"We will seek out all peaceful means...to END CORPORATISM."

[Fire Walk With Me]

The following Objective was adopted by the General Assembly of Occupy Los Angeles on Saturday, November 27, 2011:

"A major Objective of Occupy LA is to END CORPORATISM on the National, State and Local levels. We define CORPORATISM as the merger between Corporate and State Power. Some examples of this nexus are:

· the pervasive influence of lobbyists throughout government
· the revolving door between the private and public sectors as corporate executives and lobbyists become governmental regulators and legislators and then move back into the private sector again.
· the awarding of public contracts to private politically and economically connected interests
· the dependency and predominance of the public Electoral process on private and Corporate funding
· commonplace legislative action blatantly prejudicial to the public interest and grossly beneficial to favored Corporate interests
· the elevation of Corporations to the legal status of persons
· wars waged in the interest of Corporate profits.

As long as the above described condition is allowed to persist, the interests of the People will be prejudiced in favor of the Corporate interests of the 1%. We will seek out all peaceful means, including citizen legislative, legal and protest action to END CORPORATISM."

[yurbud]

1. wow--i can't believe I'm the first and only to rec and reply

This should have thousands of recs and every elected official should be forced to respond to it point by point.

[Enthusiast]

71. I agree with you.........nt

[gtar100]

78. Gotta give it a bit more than 6 minutes. But I share your desire.

The people who need to hear this the most do all they can to plug their ears to the needs of the people. If we don't force them to respond, they will not acknowledge any of these points.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. K&R

That's the right objective!

[Huey P. Long]

3. Occupy. -eom

[Blue Owl]

4. Sounds good to me

:kick:

[PETRUS]

5. Way to go OLA GA. K&R

[gratuitous]

6. But what do they WANT?

Nobody knows! Oh, like you expect me to read something?! I'm too busy for that. Sound-bite it for me, or forget it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

128. We're gonna need bigger signs to hold all that! :)

[Modern_Matthew]

7. Abolish CAPITALISM! C'mon Occupy LA, it's a matter of a few letter changes. ;-) K&R. nt

[blindpig]

10. There's a wide gulf between the two.

To achieve those goals you'd have to abolish capitalism, the capitalists are not going to submit to such shackling willingly, the light bonds of the New Deal still chafe. And so far most of Occupy are not willing to go there, yet that is the obvious conclusion.

Time will tell, it's part of our education.

[DonCoquixote]

19. do elaborate

abolish capitalism can mean everything from killing corporations to killing lemonade stands and banning owning your home.

[tiny elvis]

77. free lemonade and free housing are criminal killing and banning to a capitalist

your reduction to absurdity is an appropriate response to the fanciful abolition of an ism
however, commerce and basic property rights do not distinguish capitalism
as a wage laborer, your possession of property is made possible by opposition to capitalism's
endless push for the cheapest labor
every advantage to a worker is in opposition to capitalist ideals
why elaborate?
'abolish X can mean...'
the meaning of abolish is unquestionable, so you have asked for a description of X
if i elaborate on capitalism in your manner,
it means everything from incorporation to slavery and mass murder for profit
one of those things is legally abolished, another obviously should be
the abolition of any is a restriction on capitalism
many people despair at pro capitalist arguments, because they are only sales pitches
simplistic when it suits the sale, purportedly complex beyond understanding when it suits
until we can only say, 'lemonade stands my ass,' and beat the confidence men away with sticks
thus the erudition in the proposition for abolition without condition in the rendition

[DonCoquixote]

83. actually

I asked because when people say abolish capitalism, you get different answers as to what capitalism IS. It might be easy to just rant off a series of poetry, but poetry does not protect rights, especially the right to be safe from people that want to kick you out of your house.

[blindpig]

94. Who cares about lemonade stands or your house?

We're talking about manufacturing, large scale agriculture, mining, energy, the traditional stuff, along with the finance sector, health care and the obscene prison industry. Mom&pops got nothing to do with it, their effect upon society as a whole is negligible and they are marked for extinction by capitalism itself which usurps one category after another in it's relentless hunt for profit. Your personal possessions got nothing to do with it.

[DonCoquixote]

132. actually

Until very recently, places like China and Cuba DID care about lemonade stands and your houses. Granted, they have both changed their strategy to focus on the really BIG property owners, but it took them about 40 years of blood, sweat and tears to get to that point. We do not want to repeat eariler mistakes, even people like Zizek justly rail against "that which was called communism."

[socialist_n_TN]

141. I'm a Marxist of a certain tendency and my group

has NEVER said anything about abolishing small businesses and lemonade stands. It's ALL focused on the larger concerns and the government toadies that support them.

Why would an economy of trillions of dollars worry about a mom & pop owner/operator that nets $20k or $30k per year? It would be more trouble than it was worth. And as pig said (Marx too), who GIVES a fuck about your personal property? No commie that I know. That's ALL capitalist propaganda.

[DonCoquixote]

146. Note earlier history

Where in China and Cuba, they DID care, up until the 21st century. I just bring up this because, if you are going to sell socialism, you need to be sure it does not have some of the mistakes that China and Cuba did. It's not propaganda as even THEY admit it was not a good idea. It's one thing to make mistakes early on, another when you should be older and wiser.

[blindpig]

153. Live and learn.

Creating a new kind of society is bound to encounter problems, what we must do is learn from them. A new society is not created out of whole cloth, it necessarily must work with what came before and not try to change everything yesterday, too disruptive and in any case if the primary means of production are addressed then the show is well on the road. I have no idea what really is going on in China. Zizek is all over the place. One thing is for sure, we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater and we do not dishonor the monumental effort of those who went before for their imperfections.

[defendandprotect]

67. Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime -- !! Corporatism is fascism... all the same-!!

Keep in mind FDR "regulated capitalism to save it" -- it was finished then.

This is yet one more go around on the criminal nature of capitalism -- in fact,

capitalism's fascism.

Time will tell -- but results of capitalism will always be fascism.

[joshcryer]

84. lol, ardent totalitarian socialists defending OWS for "compromising" and "realism"

Meanwhile Obama "compromises" and is a "realist" and he gets shit upon time and time again.

[blindpig]

98. Dunno how you got that, quite a stretch.

Rather, it is realization of where OWS is at this time, that the position is really impossible to attain, and that if those goals are to be attained that they cannot be within the current arrangement. As the austerity and authoritarian measures accelerate this will become clear.

[RufusTFirefly]

112. A lot of people naively assume that American style capitalism is the only variety

It isn't that all forms of capitalism don't have their fundamental flaws, but our particular brand is really gangster stuff.

[Fire Walk With Me]

8. I am proud to have been one of the 1,000+ persons who gave this consensus.

It feels GOOD to again be proud to vote.



END CORPORATISM!

[Zorra]

12. And you should be!

Thanks for your vote, you spoke for me as well.
:hug:

[Remember Me]

35. Historic

Let's hope it's foundationally and permanently historic -- !

[defendandprotect]

110. Well don -- !! Thank you !!

And, in line with wanting everything --

Was there discussion, as well, of including "ending wars" or Global Warming?

How about the computer voting machines and election reforms?

[Fire Walk With Me]

134. I'm not certain if any of those have been addressed. I'm sure they will if they haven't!

And they all seem to tie into corporatism...

[defendandprotect]

144. True ---

and I'm just reading the other thread -- Amy Goodman coverage of

Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Wm. Greider, etal --

And, Wm. Greider certainly commented on all of it --

and others certainly have it all in mind --

Think we need commitment of DU to OWS -- and more of us thinking how we

can contribute to the movement!!

:)

[harun]

122. Bravo!

[Zorra]

9. WOOT! That's it! _^_Right up there in the OP_^_ Monster K&R

Copying and emailing.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Fire Walk With Me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Ok but I am told this is unfocused

and the tea party of the left....

:sarcasm:

It is evolving. And into notes that op goes.

[redqueen]

15. I wish you were kidding.

Unfortunately, it's entirely too plausible.

:banghead:

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. What, that it's a media meme?

OWS is evolving.

[redqueen]

18. No, that people on this board had said it...

I have seen people implying that it needs to end, it's useless, etc.

Glad to hear you were referring to media narrative and not opinions from DUers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Well there is that

But this morning's to the point was amazing.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

44. Fuck the doubters ...

If they wish to be impotent, they might as well neuter or spay themselves (and cut out the middle guy).

Dig your posts, nadinbrzezinski!

:toast:

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Blushes

[rhett o rick]

65. Yeah, yeah, his posts are ok. Let's not get maudlin.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[TheKentuckian]

14. Hurah!

A step in the right direction.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. My sentiments exactly............

A step in the right direction. But as pig said above, you ain't going to get those accomplished without smashing capitalism.

To coin a phrase, capitalism needs to be shrunk to the size it could be drowned in a bathtub. THEN we can see about "saving" it. The only way I'd trust it is if the worker's boot was on it's neck ALMOST to the point of asphyxiation. And even then I'd watch it closely.

[lunatica]

17. That personhood thing should be the first to go.

It's not even common sense or logical at all.

It might not be a bad idea to work on eliminating privatized voting machines at the same time. They're totally tied to each other.

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. Very good point on the voting machines....

[defendandprotect]

68. Excellent reminder on the voting computers -- they should go -- !!

[myrna minx]

101. Excellent point about the voting machines. K&R n/t

[Luminous Animal]

20. Very nice! A round of applause!

[Trillo]

23. Those are some smart ninety-nine percenters! NT

[CrispyQ]

24. And for our deliberately obtuse media,

"It's the corporations, stupid!"

[AntiFascist]

25. Excellent!

This is an objective that most of the actual 99% will support!

[Southerner]

26. I'm confused

Every one of those objectives could be achieved by reducing the size and power of government. Is that what we really want?

[fascisthunter]

27. yeah You must be, because the OP is pretty clear

[Fire Walk With Me]

30. Reduce the size and power of that which acts as check and balance on the corporations? Right.

The government has been bought by those who wish to dismantle checks and balances. This part of the government must be brought back to sanity and Constitutionality.

[Zorra]

33. Really? Can you explain, specifically, how reducing the size and power of

government could achieve those objectives?

It does not seem logical.

[Pacifist Patriot]

96. Perhaps because...

it isn't logical. I've got this one up there as the dumbest statement I've read on DU so far this week. I'm also starting a pool on how many posts until the pizza's delivered. Want in? ;-)

[bluestate10]

58. No. The correct way to remove power from corporations is to start alternatives

that offer product choices other than those from corporations. But that is too fucking scary for some on DU. They would rather hold out the forlorn hope of taking fortunes from obstinate assholes who have no intention of giving up a penny more than they absolutely have to. Talk about circle jerking, you see it in action.

[Enthusiast]

73. I agree, you are confused................nt

[Chef Eric]

86. You are confused. I think you're in the wrong forum. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

95. How exactly?

Your claim is rather grand so I think it behooves you to support it with an explanation.

1. The size of government is irrelevant if corporations have the bulk of the power.

2. If corporations have the bulk of the power, than by default the power of government has already been reduced.

[Southerner]

123. All organizations of any size whether they are businesses or not have lobbyist

Labor unions, AARP, AAA, and even the boy scouts for god’s sake:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/07/professional-lobbyists-help-boy-sco.html

There is so much money and influence in Washington now everyone feels compelled to “get their share”. Limiting lobbying in any way runs against the right to free speech. Perhaps what we are seeing today is proof that a large, powerful central government is incompatible with free speech. The common man is not being heard any more. Concentrate the wealth and power in one place, and everyone who can, will come knocking and there will always be one group crying foul of another, and one group competing with another. Look at what happens to somebody who wins the lottery. Same thing.

So look at all 7 bullets listed in the original post and decide whether or not those things would even be happening if we had a smaller, limited federal government that actually answered to the people (and followed the Constitution). Would a smaller government have the means to wage wars for corporate profits? Would any corporation bother to spend lots of money to affect election outcomes if their financial future did not depend on it (ala Boeing, GE, Solyndra)? Would a weaker government even be a place where some professional from a big company wants to go work as a regulator? I do know that currently, and for the first time in our history, on average, he will be paid more at the government job than the private one.

I hate the influence big corporations have on our government as much as anybody. I do, however, look at why this lobbying is occuring and try to see things from more than one angle. If that means I am in the wrong forum, then so be it.

So, is this an accurate summary of the seven bullets above? “No for-profit organization of any kind is to be allowed to communicate with or donate to any elected government representatives nor allowed to benefit financially in any way from government legislation.”

[Pacifist Patriot]

125. Curtailing lobbying is not the same thing as reducing the size and power of government.

[Southerner]

126. Of course it is not the same thing...

...but one begets the other if we have free speech.

[Jim_Shorts]

130. So you must applaud the Citizens United decision?

Money and lobbying have completely corrupted the legislative process, it is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes.

[Southerner]

131. I'll back up a step and say I never supported the McCain-Feingold Act

It's been 9 years since that was passed. Is our federal government better now and does it respond to the people's wishes more now?

"...absolutely power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton, 1887

[socialist_n_TN]

142. Is that you Ron Paul?

This commie thinks you might be on the wrong site after all.

[T S Justly]

28. Should'nt ending the wars be at the top?

After all, there are and have been thousands upon thousands of innocent people
slaughtered in our names all over the planet. Upon our current re-awakening
from our general apathy, wouldn't it be the decent thing to do to at least make not
kiiling our brothers and sisters in U.S. troops' gunsights our top priority?

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Tightly related given who or what controls the government

[defendandprotect]

70. Ending wars should be #1 -- and it's also what's been bankrupting our Treasury -- !!

I'd also add these are immoral wars -- illegal, imo -- wars of aggression.

Evidently, killing 1 million Muslims and bombing Iraq for 30 years now still

isn't enough?

[Hatchling]

117. Our wars are for the benefit of Corporate Oil.

Eliminate Corporatism from our government and we eliminate corporate greed for oil and can begin investing heavily in building an alternate energy infrastructure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Yesterday a protester in the demands committee told oaksho

That indeed that is item two to be voted.

With those two the order really does not matter. They are tightly knitt.

[T S Justly]

149. Thanks for the update! (nt)

[WillyT]

31. HUGE K & R !!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

:D

:toast:

:kick:

[femrap]

32. I'm so happy

that OWS is focusing on Corporatism. I've waited for this my entire life. Corporations chew you up and spit you out. Plus they suck your soul dry. They should be charged w/ ASSAULT.

[Remember Me]

36. And given a corporate death penalty

Seriously, for some of them, and what they have done to human beings, that's the only thing that would be fair and just. Some of them deserve only to DIE.

[femrap]

39. They should die and

be resurrected as COOPERATIVES!

[Remember Me]

51. Oh HO! There ya go. I hadn't thought of that. Brilliant.

Just brilliant.

Cooperatives and/or employee-owned.

[femrap]

54. Yep....that's the answer.

And it's so feasible!

[defendandprotect]

72. What they've done to human beings -- and destruction of the planet -- Global Warming -- !!

That's one of the biggest secrets elites are hiding --

50 years of oil industry lying to the public -- tens of billions spent on that

propganda -- and buying candidates and "free press" to make sure no one discusses

it!

50 years ago we could have reacted and saved ourselves.

[coalition_unwilling]

34. The next day, Sunday, Nov. 28, the OLA GA passed a demand

stemming from this objective to 'end corporate personhood'. All the more remarkable, given that Sunday's GA had at least 2-3,000 people in attendance and the measure passed by 100% consensus. Truly remarkable.

[sarcasmo]

37. Obama should bring this up every debate and let the right show their true colors.

[DeSwiss]

38. K&R n/t

[midnight]

40. K&R

[Maineman]

41. Good job !

We also have militarism, probably because we have corporatism. Could fascism be far behind? It is time to stop corporatism. I suggest, among other things, fighting for amendments like the following:

1. A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON:

“Constitutional rights and protections as provided herein extend only to natural persons, not to business entities, trade groups, corporations, or governments. Persons representing or advocating for the interests of entities and organizations must clearly identify themselves as such, and all such communication must occur in a public forum.”

2. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, LYING IS NOT PROTECTED:

“Constitutionally protected speech is auditory or visual messages that are intended to be an accurate reflection of ideas, facts, or artistic expression. Deceit or intentional misrepresentation, whether put forth by persons, entities, or governments, or their representatives is not protected speech. No form of money or barter is protected speech.”

3. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS:

“All campaign and campaign related expense for public office, whether for federal office or elected office in any of the several states, shall be paid from public funds fairly distributed to viable candidates. No candidate or campaign shall accept donations or spend personal funds for or on behalf of his or her campaign. Actual expenses for post election ceremonies and celebrations of successful candidates may be paid from donations or personal funds. Excess funds from all such post election activities, and from the campaigns, both federal and state, shall be applied immediately toward the national debt.”

[Fantastic Anarchist]

42. Solidarity kick and rec!

Thanks for posting, Fire Walk With Me!

:hi:

[JDPriestly]

43. K&R. Thank you, Occupy LA.

[MrMickeysMom]

46. Based on the last revelation (Paulson)...

We should be out in the streets demanding these criminals be handcuffed and perp walked.

I see this locally in office, and it's saturated us so badly, we can hardly move without stepping knee-deep in it.

RECOMMENDED!

[RegieRocker]

47. Chop off their heads!!!

I with you on this one.

[lonestarnot]

48. K & R!

[freshwest]

49. 100th Rec! Vital Info!

[woo me with science]

52. K&R This is not the set of principles and values

on which to run a country.

[abelenkpe]

53. that would be lovely. nt

[bluestate10]

55. OWS people can try starting alternative businesses that put people on the

same level with profits. Short of that they are simply pissing in the wind. Is it right to take stuff from the shitty 1% and give it away? I prefer seeing alternative companies force those bastards to wither into non-existence.

[Zorra]

57. You don't believe private enterprise can exist without controlling governments?

We will seek out all peaceful means...to END CORPORATISM." Updated at 3:21 AM

The following Objective was adopted by the General Assembly of Occupy Los Angeles on Saturday, November 27, 2011:

"A major Objective of Occupy LA is to END CORPORATISM on the National, State and Local levels. We define CORPORATISM as the merger between Corporate and State Power. Some examples of this nexus are:

· the pervasive influence of lobbyists throughout government
· the revolving door between the private and public sectors as corporate executives and lobbyists become governmental regulators and legislators and then move back into the private sector again.
· the awarding of public contracts to private politically and economically connected interests
· the dependency and predominance of the public Electoral process on private and Corporate funding
· commonplace legislative action blatantly prejudicial to the public interest and grossly beneficial to favored Corporate interests
· the elevation of Corporations to the legal status of persons
· wars waged in the interest of Corporate profits.

As long as the above described condition is allowed to persist, the interests of the People will be prejudiced in favor of the Corporate interests of the 1%. We will seek out all peaceful means, including citizen legislative, legal and protest action to END CORPORATISM."

[bluestate10]

59. Stop regurgitating staid prose at me and stop taking my words out of context.

Government bends to those that hold power. The way to end corporatism is to seize power from them. The only logical way that will happen is for alternatives to form to offer products that compete directly with those of corporations. And the alternative companies should not sell stock or take out bank loans, both are avenues for Wall Street and banks to maintain control.

[Zorra]

62. LOL, OK, that's much, much clearer, thanks.

What I meant by my question is that we are inevitably going to coerce Congress into enacting a constitutional amendment that takes all the money out of campaigns and politics through the use of a wide variety of strategic non-violent mass direct action tactics, and that many existing commercial entities would still exist after this; they just would not have any say in government whatsoever anymore, and we would regulate and oversee the corporations to make sure that they knew their place.

I can see how your idea could work also. But where would the capital come from to begin formation of these alternatives, and how long would it take for these alternatives to form and then establish competitive status? Seems like this process would take a decade at a minimum, and the 1% would surely do everything they could to kill it before it multiplied, IMO. They don't seem to play well with others in the system of their own sandbox.

I don't believe we have much time left before our possibilities of making the necessary changes are permanently cut off.

[bluestate10]

135. You are one that likely believe in collectivism.

If big money sources don't exist, collect $10 from thousands to fund the business startup. If successful, plow some of the profits back into starting more businesses.

You don't see how my idea will work because you are so wedded to the idea that all wealthy and rich people are evil maggots looking for a host. Maybe if you would stop the froth mouthed bullshit and take a rational view of business and how to run one in the interests of employees and customers, you may find that some wealthy and rich people are willing to put forth money to make what you view as a just society a reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. Democracy Inc. you need to read that

It's not as simple as you think. Oh and it has little, if any, to do with corporations.

[Zorra]

154. You assume a great deal, and your nasty remarks are entirely uncalled for.

First of all, I ran a non-profit corporation very successfully for several years. Not long after I took over the corporation, I found a group health insurance plan under which I could give my staff full benefits, fully paid for. And they received a higher wage than average for the type of work we did. I put all money that was not used for operations into a very high interest fixed CD, where it remained and accrued interest for some time, and enabled the business to remain solvent and operating even after county budget cuts reduced the monthly income of the organization, although I was no longer the director of the corporation when these cuts occurred.

I also managed my own business successfully, at the same time, a business that related to my main field of endeavor, while performing in this field.

So assuming that I do not have a rational view of business is just that - assuming. And assuming wrongly.

Secondly, I don't care how much money someone has. I start caring how much money they have when they use their money to gain the power to control government, control others, and indiscriminately fuck up the planet.

It is my fervent intent to help permanently remove the power and ability of this group to control government by using their wealth to attain and hold power. I aim to help stop them from indiscriminately fucking up the planet as well.

And we have every right in the world to do so.

[dreamnightwind]

114. Compete directly with corporate cartels in a system where they write the rules?

The idea of competition and evolution of competitors based on success in a capitalist system is ok, but it requires rules that are fair to all competitors, and a full accounting of all external consequences of an enterprise and the subtraction of any depreciation of the public interest from the profit-based scoring system in order to honestly judge the better competitor.

I personally don't favor the competitive model, it's too similar to the "war on whatever" mentality, life as war and competition rather than cooperation and empathy.

Regardless, how would you measure a winner? Sounds like you just mean whichever company can make the most profits. That's what we have now, and that's where the problem lies. The profits bear no resemblance to what is good for humanity, or even more broadly to what is good for the planet and all of its inhabitants. So the game needs to be changed, since it's a game of rape and pillage rather than a game of a decent, dignified and sustainable life for earth's inhabitants.

An oil company's profits do not reflect the militarism used to give it access to some other nation's resources, nor do they reflect the consequences to the environment of the mineral extraction and the eventual combustion of the product. Plenty of better examples, I'm sure, just throwing that one out there to illustrate where I'm coming from. I've thought all my life about how capitalism could be modified to reflect such things, as have many people much smarter than myself. Sadly, I do not know of a way to do this. It may be possible that we could come close enough to account for all sides of an enterprise when measuring its success, but I doubt it.

I am not saying capitalism has to be destroyed, I am not sure about that. But I do know that the profit-based measure of success has to be abandoned or government must change how profits are made by regulation, because currently profits do not measure any benefit to anyone other than the owner of the profitable enterprise.

[bluestate10]

136. Another "It's hard, why try?" post. So many words to say absolutely nothing. nt

[rhett o rick]

66. It doesnt matter what you "prefer". Where are these "alternative" companies

going to come from?

[bluestate10]

137. They are fucking all around you.

Small companies exist at this very moment where the people that are running them care more about running successful businesses for the good of employees and customers. You don't see them because you don't want to, seeing them would distort the marxist creedo that all capitalism is bad that you likely espouse.

[rhett o rick]

143. Wow. You seem so angry. Good luck, and I mean it. nm

[joshcryer]

85. They will when they fail.

Unfortunately they have yet to realize that their actions are unlikely to do anything.

Pacifism never got anyone anything (and no, I am absolutely not arguing for violence here, I am stating a fact). See: Pacifism as Pathology.

[bluestate10]

138. Pacifism helped Gandhi.

But I don't see anyone of the magnitude of that great person among OWS people. What I see is a lot of people that don't realize that they can change to world in dramatic ways by changing their focus from trying to shame corporations to starting and developing businesses that will, in their collective mass, replace corporations and big banks.

[joshcryer]

140. Orwell had some interesting stuff to say about Gandhi's pacifism (see: it resulting in civil war).

But ultimately the kind of business you're talking about here would be disruptive, and we're not quite ready for it yet. I think as Open Hardware and Open Source advance those businesses will take off, though. Already there are http://www.techshop.ws/">maker co-ops where you can go, have something built that you designed in 3D, and print it out. I see this expanding exponentially.

As it expands (and I am not saying TechShop is the model, I think there will be others) the capitalists will start lobbying for laws to stop them (ie, if you wanted a cell phone case or something and it looked like an iPhone case, then you're infringing trademarks). And the cycle will continue.

[defendandprotect]

145. Really, I think all of that thinking will change as public sees reality of Global Warming ....

and that "bus-i-ness" caused it --

Simply about profits for the few --

and exploitation and control of the many --

Had we never engaged in any of it, we'd still have a healthy environment and the planet.


And only reason public doesn't understand Global Warming is due to oil industry propaganda

-- tens of billions of dollars worth -- and the buying up of our "free press" and government

to ensure there would be silence on the subject.



Whatever else we do, we have to stop burning fossil fuels -- should have been stopped

50/60 years ago. 1960 platform that JFK ran on called for NATIONALIZING oil industry.




Re Ghandi and Civil War -- am not familiar with George Orwell's comment on that subject --

can you elaborate?


But what I understood was that religion provided the LANDMINE which caused the split --

Pakistan/India? Are we talking about the same thing?



:hi:

[Zorra]

151. Really? lol. Thanks for your "concerns".

but what about the Women's Rights Movement?

The Civil Rights Movement?

Rev. Jesse Jackson to Headline Press Conference in Support of Occupy Phoenix
Civil Rights Icon Reaches Out to a New Generation Working for Economic Justice

Phoenix, AZ 12/1/11 – Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition and American civil rights icon, will speak in support of Occupy Phoenix at Cesar Chavez Plaza today, Dec. 1, at 5 pm. Local clergy members are also expected to appear. Prior to the press conference, Jackson will join marchers protesting against Freeport-McMoRan, an international mining company headquartered in Phoenix and a notorious exploiter of the 99%.

Rev. Jackson made a surprise appearance at the Cesar Chavez Plaza last night to speak to Occupy Phoenix members who have remained at the site for more than six weeks. Occupiers have been subjected to ongoing harassment by City of Phoenix Police Officers ordered to arrest anyone found asleep at the site in violation of so-called “Urban Camping” ordinances.

“Too few have too much,” said Jackson. “‘Occupy’ is really a new name for an old game. It’s a struggle for social justice. It’s a struggle for fairness.”

Today’s press conference comes one day after eight members of Occupy Phoenix were arrested for protesting at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) States & Nation Summit in Scottsdale. Via ALEC, corporations hand legislators changes to laws that directly benefit their bottom line, such as Arizona’s notorious SB 1070.

http://occupyphx.org/news/press-release-12012011/

[SidDithers]

56. Has Obama commented on this yet?...

He hasn't? Well then he supports it.

Silence implies consent, after all.

Sid

[Zorra]

63. No. He doesn't seem to care. nt

[SidDithers]

93. Silence implies consent, right?...

That's what I keep reading here.

Sid

[Zorra]

106. Did we really want to go there?

In some cases, basing observations on past actions, silence does not necessarily imply consent.

[bertman]

60. Here's another OCCUPIER reccing for Objectives!! REC. nt

[Ilsa]

61. K&R. I love it! nt

[defendandprotect]

64. kr

[Enthusiast]

69. This is perfect. K&R

No one with a single spec of patriotism wouldn't agree. This bullshit has ruined the nation.

[me b zola]

74. K&R

[pacalo]

75. That speaks for me. I don't knowingly vote for corporatists when I'm in the voting booth.

Nor would I ever knowingly vote for one.

[pa28]

76. Outstanding. K&R

[OverBurn]

79. Right On

[CoffeeCat]

80. One of the most important things OWS has ever said...

If anything needed to be said to the powers-that-be in this country--it is what Occupy LA just
said to the world.

Ending corporatism is the single most important issue of our time and it is amazing to see it
addressed in such specific, cogent terms. Economic inequality in our country is a huge
problem affecting millions of US citizens--but it is only one symptom of corporatism.

Our democracy has been engulfed by corporate power. Our elected representatives work for
the corporations, often times passing pro-corporate legislation that these companies have
purchased via campaign contributions, blackmail and other perks.

It's sick and disgusting. I am so proud of Occupy LA. They speak for me.

[Kaleko]

88. 1000 dittos

[Pacifist Patriot]

97. Since I first began to hear of OWS it seemed rather plain to me.

I couldn't believe the people claiming not to understand what it was all about.

End corporatism, restore human dignity.

That's a goal. Everything else is detail and why democracy, when it works, is a wonderful and beautiful thing.

[harun]

124. A historic statement. We need a seperation of Corporations and State.

[freedom fighter jh]

81. OWS has a way of saying things that are right on the money.

Our government is corrupt with corporatism. This is the source of so much of our trouble.

[ClayZ]

82. K and R

[Paka]

87. Thank you for all you are doing. n/t

[drm604]

89. But, but , but...

I thought they were disorganized and had no coherent demands or goals. :shrug:
:sarcasm:

[humanityisfree]

90. yes!

That is all

[barbtries]

91. solidarity

99%

[TheUnspeakable]

92. k&r

[RobertBlue]

99. k&r n/t

[The Wizard]

100. The winter will put a damper

on the Occupy movement, but the groundwork has been laid for a turbulent Spring. In the Spring the United States will demonstrate to the world why "they hate us for our freedoms."
All those cops in black uniforms abusing and brutalizing legitimate protest bring back images of the Third Reich. The whole world is, and will be, watching.
Police departments across the country have been shitting on the Constitution and the Attorney General looks the other way.

[We_Must_Organize]

102. There is an easy fix for this

Its called publicly financed elections! Take private money out of government and the revolving door would stop.

[Maineman]

103. Yes! And, I keep posting my proposals (Constitutional Amendments):

1. A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON:

“Constitutional rights and protections as provided herein extend only to natural persons, not to business entities, trade groups, corporations, or governments. Persons representing or advocating for the interests of entities and organizations must clearly identify themselves as such, and all such communication must occur in a public forum.”

2. MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, LYING IS NOT PROTECTED:

“Constitutionally protected speech is auditory or visual messages that are intended to be an accurate reflection of ideas, facts, or artistic expression. Deceit or intentional misrepresentation, whether put forth by persons, entities, or governments, or their representatives is not protected speech. No form of money or barter is protected speech.”

3. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS:

“All campaign and campaign related expenses for public office, whether for federal office or elected office in any of the several states, shall be paid from public funds fairly distributed to viable candidates. No candidate or campaign shall accept donations or spend personal funds for or on behalf of his or her campaign. Actual expenses for post election ceremonies and celebrations of successful candidates may be paid from donations or personal funds. Excess funds from all such post election activities, and from the campaigns, both federal and state, shall be applied immediately toward the national debt.”

[Zorra]

107. Would you mind

if I copied this?

I am saving all the ideas for a constitutional amendment of this nature that I can find, like to add this one.

We need to make the amendment as language specific and loophole proof as possible, and having a collective collection of ideas will be a great source to draw from.

Thanks, Maineman, I gotta go protest ALEC now!

[dreamnightwind]

116. Any way you can keep that collection in a public place?

It's an excellent idea to make such a collection, and I would love to have access to it, as would others.

Also I agree that the ideas in Maineman's post are worthy, great post Maineman!

[Zorra]

155. Yep. I'll post them here on DU after I take time to organize them.

[JEB]

104. All excellent goals

stated in a way that most citizens would agree.

[mmonk]

105. Post of the week.

[defendandprotect]

108. kickey

[zeemike]

109. That should be #1 objective in my book.

And we should pound away at those things and not be distracted from them....beause I think most of the people know that this is a problem...even some tea baggers.

[Beavker]

111. You'd think the Libertarians would at least be in agreeance with this one.

Where's the voice of the Teabaggers on this stuff? Oh, the Koch's don't like this, so they haven't scheduled any rallies...

[Major Hogwash]

118. Or the morans.

They're just as rung out as we are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Not that the press will tell you this

But there are a lot of libertarians in OWS.

[Beavker]

150. They must be the ones

that have jobs, and are recently showered... :sarcasm:

[Mosaic]

113. A Post for the History Books

We are making this crummy world a little better. Thanks for posting, I'm bookmarking this one.

[SalviaBlue]

115. K&R

[GreenTea]

121. Corporate fascism is what it is-Fucking republicans their tax cuts & subsidies for corporations

and the rich intertwined with government is pure fascism - Look up what fascism is for yourself to know that it's absolute FACT where we are and heading even faster!

[ThomWV]

156. You are right, there is no need to create a new word for it, "Fascism" is what its called

I have no idea why anyone would need to create a new word for what is happening. Its Fascism, pure and simple, just the thing created and named by Mussolini in Italy prior to and during the second world war. It is the merging of corporate/industrial interests and government for the rule of the state. It is what they had in Italy, it is what we have in the United States, it is in fact the prevalent mode of governance - short of absolute self-serving corruption - in the world today.

[Huey P. Long]

127. occupy x 2 -eom

[ooglymoogly]

129. OWS our best hope. kr nt

[treestar]

133. How?

By what steps?

Repeal of the corporation laws?

[bluestate10]

139. The problem is.

Many of the OWS people don't vote. You know the old saw about winning the lottery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. And you know this how?

I mean OWS was around since 1776 and I missed it?

[roman7]

152. agree 100%

but to these other post lets keep our goverment it took a lot of blood sweat & tears to get to be this free lets not throw it away . heck i think we are winning . i believe you will see a steady & increasing support for ows as the election draws closer.