, their demands are very, very mild. Things like transparency for the City of London authority. So mild that nobody in their right mind could fail to agree with such petty reforms.

Except...they won't get them. The structure of Capital, its place within the British constitution (eg a paid City lobbyist sitting opposite the Speaker in the House of Commons. Did you now that?) is so wrapped up tight and locked down that they daren't give an inch.

The protestors are exposing the fault lines between Capitalism and Democracy and the apparatus of state.

And whether they're doing it intentionally or they're just making it up as they go along...they're playing a blinder. What a coup to get the CofE caught up!

On the other hand -- and this again is the view from here in the Western part of Turtle Island -- I thought of this little epigram today:

Occupy is a special interest lobby group, not an alternative democracy.


And, seriously, can anyone honestly say that Occupy can claim a mandate from the masses? Can anyone deny that they are a self-selected group lobbying by means of protest?

Corporate lobbyists demand change from government while holding the threat of defunding.
Occupy lobbyists demand change from government while holding the threat of insurrection (or maybe just the threat of dirty parks)

But both are self-selected groups, one claiming but not demonstrating a mandate from the masses while the other claims and could surely demonstrate a mandate from shareholders.


Perhaps it is a good thing to have a lobby group claiming to represent us all, but I'm not sure that I'm completely comfortable with some guy I've never met or even heard of walking into a park, pitching a tent and claiming to be my representative in the fight against whatever.

Sure, you say, I could go down to the park and get to know the guy, but why should I? What authority does he have? Did some watery tart lob a scimitar at him? No. He's just a guy who decided one morning to be part of the Occupy movement. He has no more mandate to lobby government for me than does the guy I by my calzones from. Maybe less. And my MP *does* have a mandate: more than half my neighbours voted for her less than a year ago. If more than half of my neighbours decide she hasn't done a good job in a few years, they can vote her socialist arse out of office and vote in a right winger or a Green, or one of the half dozen other people that will be running.

If we think he's doing a bad job, how do we get rid of the guy in the park who claims to represent us?


And before someone says Occupy is just a protest, free speech, etc., the claims have been made that Occupy is an alternative democracy. In the U.S. there are plans for the election (in parks, by the self-selected) of representatives to go to a national assembly to present demands to Government. To lobby under the guise of a democratic mandate.

I've had much

I should end this post now, although I would like to continue on about what exactly is being demanded. Is it regulation or is it revolution. If it's regulation, I would hope that is what is being articulated. If it is revolution, then Bob help us all.

And now, a light-hearted interlude:

“I was sitting on a park bench drinking a coffee and a reporter came up to me and asked me about Occupy and I was like, ‘What's that? I'm just sitting here drinking a coffee. Who are these people?’ It wasn't for another 15 minutes that I realized I was part of something bigger than myself, but by that point it was over.” – Tim, 44

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/globe-to/occupy-toronto-the-one-week-anniversary-party/article2209898/

Nov 5 is the day to move our money away from Wall Street banks that received trillions in bailouts, then posted 'record' profits, gave their executives enormous pay hikes and bonuses, and engineered the largest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

For information about how to move your money away from a Wall Street bank and to your local bank or credit union, visit Move Our Money:

http://www.moveourmoneyusa.org/

Caution. This is not without hazard. Banks have been treating people who wish to move their money from one bank to another as criminals. Watch the arrest of this bank customer who attempts to move her own money from Citibank to a local banking institution of her choosing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNcz_A2msRU

OccupyWallStreet
Occupyh2g2

I've switched banks a number of times over the years with no trouble at all.

That link gives no indication of where I should put my money after I take it out of the Bank of Montreal.

Oh. It's a U. S. thing. Never mind.



Occupy Noesis.

I wonder if I can get a waiver from Solnushka for Journal Posting Month if I get arrested.

Occupyh2g2

>>> I should end this post now, although I would like to continue on about what exactly is being demanded. Is it regulation or is it revolution. If it's regulation, I would hope that is what is being articulated. If it is revolution, then Bob help us all.sadface

Why so sad, Anhaga? If it is just a US thing to you, why worry at all?