4 ms·

Last night I talked with a friend about all this. My friend pointed out many of the things this author did: people are protesting against the machine using thin

by gatlin 15y ago

Last night I talked with a friend about all this. My friend pointed out many of the things this author did: people are protesting against the machine using things the machine created; they don't provide a solution but simply a redundant description of the problem. I know and respect a number of people who are protesting in my city, and they are sincere in their efforts to make change. The trouble is, I don't think they will succeed this way. A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe inconvenience. Need to organize a trip down to city hall to protest? If you use your phone, you've already lost. That's how the "machine" got to where it is: it provided convenience, delivered on the backs of screwed workers, in the waves of polluted ecosystems, in the gasps of strangled local economies, and with trodden and corrupt opportunism at every step. You want something? Just ask. But somebody will be paying. I'm deliberately not taking a side here: if you think our current situation is a problem, then the solution is to let go of convenience and standard of living - at least until a viable alternative crops up (and I think it has in the form of cooperation). If you don't think there is a problem, please go on your merry way. It's your right.

dwiel 15y ago
I agree almost completely. I organise a food co-op out of my living room, have lived in multiple cooperative houses, and am going before the city council tonight to get permission to build an eco-village on land that I cooperatively purchased together with friends for this purpose. However, I think there is validity in being angry and protesting about the way things are. If only to publicly show how many people feel this way and to get this issue into people's awareness. Just because we have some clear ideas about how one could address the problems they are raising doesn't mean the publicity from raising them, or getting together to gather more ideas and build community isn't useful.
- gatlin 15y ago
  I agree with you completely that awareness is useful. The trouble is, at least where I live, I wager that a large number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic are put off because of some minor hypocrisies. Bands of (relatively) well-to-do college students and people who apparently have the luxury of skipping work and school do not paint a picture of a struggling middle class. That they are raging against the machine over a 3G connection is probably damaging as well. Now, you and I might both see that these are the only people who can protest precisely because working stiffs are busy trying to make ends meet, but they don't elicit a lot of sympathy from people who are also just trying to get where they need to go without much fuss. Incidentally, good luck with your plans! Where are you located?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
OpieCunningham 15y ago
A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe inconvenience. Sure, that's one solution. But it depends on how you define the problem. The article here is rubbish and of no insight into any rational view of the problem (nor any insight into OWS). Indeed, the basic problem is very easy to express and comprehend: corporate control of government that results in socialism for corporate interests. That is the fundamental problem that has resulted in OWS. This is not new or shocking information. There is no big mystery as to the why's or what-for's of OWS. Forsaking convenience items is certainly not required to "solve" that problem nor is it likely to have any impact on that problem (canceling a cell phone plan, supporting credit unions or starting a local food co-op will have exactly zero impact on corporate control of government). Forsaking convenience items is only required if you conceive the problem to be a lack of "back to the land" mentality. That may or may not be a problem, but it is certainly not any rational view of OWS' perception of the problem. The article here and most other viewpoints (which are mostly critical of OWS) that I've seen appear to wish to narrow down everything to two absolute extremes: either everything stays exactly how it is, or everything is destroyed. There is a massive area between those extremes. It's that area that OWS is targeting.
- gatlin 15y ago
  There is a massive area between the two extremes, and I will assume you are putting me at one of them. This means I failed to communicate. If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over, then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2) that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own irresponsible bailouts. Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.
  - OpieCunningham 15y ago
    You stated a "real solution" was what I summarized as "back to the land", including dropping wireless contracts. That says to me you view other solutions as not real. That's an indication, not explicit certainly, that at some level you believe there are only 2 extremes available, as I described. Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of governance. This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as just one example.

by gatlin 15y ago

dwiel 15y ago

I agree almost completely. I organise a food co-op out of my living room, have lived in multiple cooperative houses, and am going before the city council tonight to get permission to build an eco-village on land that I cooperatively purchased together with friends for this purpose. However, I think there is validity in being angry and protesting about the way things are. If only to publicly show how many people feel this way and to get this issue into people's awareness. Just because we have some clear ideas about how one could address the problems they are raising doesn't mean the publicity from raising them, or getting together to gather more ideas and build community isn't useful.

gatlin 15y ago
I agree with you completely that awareness is useful. The trouble is, at least where I live, I wager that a large number of people who would otherwise be sympathetic are put off because of some minor hypocrisies. Bands of (relatively) well-to-do college students and people who apparently have the luxury of skipping work and school do not paint a picture of a struggling middle class. That they are raging against the machine over a 3G connection is probably damaging as well. Now, you and I might both see that these are the only people who can protest precisely because working stiffs are busy trying to make ends meet, but they don't elicit a lot of sympathy from people who are also just trying to get where they need to go without much fuss. Incidentally, good luck with your plans! Where are you located?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

OpieCunningham 15y ago

A real solution would be to get rid of these things: forsake the extra computers, the wireless contract, food produced and distributed by soulless corporations, the fancy cars; join or start a local food cooperative, live in a housing co-op, support credit unions, and aggressively buy local - even if it means severe inconvenience. Sure, that's one solution. But it depends on how you define the problem. The article here is rubbish and of no insight into any rational view of the problem (nor any insight into OWS). Indeed, the basic problem is very easy to express and comprehend: corporate control of government that results in socialism for corporate interests. That is the fundamental problem that has resulted in OWS. This is not new or shocking information. There is no big mystery as to the why's or what-for's of OWS. Forsaking convenience items is certainly not required to "solve" that problem nor is it likely to have any impact on that problem (canceling a cell phone plan, supporting credit unions or starting a local food co-op will have exactly zero impact on corporate control of government). Forsaking convenience items is only required if you conceive the problem to be a lack of "back to the land" mentality. That may or may not be a problem, but it is certainly not any rational view of OWS' perception of the problem. The article here and most other viewpoints (which are mostly critical of OWS) that I've seen appear to wish to narrow down everything to two absolute extremes: either everything stays exactly how it is, or everything is destroyed. There is a massive area between those extremes. It's that area that OWS is targeting.

gatlin 15y ago
There is a massive area between the two extremes, and I will assume you are putting me at one of them. This means I failed to communicate. If my food, entertainment, services, and small expenditures are predominantly local and my money is in a credit union I and my community have control over, then 1) I haven't gone "back to the land" but simply back to my home, and 2) that is money not going to any of the companies legislating their own irresponsible bailouts. Supporting strong local organizations owned and directed by local members can and absolutely would stymie Wall Street and corporate socialism.
- OpieCunningham 15y ago
  You stated a "real solution" was what I summarized as "back to the land", including dropping wireless contracts. That says to me you view other solutions as not real. That's an indication, not explicit certainly, that at some level you believe there are only 2 extremes available, as I described. Another solution is to demonstrate displeasure with the operation of government and methods of corporate interests. Engage enough citizens and sustain that demonstration. At some critical mass of both energy (people) and time, politicians will begin to notice and adjust their implementation of governance. This is a known good solution. See: civil rights protests in the 1960's as just one example.