Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 23, 2011

My Week at Occupy OC

I have spent the past week at Occupy Wall St in Orange County in Irvine.  Occupy is not a Zeitgeist Movement event, but it is a meeting place of people who are feeling and acknowledging the failings of our current system.  People of many different backgrounds are passionate about alerting the public to the dangers of our economic system and they desperately want it changed. 

There is a good deal of time spent on the operational needs of this "village," as it is called.  I am inspired by the way people are relating inter-personally and organizationally.  People are working cooperatively, not competitively, and that has created a real sense of community.  There is a large food tent, where donations from the public are stored, and people can eat and drink what they need.  The village is growing organically, not by some pre-determined blueprint.  It is open to ideas from other occupations, but has found on some occasions that the logistical characteristics of other locations do not help the flow in Irvine, so they are modified to fit the needs of Irvine's village, for now.  Its structure is emergent.

There is deep-seated commitment to leaderlessness, and self-expression, even while recognizing the risks involved of intentional misrepresentation.  For example, a general theme of Occupy protesters is that endorsing a particular political candidate is not the solution, but there are a couple of people who have shown up with Ron Paul posters.  Thankfully, they have not remained very long.  I would say the majority of protesters understand that politicians are bought by the highest bidder, and they cannot be relied upon to protect people's access to life goods. 

Personally, my experience has been intense, productive, and exhausting.  I've engaged with a lot of people from completely different cultures, ages, educational backgrounds, and personal perspectives.  I let them know that while I share the perspective that our current system is failing and has led to a towering income disparity between the 99% and 1%, I understand this problem to be systemic.  I made a short speech to the group on the first day of occupation to let them know that even if we got rid of the top 1%, the next group would rise to take their place.  I have a sign that reads, "The answer is NOT jobs" next to a picture (circulated on the net) of an Asian girl working at a sewing machine with a Nike logo.  I have another sign with an image taken from the Zeitgeist Media page that shows two men holding bats while shaking hands with the question, "How can we trust each other if this is business?"  A journalist working with the OC Register took a picture of me with that sign and it's on their website: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/occupy-323151-irvine-city.html?pic=2   (picture 16)  My message to him while he was "interviewing" me got a little garbled, but I realize that it didn't fit within the standard soundbyte meme of contemporary journalism.

Perhaps one of the most interesting discussions I had was with a man who grew up in China, but has lived in the US for several years now.  He was telling me that during "Communism," children were encouraged to follow their interests in careers which they enjoyed.  He said the difference in earnings between doctors and janitors was quite small, so money could not be an incentive for any single career path.  In discussing other elements of society, we arrived at a cultural norm, which instructed people to subjugate their interests for that of the collective.  This is a common theme in collectivistic societies.  In America, the norm is the reverse (individualism).  All social interests are expected to be secondary to self-interest.  As I see it, both are out of balance.  The decision to elevate one's interests above the collective or vice versa are matters that cannot be resolved in abstraction.  We do this somewhat naturally in other settings.  For example, if I'm out with a group of friends and they all want to go to a cafe, I will go even though I don't drink coffee.  I won't go everyday, but sometimes, I will go for their sake.  To understand this point, which seems rather simple, but has far-reaching effects, takes education.  I don't mean education in the traditional sense of learning a discrete subject such a math, but of education in the sense of how to relate to others and what the dynamics of group interaction are.  I think religions see themselves as having roles in this sphere of education, but they get so clouded by speculations and rituals that the real work remains undone. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it's fair to say that humans often have narrow perspectives.  There is so much information out there that a single human brain has to filter out a lot simply to function.  People who honestly investigate one topic in depth usually fall into the field of science, and their findings surprise us because they do not frequently confirm common assumptions.  Once this pattern of exploded assumptions is repeated, people begin to realize that their knowledge is always tentative.  With that in place, there is more space to look at oneself and one's reactions to new ideas.  It also can lead to greater compassion, along the lines of, "If I've been wrong so many times, maybe other people are also victims of misunderstanding, and their actions reflect that misunderstanding."  The solution then is about education:  emotional, physical, intellectual, and social.

Monday, February 7, 2011

Common Reactions: Utopia

It is very common for someone who has first seen Zeitgeist Addendum and/or Zeitgeist Moving Forward to  respond with the conclusion that the solution provided is utopian.  It is another one of those prima facie judgments that Peter Joseph has spoken about in regards to communism, marxism, socialism...etc.

What is the cause of this association?  Why does the resource-based economy seem utopian, when it certainly isn't stated to be that?  The crime rates are estimated to drop by about 90-95% because most crimes are related to money.  But that doesn't mean they will drop to zero.  It doesn't say that a person's codependent emotional state will disappear.  It doesn't say that illnesses will be completely vanquished.  And it doesn't say that resources are so abundant that we get to have and do everything our heart fancies.  It doesn't say that miscommunication will never happen and we will be in a perpetual state of bliss.

It does say that our hearts will likely change what they fancy, and that we will have to have an understanding of collective responsibility.  That will take education.  And that takes effort.  (The Danes seem to have a better understanding of this already). It does say that resources will be managed responsibly and efficiently, which will maximize our potential for survival and reduce social unrest (this has not been done because of competing economic interests and national divisions).  It does say that people will contribute what they are skilled and passionate about because they have the time, energy, and lack of worry about how to meet their basic needs (we can see this kind of volunteering in current times for those who can "afford" it).

It just sounds too good to be true?  Are you sure of that?  How can you be sure of that?  Have we ever given it a try?  Are we just afraid of losing what we are used to?  Are we battered spouses too fearful to leave the situation?

I think some time and reflection are warranted to uncover the reasons for resisting.  The very fact that a resource-based economy is called "utopian" demonstrates that the qualities of that society are appealing.  People don't say, "that is an ugly, brutal society." They call it "utopian."  It looks good, sounds good, feels good.

So, it is pretty clear that the society we have is essentially dangerous.  Your access to the basics is continually under threat, not by mother nature (although that may be more common the more the planet's ecosystem changes) but by our  human society.  We are now seeing famines created not by lack of food, but lack of affordability.  People are starving....TO DEATH!  People suffer in sweatshops.  People are unemployed and feeling hopeless; they are competing with each other for all kinds of jobs just to survive, no matter how pointless or demeaning.  The economic interests of different businesses are in direct conflict with eco-conscious technologies, so we pollute more and more.  The resource-based economy does not promise technologies with no ecological impact; instead it promotes the use of those that are the cleanest and safest based on contemporary research.

Why is it then that people refuse to even try to change it?  Let's just assume that the resource-based economy doesn't work out, for some pretend reason.  Are we really going to be worse off than we are now?  What does it take--for your own child to die from starvation to get motivated?  Given an option, why continue with the old when we know how detrimental it is to ourselves?

We can call the new economy anything you want, but can we not agree to work together to remove those things that get in the way of a healthier way of living?  Even the richest of the rich must one day die and pass along their wealth to a child or grandchild.  And that person will live and spend that wealth in this society.  If that society is full of disease, unrest, pollution, and ugliness, then that person with vast wealth has failed his/her family.  It is in their interests to work towards a clean, rich planet with healthy and sane people.  It's where we live.

The important distinction isn't between dystopia and utopia; that's a false dichotomy.  Societies, even today, could be placed on a scale of well-being, from least well to most well.  Societies in the future could have a longer scale, with more variety, or it could be reduced, with less variety. In any case, we must be reminded that just because society won't be perfect in a resource-based economy (RBE), it doesn't mean we should make no effort to improve society.  Not being perfect does not mean it is no better.  A RBE seems to be a lot better, which is why people call it a utopia, but they are wrong to conceive of it as "perfect."