When I was thinking of Brad, his racist comment and his socio-political failure to understand the Occupy view (discussed in this blog), I used the term “political transcendence” – I have no idea whether there is usage anywhere although a search gave some uses. [I don’t know whether I will investigate other usage].
In this blog I want to try and relate this political transcendence with spiritual transcendence, and try to bring the two together. It is often the case that people end up choosing the spiritual path or the political path yet both paths are essentially the same if taken to conclusion.
Political transcendence has a clear meaning to me, and I would recognise people who made such transcendence. My intention in using such a term is not to create something mystical, would probably be refuted by those communists and working-class activists who have “transcended”, and would possibly not want to be associated with by those same people. But in the political arena such transcendence is important.
Let me begin with Trots. On occasions I have had cause to refer to the deep divisions between communists and Trots. It is something I experienced in the 80s, and I shall detail what happened. In London I was not political but became active in anti-racism as a consequence of seeing how the system under-achieved black students. Once I started work in Hove (1987) I did not have a focus group interest (black students), and began to apply my understanding to the wider population. This took me into international politics beginning with NGO groups, and I transitioned into trade union work, my main interest being the local TUC – I became secretary of the local Trades Council. Whilst in that position I saw that the contribution of the Trots was not constructive – instead of trying to reach an agreed view their tactics were to exclusively push their own agenda – all or nothing. However I attempted to work with them, and they attempted to use my position for their own agenda; at that stage it was workable. However I became attracted to Marxism, and eventually joined with some communists – NCP, the New Communist Party. Politically it was a mistake to have joined the NCP, but retrospectively I learned a great deal.
The Secretary, of Trades Council and of NUT, is a political figure attempting to bring people together – working together for the Trades Council or NUT. As soon as I joined the NCP I was rejected by the Trots who were then unwilling to work with me. But being in NCP I learned why Trots were dangerous so I could understand why such animosity exists. Basically it works like this. The fundamental purpose of socialist politics is to work together for the good of the mass movement. Marxism goes into detail to explain how the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat, and mass movement politics is an attempt to overcome this injustice. The only way the bourgeoisie can survive is by buying off members of the proletariat to work against the interests of the rest of the proletariat. Working in mass movement politics is an attempt to unite all peoples to the commonality of their interests, and to work against exploitation by bourgeoisie – now known as 1%. It is within the context of this purpose that the division between communist and Trots developed.
With this agenda it is necessary to decide on an appropriate strategy. For the Trots they have many different groups and each group has its own agenda. Such agendas can be very specific, and on occasions it is minutiae (in my opinion) that divides them. However Trots demand their own agenda be taken up by the mass movement, and this is where I, personally – and communists in general – have disagreement with them. Determining a commonality within the mass movement requires a disciplined acceptance of what that mass movement wants and enabling it. I learnt this at Trades Council where as secretary I was responsible for implementing policy, and there were many times I had to implement policy I did not agree with. Discipline. Would Trots accept such discipline? In my view it was generally felt they didn’t.
Because I wanted to work within the mass movement becoming a communist was a mistake because it divided me from many people. Despite this, I do not at all regret joining the NCP because I met some good comrades, and they taught me a great deal about Marxism, for that reason I would recommend activists join them. However, at the time communism had many problems. In truth communism as a movement lived off the heyday of the Spanish War, it was like mixing with George Orwell heroes. Those guys have now died, but maybe their tradition lives on amongst those they taught – I hope it has. As my activism ended when I moved abroad, it mattered not that I had been separated.
However as a movement English communism is very hypocritical. It is highly critical of the Trots for their specific agendas, and yet less than 5000 English communists had split into three parties and the one I joined, the NCP, had something like 600 members nationally. Now I understand the reasons for the split, and would argue that the NCP were the genuine communists (hence why I joined them!!). But in truth as a party what was the point? Education, definitely; party, crazy.
Apart from this “Trottish” division there was at the time another major flaw, the party was sexist. It had as a policy that women should not be miners – something like that. The reason for the policy was that miners were exploited so why should women in their party be exploited by becoming miners. How paternalistic can you get; at worst it should have been a clearly-worded recommendation. Now I cannot remember which trades were included in this “miners” category, but it was shameful.
My worst experience as a member of the NCP was during the NUT conference. I was the secretary of my teachers’ association and therefore went to conference. NCP instructions were that I should join the Broad Left within the union, as that organisation was recognised as uniting the union by the NCP. At the end of conference, they had a disco which I duly (dutifully as I didn’t drink) attended. When I turned up I saw a sycophantic display of currying favour with the right-wing leadership of the union who were exploiting members; I felt like a traitor. Because teachers all had degrees they were intellectual and perhaps the most miseducated of the working-class; the NUT also contained a truck load of Trots called the Socialist Teachers’ Alliance. I remember conference as being a battle between the leadership and the Trots – interesting the first time. Every motion included the phrase “up to and including strike action”, and this phrase was argued for by the Trots and argued against by the leadership. The Trots were interested in socialism (their brand), and the leaders were only interested in membership with their subscriptions and ensuing leadership gravy train. My socialist heart was with the motions the STA proposed but I knew they were suicidal – any strike action just reduced membership and was therefore self-defeating. Interestingly I met my previous Head of Department who was a charismatic figure in the STA (maybe I will write in this blog one day about the battles I had with him as HoD but I don’t like being personal on my blog).
After receiving my education, I left the NCP and became non-aligned trade unionist, and remained active for a further two years before I left for Africa. My time as an activist was intense, and I have powerful memories. I had been spiritual first (not as a Buddhist), and underlying my activity was a feeling that people had the right to have time to be spiritual; whereas in practice all they had time for was being wage-slaves. Unfortunately for most the struggle was for more money, and this was especially irking in teaching. Teaching conditions and improved education were closely linked and a charter for improved teaching conditions would have been something well worth the struggle. Once in Africa activism was not appropriate – it was not my country, and I continued with my spiritual development – as well as taking an M Ed.
Retrospectively neither the Trots nor the communists come out rosily based on my experience. Mass movement education was essential, and the communists contributed greatly to that – unfortunately I believe the Trots would say the same thing. Their infighting detracted from the movement, and led to many unconstructive hours. Both suffered from a degree of intellectualism in which their mindsets divided them. In Buddhist terms such a mindset would be called sankara, and Trots and communists clung to their divisive mindsets. This attachment was a strong divisive force in the Labour movement, and was readily manipulated by the bourgeoisie or 1%.
For most the lack of transcendence from liberalism to an Occupy view was based in fear. Liberals often considered the centre of a balance between the left and right, would often claim balance and detachment, neither socialist nor neo-liberal. But for most Liberals there is not the basic understanding that our socio-political system is based on the exploitation of the masses. A liberal might stand for human rights but would not follow that stance through to an understanding that the infringement of those rights was as a consequence of the profit motive and the desire for accumulation. What I describe as the Guardian view sees that the view is more than just rights but fails to see the intention of the exploitation. In truth some of the Guardian view is also based in fear, afraid of the truth, and the implications of that truth.
And what is that fear? A fear of non-conformity, non-acceptance by the group. And such a fear exists within the spiritual world where many people fail to commit themselves because they are attached to desires. This fear and attachment are forces which keep people in line spiritually and politically. But once that fear and attachment is transcended, the conditioning is broken and people see life for what it is, exploitation by the 1% and a need to follow the Path. The similarity between political and spiritual transcendence is the requirement to see through the conditioning, and to accept a lifestyle that is separated from most people.
But also an important aspect of this transcendence is that it brings with it an openness of mind. I have touched on this openness of mind a little above but let me be specific it means not clinging to a mindset – a set of ideas. This is clearly what Trots do, what implicitly the communists do as well, it is also what people of faith do, and it is also what happens to those who are discovering spirituality. This last needs a little explanation. For some their journey means they start to reject the collection of ideas which have the common attribute of “conformity”. As they unravel the mess of miseducation, that academics especially are filled with, they replace it by a different mindset. Typical of this is David Icke who went through his own transformation from sports commentator to new age thinker. Many follow him as he speaks a great deal of truth but mixed up in there are a whole set of ideas that are not constructive yet many people believe they must accept those ideas because they accept David Icke. I doubt that Icke says that.
It is understandable. When we are fortunate enough to reject conformist conditioning there is a vacuum, what enigmatically some Buddhists would say needs filling with “emptiness”. But because of our miseducated minds there is still a need to fill. In my own case for 10 years I sought to fill it with Castaneda, theosophy, occult and many such, until I turned to politics, then travel, back to Buddhism, and eventually rejecting Buddhist dogma some form of emptiness – some form of open mind.
With that open empty mind without conditioning we can go beyond the dogma of our religions or other mindsets, but equally we can go beyond the dogmas of our social conformity, our political idealisms whether Liberal, Guardian or Occupy to a genuine openness that enables a proper circumspection of spiritual reality and socio-political reality. Transcendence.
Posts Tagged ‘Occupy’
Common Dreams described what happened yesterday.
I noticed in the Common Dreams article lawyers defending themselves. In the Cecily clip she did not remember, maybe she lost it. But if she didn’t then how did she lose the case? Juries don’t like police brutality. Even if she lost it she didn’t deserve the beating.
In The Guardian article below some things are made clear. In the Democracy Now tape it shows a handmark on her breast. Instinctive and sensible reaction to sexual assault – an elbow in the face. This was considered felony assault because it was a policeman. I don’t know but I don’t expect the policeman was feeling her up but what he did was wrong. 50-50 – case dismissed. But I notice now that the policeman had history, he was one of the thugs brought in to rough up the protesters. He probably felt her up to get a reaction so she could be arrested. Is this Blue Bloods?
“When the police moved in to the park that night, in formation and with batons, to arrest a massive number of nonviolent protesters, the chaos was terrifying. Bovell claimed that McMillan elbowed him in the face as he attempted to arrest her, and McMillan and her defense team claim that Bovell grabbed her right breast from behind, causing her to instinctively react.”
Here is the legal duplicity:-
“But the jury didn’t hear anything about the police violence that took place in Zuccotti Park that night. They didn’t hear about what happened there on November 15, 2011, when the park was first cleared. The violence experienced by Occupy protesters throughout its entirety was excluded from the courtroom. The narrative that the jury did hear was tightly controlled by what the judge allowed – and Judge Ronald Zweibel consistently ruled that any larger context of what was happening around McMillan at the time of the arrest (let alone Bovell’s own history of violence) was irrelevant to the scope of the trial.”
Complete stitch-up, sack the judge.
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, intellect, Occupy
As a spiritual person whose politics could be described as grass roots socialism I was intrigued by the position that Russell Means was taking. Was he asking questions that were going to help me?
To begin with the first point to note is that of acculturalisation, basically neo-colonialism. The tradition of American Indians is oral history, and by writing as opposed to oral history there is already a power imposition. To add to this “The process (BZ of writing) itself epitomizes the European concept of “legitimate” thinking; what is written has an importance that is denied the spoken”; this is undoubtedly true – our education definitely encourages us to have a belief in books.
And we have to understand that the publishing of books is controlled by the 1% – it is market-driven; Barbara Cartland and Jeffrey Archer pulp is published sooner than erudition. At the same time with publishing the media companies control the distribution, so even if materials are published what the customer perceives as being published (what the average book-consumer sees) is not what is available. I also like this point “the imposing of an abstraction over the spoken relationship of a people.” I have gained a great deal from particular books, to the extent that I have written bookblogs when I study, but the reality is that if I had personal time with such authors I would learn a great deal more.
This issue is one that I have pushed with regards to the internet. Many people, mostly young but not solely, delude themselves that online relationships have similar depths to those of in-person. With the internet now being part of everyday life the depth of human relationships is suffering, a 140-character tweet is communication? It was significant with Adbusters, one of the originators of the US-Occupy, that they were telling people that the internet was not enough. “So what you read here is not what I’ve written. It’s what I’ve said and someone else has written down. I will allow this because it seems that the only way to communicate with the white world is through the dead, dry leaves of a book. I don’t really care whether my words reach whites or not.”
“It takes a strong effort on the part of each American Indian not to become Europeanized“; to paraphrase It takes a strong effort on the part of each individual not to become miseducated (deluded or indoctrinated). But specifically for Russell “the traditional values that our elders retain …. must come from the hoop, the four directions, the relations: it cannot come from the pages of a book or a thousand books. A master’s degree in “Indian Studies” or in “education” or in anything else cannot make a person into a human being or provide knowledge into traditional ways. It can only make you into a mental European, an outsider.” I recall the use of the term “human being” to refer to American Indians as opposed to white people, is that correct? Maybe I will come back to that.
“Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!” This is concerned with the delusion of abstraction, holding to an idea, withdrawing from the “wonderful complexity and spirituality” of life. In these intellectual revolutions he talks of “the so-called theories of Marxism and anarchism and “leftism” in general. Newton, for example, “revolutionized” physics and the so-called natural sciences by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation. Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these “thinkers” took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into code, an abstraction. Europeans may see this (BZ Marxism) as revolutionary, but American Indians see it simply as still more of that same old European conflict between being and gaining. Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could.”
“The European materialist tradition of despiritualizing the universe is very similar to the mental process which goes into dehumanizing another person.” How can you kill someone you love? But if you make other people inferior you can treat them badly. This is part of western culture. Look at the terms first, second and third world! These are terms that are used in development, 1st world is more developed than the 3rd so it is acceptable the 3rd dies from hunger. As Walter Rodney – torrent – described the type of development is not intrinsic it is imposed. The levels themselves are subjective, effectively what the first aspire to are the benchmarks – in Russell’s terms what Eurpeans aspire to. I have to say however, Russell, that the trend for the “Europeans” in America is now far worse than the “Europeans” in Europe at this process of cultural imperialism – at this imposed superiority. [ 🙂 – I have just read this “Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here“]
Using natural resources is perceived as a gain from nothing, this means that the ONE planet is effectively considered as nothing by this “European” outlook. I have always used the term capitalist outlook, but I accept that the Marxist model has a “European” feel. Marxism does not require a ONE planet approach, although as a model it does respect human labour. This is an improvement on the “European” model of capitalism in that it respects all human labour, however it does make more of advanced industrial labour as compared to peasant labour. And of course in accepting this industrial model Marxism accepts mass production which is so inherently NOT ONE planet. I am Marxist in the political arena of capitalism but I agree with Russell in his “Human” arena Marxism is lacking. Unfortunately the world now functions in a capitalist arena, and as such a Marxist model is much more applicable – however although as an economic model it is sound its political strategies are now outmoded owing to the changes in the means of mass production.
“This is what has come to be termed “efficiency” in the European mind. Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment–that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one–is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue.” This brings to mind Fritjov Kapra’s “Turning Point”. One chapter in particular he focusses on what he terms the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, this could be paraphrased as the “mechanical model”. He talks of the turning point changing this paradigm, and this I believe Capra now terms the Web of Life. However intellectual one might view Capra, or the notion of One Planet there is some convergence to what Russell Means is talking about.
Being and gaining appears to be a distinction Russell wants to draw, being – spirituality, gaining – materialism. There is no doubt that Marxism is based in materialism (gaining). In defence of Marxism there is a notion of equitability, if not placed in a materialist context such equitability would be spiritual. Moving onto the notion of anarchism or socialist libertarianism these would extend the materialism of Marxism into more of a “spiritual” context. However this would be spiritualism arrived at from an intellectual point of view and therefore not complete. To summarise what is European as predominantly gaining whilst describing the few who have moved beyond gaining to being as exceptions to the rule doesn’t feel right to me – but in truth on reflection I can’t argue. For the simple reason that my arguments tend to involve Europeans who have been influenced by Eastern traditions. If you exclude the Europeans who have been influenced by the East there are very few you could describe as in touch with being – exceptions to the rule. I suppose I have to agree. Emotionally I want to counter but I cannot, so emotionally I ask Russell “Are all American Indians who he does not consider having white minds in touch with their being?”
But then my mind moves to those Europeans who have been influenced by American Indians, and I use licence to extend the description of American Indians to include Toltec Wisdom and therefore include the Four Agreements. I would suggest that Europeans who genuinely follow the Four Agreements would be included on the side of being.
I find this harsh “Capitalists, at least, can be relied upon to develop uranium as fuel only at the rate which they can show a good profit. That’s their ethic, and maybe they will buy some time. Marxists, on the other hand, can be relied upon to develop uranium fuel as rapidly as possible simply because it’s the most “efficient” production fuel available. That’s their ethic, and I fail to see where it’s preferable. Like I said, Marxism is right smack in the middle of European tradition. It’s the same old song.” This doesn’t ring true of the Marxists I knew, but it does fit into Marxist theory as I know it. In the theory there is nothing to prevent the exploitation of the planet for profit so long as that profit is re-distributed. But when you move beyond the theory and see how the people behave, these same Marxists have tended to ally themselves to the Green movement; the theory is lacking but the people themselves tend, and I stress tend, to be closer to be influenced beyond just gaining. It might well be good pro-American Indian politic to place Marxists as conceivably worse than capitalists, but in reality making this statement is more concerned with separation and non-alignment than genuine understanding. Of course the speech was written 30 years ago, and at that time I accept that ecology was not included in the mass movement as it is today. There is no way that the current “left-wing” movement Occupy would be solely interested in gaining.
“You cannot judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis of the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-European peoples.” This makes me think, but what? Revolutionary change means a change of class, a genuine change of class in which genuine democracy, grass roots democracy, is the new governmental principle. What effect would that have on non-European peoples? This could only improve the position of American Indian peoples. Let me clarify this democracy as it must include “Occupy” democracy. It is not a democracy of majority votes. I could conceive of a situation in which as a minority American Indians would lose a majority vote but in Occupy democracy I would hope that the majority would see that it was not in the interests of the minority, and allow the minority to persuade – to be included. Fundamentally this quote of Russell’s shows a misunderstanding – it cannot be called a revolution if the current power structure is maintained; if the current power structure is maintained there is no change in the class that rules.
This is because every revolution in European history has served to reinforce Europe’s tendencies and abilities to export destruction to other peoples, other cultures and the environment itself. But none of these revolutions have been in class terms, they have usually been wars in which one group of the ruling 1% replaces another whilst soldiers die to enable this. To place a Marxist revolution in the same context as other 1%-change revolutions is not appropriate, and the revolutions in Cuba, Russia and China never produced the desired class change, the power never devolved to the mass movement (he used actions of the USSR on the national question to justify his views). It sounds like Russell is discussing an establishment view of socialism. This is like accepting a European academic’s view of American Indian life as the truth, it seems to me that you cannot understand that lifestyle without understanding being. Whilst Marx was an academic, the mass movement, that is often described as a Marxist movement, cannot be understood without having a feel for the movement itself; don’t describe Occupy – be Occupy.
Later he says, about a different point:- Christians, capitalists, Marxists. All of them have been revolutionary in their own minds, but none of them really means revolution. What they really mean is continuation. They do what they do in order that European culture can continue to exist and develop according to its needs. Implicitly he recognises the true meaning of revolution – as genuine change in class, and further recognises that revolutionary change has not occurred there have just been different continuations. Under genuine democracy there would not be an acceptable solution for the mining that will destroy the American Indians homelands, an inclusive approach would be needed. I can accept that American Indians cannot join with those who adhere to the letter of Marxist theory, but genuine grass-roots socialists would need an inclusive approach that would be arrived at through agreement.
For me “There is the traditional Lakota way and the ways of the American Indian peoples. It is the way that knows that humans do not have the right to degrade Mother Earth, that there are forces beyond anything the European mind has conceived, that humans must be in harmony with all relations or the relations will eventually eliminate the disharmony. ” This is the way of ONE planet, and it is the only way forward for a genuine grassroots democracy. The mass movement is part of Unity, part of Mother Earth – Gaia, and can only survive by recognising that. At present the mass movement is oppressed so its directions are those of greed – Gain. To begin with this might be what a mass movement would gravitate towards, but in the end that would just lead to self-destruction and if the movement develops the listening required of it it would turn to the “Lakota Way”. Of course at present to describe the mass movement in this way appears as pie-eyed idealism.
“All European tradition, Marxism included, has conspired to defy the natural order of all things. Mother Earth has been abused, the powers have been abused, and this cannot go on forever. No theory can alter that simple fact. Mother Earth will retaliate, the whole environment will retaliate, and the abusers will be eliminated. Things come full circle, back to where they started. That’s revolution. And that’s a prophecy of my people, of the Hopi people and of other correct peoples. ” Undoubtedly true.
“It is the role of American Indian peoples, the role of all natural beings, to survive. A part of our survival is to resist. We resist not to overthrow a government or to take political power, but because it is natural to resist extermination, to survive. We don’t want power over white institutions; we want white institutions to disappear. That’s revolution. ”
“we want white institutions to disappear.” Is that what I want? That is not easy to answer because the institutions and the 1% are so intertwined. The more I think of it the better the question the harder the answer. Factories, talking of Marx, – mass production; do we want mass production? To begin with we say yes, economies of scale and so on. But look at what is happening in factories. Environmental degradation. Does it have to be that way? Even that can’t be answered straight-forwardly? With the 1% in charge it is that way because they don’t care about Gaia. If they’re not in charge, can mass production work? Let’s start with food as that is easy, for food the answer is no. Mass production means unhealthy food – preservatives colourings etc. For medicine the 1% have turned medicine into making people ill for profit, can we produce natural medicine in factories? It doesn’t feel right, but maybe. Clothes can be made in factories, and probably cheaper, but we have to kick the 1% out first to get rid of exploitative working practices. Technology can only be made in factories. To remove factories would mean regressing on technology – that feels negative.
Hospitals – controlled by the 1% – makes them profits, teaches drug-dependent medicine. Can hospitals be homepathic rather than allopathic? Education fits people into business and industrial jobs – does not teach; but could teach. So when you ask the question the answer is that the European institutions are at present negative, need they be negative? No. Have they ever not been negative? Again, no. Simplistic Russell Means answer, I don’t want European institutions, but the answer cannot be simple.
“And when the catastrophe is over, we American Indian peoples will still be here to inhabit the hemisphere.” Will they? To begin with my answer was no. Whilst I suspect any catastrophe will obliterate the cities, there will be sufficient of the 1% who will have made provision. But then again without minions to take their load will the 1% survive? What happens when money loses currency. So my answer is that I agree, I am too dependent on money – and too old so I won’t be there. That’s OK though. Natural catastrophe to reshape the world or my death is a no brainer, I’m rooting for the Indigenous, the Gaians, the people of ONE planet.
Like this:- “We have a term for these people; we call them “apples”–red on the outside (genetics) and white on the inside (their values). Other groups have similar terms: Blacks have their “oreos”; Hispanos have “Coconuts” and so on. And, as I said before, there are exceptions to the white norm: people who are white on the outside, but not white inside. I’m not sure what term should be applied to them other than “human beings.” ” I would like to think I am a human being but am I?
Tags: alienation, division, Horizontalidad, NUT, Occupy, Trots
I saw yet another misguided posting concerning the death of socialism, and rather than get into another unresolving ding-dong with the person concerned I thought I would comment here. The comment referred to a PBS series I have not watched yet. Death of socialism?
Significant in the discussion of this death(?) is the history of Russia in the 20th century, and to understand this one needs to consider Russia in light of the dominant ethos that fashioned the USSR – the Bolshevik revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the continuous imperialist infractions, and its ultimate demise to the criminal plutocracy. To analyse these factors can show that socialism is far from dead but that this methodology of state control is deeply flawed – the methodology of state socialism or communism.
How can a mass movement revolution begin with a minority of people? The very word Bolshevik means minority, and the concept, vanguard, is disrespectful to the mass movement. These people in the vanguard wanted a revolutionary change, knew that the Russian people were not ready, were impatient, so decided that a small minority were to lead “the masses” to revolution for their own good – whether it was wanted or not. A completely false premise.
Once in power this revolution needed to maintain dictatorial control. In theory this sounds correct. Post-revolution the West sponsored a huge amount of insurrection within Russia, waging a war that lasted internally until Stalin – not unlike US intervention in Iraq, Syria and Libya and wherever else the US and its western allies have been and will go. To fight this war against the whites, dictatorial control was the chosen method – because the people were not behind the revolution in the first place. The theory is that such a dictatorship would gradually disappear as the state would have such a strong basis in the mass movement there would be no need for any form of dictatorship. Whether this was a matter of the personalities at the time or whether the concept is flawed I am not prepared to be categorical about, but the reality was that the dictatorship of the proletariat lasted until Gorbachev. Gorbachev’s approach killed a dying system. Through Perestroika and Glasnost he was encouraging the mass movement to own the system. Apathy had become endemic because of the dictatorship of the communist party, the people did not own what was happening in the USSR and were as helpless as the people are in the bipartisan “democratic” dictatorships of the West – see the movie Lifting the Veil if you don’t agree with that assessment of the West. Gorbachev tried to return that ownership to the people, but the apathy was too deeply entrenched and the people were too alienatied from the system. Opportunist criminals took over – encouraged by the West, and we now have in Russia a typical dictatorship by the Veil. What we had in 20th century “Russia” is not a history of socialism, but a history of communism – state socialism – that was based on a vanguard revolution and entrenched by dictatorship, and neither concept has any connection with the genuine grass roots mass movement – socialism.
What we do have at the present moment in time is socialism growing in a new form – Occupy or Horizontalidad (check the tag cloud). In the Middle East we have the Arab Spring, in Latin America we have Horizontalidad, in the West there are the grass roots movements that have lately unified into Occupy. Throughout my discussions on Occupy there was the theme of democratic socialism, a peoples’ movement whose organisation was not flawed and who were not bought off by the establishment, specifically the manner in which the system uses representation as a means of control – see tag cloud NUT. Far from being dead socialism has developed from being the models of imposed socialism by the state socialists and communists (dictatorship) to a genuine grass roots democracy as shown in Occupy.
Sadly in recognising the importance of the mass movement as the socialist organ we have to understand that in the current level of corporatocratic control such a movement has been controlled – repressed. Typical of that control is the repeated media analysis that socialism is dead, quite simply the corporatocracy knows that the only means that their 1% can be defeated is when the 99% act in unison as a socialist body – internally directing itself. Also important is the accompanying rejection of Marx’s economic analysis. I am no Marxist expert but the notion of marginal costs is so important, who gets the profits? Who makes the profits? The workers in the factory. Who takes the profits? The owners of the factories. In the UK when these profits were beginning to be redistributed in the 70s, the Veil engineered confrontation with the unions, and ensured that ordinary people suffered the consequences. Rather than negotiate for a fair share of the profits the corporatocracy stonewalled forcing strike action. Once that action had taken place, the unions were blamed, and there was a backlash and the introduction of the scourge of Thatcher. She killed off the unions with the attack on the miners, and now the UK has austerity programmes because there is no organised mass movement to fight back. The need for a strong mass movement, for a socialist movement, is stronger than ever. There is the birth of such a movement through Occupy but there are so many divisive intellectuals around unable to see the woods for the trees because their own individual egos, and the ideas they think they own, are more important to them than the mass movement itself. This was a problem in the movement when I was active – see tag cloud Trots, and it is the problem now where individuals present individual views through the internet rather than making the effort to work together in mass movement organisations – continuing socialism.
A significant part of this intellectual approach is ideas and ownership of ideas. Intellectuals believe that the ideas they have “created” are what causes changes. This is not the case. There are no new ideas, just rehashing of old ones. The issue is awareness, confrontation and power, awareness of the expoitation that is around, an awareness that usually comes when good people are confronted by the system and prevented from being good, and a recognition that the power of the mass movement is what will bring meaningful change. Post second world war in the UK the Veil was forced to introduce the Welfare State and NHS. Now the Veil through Cameron is forcing people who cannot get jobs (because there aren’t any) to pick up litter to get a subsistence allowance; this loss of quality has occurred from 1945 – 2013. Where is the mass movement that has allowed this loss? Unaware of the importance of mass-movement based unions, under Thatcher people allowed the unions to be decimated, a process that has continued to this day. Intellectuals are divisive in the union movement because they cannot accept rule by majority. Their ideas are too important to them, like the ideas of the vanguard that brought in the state socialism in Russia last century, and they fail to see the necessity of working in and with the mass movement. Until such ego is let go division will continue to occur, and the corporatocracy will continue to retain control.
The posting quoted the PBS series so I decided to watch it. here was my reaction:-
“Heaven on Earth
All 3 parts are linked here.
I had to stop watching, Robert Owen the second Christ? Education from birth to indoctrinate a socialist, isn’t that what we have now – a neocolonial education that accepts corporatocracy? Intellectuals. If I ever watch another PBS? Just because the media is not Tea Party does not mean the media is not biased. I am biased, I am a socialist. In establishment UK learning Robert Owen was always presented as a man with new ideas – although that is not true he just had money, but in the US he is presented as believing he was the second Christ. In the Lanark mills where the workers were treated responsibly the intellectual simply remarks on state control. This sounds as if it’s the right wing (libertarianism?) on socialism, socialism is just state socialism rather than having anything to do with the mass movement.
The series is based on a work by Joshua Muravchik “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and fall of Socialism”, and was described here as “JOSHUA MURAVCHIK has been recognized by the Wall Street Journal as “maybe the most cogent and careful of the neoconservative writers on foreign policy.” He is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies and formerly a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.” A neocon writing about socialism, is this going to be biased? A man recognised as cogent by the Wall Street Journal? Whoever sites such as a legit discussion of socialism is wasting peoples’ time.
Is this worth pursuing?
Gave up, this is rubbish – neocon rubbish.
Understanding where socialism is today is important, this just right-wing misdirection.”
I have no idea why any progressive would put this up, I only offer the URL out of discipline.
Tags: Corporatocracy, division, history, intellect, Occupy
Warning – Alex Jones is a problem.
I dont like promoting Alex Jones films because of the hidden messages they contain – discussed below. But I do think this movie is worth considering:-
I downloaded it from here.
When you watch this movie it is definitely worth considering the level of control being exerted by the “robber barons”. The advantage that Alex Jones has is that he is financially well hung – strong right-wing sponsorship. This enables a level of research people on the left cannot afford. That is the advantage of this movie he has the money to trace back and make the connections of the powers-that-be – I made some of the connections here.
But you do need to consider what is the purpose of this right-wing sponsorship. Alex Jones promotes individualism and this is a type of Republican message that is so dangerous. We do need individualism, we need the individualism that questions, that thinks for itself. Having worked on the left there is no doubt that these people (lefties) are individualists because you don’t join the Left unless you question the establishment. But what is the major problem on the left? Division. Individuals who do not accept collective discipline for the greater good – the collective. The Occupy movement recognised these problems and altered their democracy to reflect this – see my discussions on Occupy starting here, many blogentries. Throughout the Alex Jones movie there are derogatory references to the collective. Why? The collective is us, the people. There is a strong attack on collective as if joining together is not the correct way forward as if collectivism is a tool of the establishment. We are together already but the problem is that our power has been taken away from us by mind control and other misuses of power by the financial elite – robber barons. It is only when that natural collective functions in the interest of all the people that we have a solution to our problems.
Who are these robber barons? These are individuals who put their own interests first. This is the anomaly throughout the libertarian position. By promoting individuality first you promote the same interests that leads to the elite exploitation. They want freedom, these Right-Wing sponsors want to use that freedom to exploit the rest of humanity through mind control. That misuse of freedom has to be controlled whilst at the same time freedom for all needs to be promoted, this type of paradox is at the heart of democracy and is the fundamental flaw of these Republican libertarians.
The other fallacy that libertarians promote is the Founding Fathers. Throughout this movie there is the historical perspective that the root of all the financial exploitation lies in Europe, and of course it does. But then there is somehow an implication that this financial root has managed to somehow divert the wonderful American Founding Fathers. This is such a crock. Throughout history the exploiting class have developed constitutions, used academic literature, promoted ideals – basically appropriated any human virtue in order to exploit. The American constitution sounds great, but like everything else that is “virtuous” there was never any intention for that constitution to be put into practice. In the same way that Europe’s virtues were used to make wage-slaves of the European population, the constitution of these Founding Fathers was used to enslave the American peoples. There was never a wonderful society (cowboys?) in which American people helped each other, worked for each other, and showed compassion based on the virtues of the constitution. The constitution is simply the tool it was intended to be, the image of virtue that enslaved the American people. Alex Jones Republican masters misuse his own idealism for that constitution in a way that divides ordinary people fighting for their rights.
Libertarians demand freedom – whatever the consequences. Libertarians don’t provide protection for ordinary people, it is a bully’s charter – free to do what you want if you are powerful enough. So when you listen to Alex Jones, try to remember this. Whilst his analysis of what is wrong with society is sound – based on much financial support, his solution is just more of the same – a charter for individuals to exploit.
The foundation of any political action needs to be compassion.
People working together.
Update – 22/9/13
Here is a map of cooperative activity, and a description of the level of the cooperative movement globally – long article. Mondragon is perhaps the largest but by no means is it the only one. A mindfulness movement from a long way back
Tags: Compromise, Corporatocracy, Law, Occupy, patents
Many people are now recognising the power of the 1%, but this awareness is trickling through slowly. The problem is that we have all had lifetimes of indoctrination into a different way of perceiving the problem, and hence why it is much easier for some young people to see the power relationships.
As a retired person I have grown up with the notion of government as power. To be quite honest for most of that time I have ridiculed the politicians but recognised that these opportunists become the public face of the power of the civil service and military. This is a political dynamic that was brought out well in the TV mini-series “A Very British Coup” in which a democratically-elected socialist clashed with civil service and military. Whilst I still found the series relevant, as I previously mentioned it cursorily mentioned the City, a significant part of the British 1%.
Who employs the civil service? The 1%. Who pays for them? The tax-payer. What is the function of the civil service? To maintain a society that exploits the British people on behalf of the 1%. And they have another significant function, they are receptionists. When you walk into company offices you walk up to a reception area, where you are met usually by a pretty woman who directs you to where you want to go. If you are not wanted you are redirected or politely asked to leave. If you make a scene what is the point? It is only a receptionist. If you get beyond the receptionist you have to be in the know, but even then there is the secretary. There are basically echelons of people who keep you from the actual power – I am giving these echelons a generic term “the receptionists”.
At the same time as there are the receptionists there are designated people whose job it is to deal with complaints – complaints managers whatever. And these people have access to security so that if they cannot fob off your complaints security can easily eject you. These roles I include in the generic “receptionists”.
So in the UK the civil service are responsible for daily business on behalf of the 1%, they are “receptionists”, do they make decisions? No, “receptionists”. In the TV series we then have the military. Now they have a dual 1% function. The most obvious is what they were setup for – to protect the 1%. Initially in the UK that protection was for the aristocracy. And at that time they had an inter-related secondary function, to fight wars. Let’s consider the Crusades, here is a documentary that does so. Ostensibly to protect Britain, the Crusades also used the pretext of religion to invade, rape and pillage. Since that time we have used security, democracy, religion as excuses for fighting wars, but in whose interests have those wars been fought in the second half of the 20th and this century. Two-fold interests. The first is obvious – oil industry. But the second almost as obvious – the weapons industry. Do the people gain in either of these interests? No, they were not meant to. The military are there to protect the 1%. Who pays for it? Tithes or the taxpayer originally. Now fiat money. Where does this fiat money come from? Nowhere. Through their revolving door the banks tell the government that they have fiat money to pay for whatever they want the government to pay for. As the civil service the day-to-day government does what their employer wants, and we have the galloping inflation and recessions that cause the austerity policies British people are now suffering.
And who do we blame? Who do we rant and rave at? The receptionists. What for? What can they do? Or we blame the public faces – the politicians or the complaint managers.
We have examined one aspect of security – the military, but there is another internal branch – the police and the law. Let’s start with the law as ostensibly this is what the police are there to protect. So we need to examine the functioning of the law, never examine the theory or ideals because that is not the purpose – that is the disguise, examine the functioning. Once we examine the functioning we see the law acting as a means of maintaining the status quo, and what is that? We have a society run by the 1% profiting from the earnings and labour of the 99%. When the 1% arrive in courts they are protected because the best lawyers can be bought. Parliamentary law does not say we will protect the 1% but through judgements the law does establish precedents which function as that protection. They establish laws for their profiteering such as copyright law and patenting law, when you examine how Monsanto have exploited patent law effectively starting a process of criminalising organic farming – criminalising healthy food, you can see the function of the law in action.
When Occupy wants to exercise their human right to protest, the law protects the 1% and turns these citizens into criminals. In order for the 1% to continue their exploitation they need a stable society, so civil laws are passed – you might consider these as the laws for the 99%. Many of these are common sense laws that would allow civil people to live together such as most criminal law, and through this disguise we accept another instrument of the 1% – the police. These are the security at the office that the complaints manager calls in, it matters not whether the complaint is valid the security ejects you if you continue to threaten the 1%. And of course the security is legitimised when their role is to imprison criminals – criminals that we would all designate as such. But when it comes to fraudsters on Wall Street the police are powerless, of course who employs the police?
But what would happen if all the 99% went to the “receptionists”? There would not be enough receptionists, complaints managers and security to deal with the 99%. So there are two other pillars of the reception area. The first is the media. Now the media makes huge profits out of the 99% through the entertainments industry. But whilst entertaining the people they also make sure that the people are not aware of who has the power and how to access them, in effect they ensure that all activity is carried out in the reception area. Blue Bloods is a cop show that considers the dilemmas of a caring NYPD, and whilst it is good entertainment it never once addressed the issue that the NYPD were criminalising Occupy at the bequest of the 1% (particularly the $4.6 million donation of Morgan Chase).
Now the media deals with the majority of people, but what about those who have the ability to make change? Every generation of society has a lifeblood of change, its youth. If you do not control this youth then their power can overthrow any establishment. Traditionally this youth was controlled through respect for the Elders, but as part of their exploitation the 1% recognised that the Elders were a detriment to their exploitation. Elders knew interminable debt ie a fiat economy was destructive so when, post second world war, the 1% started to increase their exploitation in the West they took advantage of a stagnating post-war culture and introduced a youth culture dominated by fashion. Rather than respect for Elders there developed fawning for celebrity, and those celebrities became tools of 1% corporations promoting fashion and the latest costly technology. This left youth chasing their tails and rejecting the voices of experience.
But that was still not enough because these young people could still effect change. So here is where an integral platform of neo-liberalism (neoliberalism discussed by Chomsky here) was introduced – apathy, the belief that what is wrong could not be changed an important corollary of that – those who are trying to effect change are crazy and misdirected. And if there was still energy left they dissipated through academic divide-and-rule. They rewarded some idealists with positions in academia by buying off the more malleable, and then other idealists promoted their ideals vying for similar positions. Or idealists who told people, follow my ideal this way of change is the best (see this blog for the way such idealism can induce division). Through education they presented a 1%-view of society. For most people this education didn’t matter as they were only to be failures but for some there would be success. They needed to educate senior management who could be bought off with senior positions in their systems – sophisticated complaints managers, others became professor being bought off in academia. Others fought the system as idealists, demanding people follow their framework and creating dissension if this following was not 100%, ensuring that the one thing the 1% feared – consensus amongst the 99% – could not happen. So the media law and education are pillars of the reception area – part of The Receptionists.
You can talk of these people as being Receptionists, you can talk of them as puppets or opportunists, or simply describe them as family people putting their own first or peasants trying to make ends meet. You can talk of them as civil service, soldiers or police. But what needs to be recognised is that until strategies get beyond these fronts and are directed at those with the power there is going to be little change. Meanwhile we can work within our communities. The church group doing good, trade union activism at the grass roots level, these communal farmers in Kenya, Vandana Shiva’s seed protectors, Community-Supported Agriculture, Horizontalidad and the initiatives that are coming out of Central and South America – Beyond Elections, all of these things are change in progress – not change driven by a common idealistic agenda. These are people who are compromising with each other to reach consensus, but not compromising with the 1%.
And what is important is that when these people are doing their “thing”, they are happy. Whilst the wage-slaves work for the new car and lose their souls, community activity brings its own soul and happiness. Compromise for consensus, do not compromise with the 1% and do not compromise with your own Path because that is where there is the greatest happiness.
Tags: Buddhism, Corporatocracy, diet, Occupy, Third Act
I have just watched this Jane Fonda TED talk on the Third Act, and enjoyed it greatly:-
I even sent the URL to a few friends of the not-quite-so-young variety, and one friend, Dottie, said of the previous elder generations “And they did live their “third act” well…. My great-grandmother lived by herself until cancer hit her when she was 88. And she was still shooting foxes that got into her chicken coop 🙂 ”
Then it struck me I had deluded myself in part. Firstly Jane Fonda can “delude” me euphemistically any time. From a physical appreciation of her in Barbarella and Klute followed by her politicisation in China Syndrome and other activism, I have to admit my hormones made my appreciation of her talk lacking in criticism – what I usually refer to as “dick-led”.
Early on in the talk she mentioned that the Third Act was the time for the human spirit, whilst as a Buddhist I would use mind – or higher faculties of mind, this understanding completely swayed me on her side. I am the wisest I have ever been, note the relative wisest I am not saying I am wise (absolutely). This “wisest” truth is a typical frustration (of the old) in some ways because that limited wisdom has no outlet other than blogs, but compared with all the wasted energy forced to be expended in the wage-slave compromises of my working life the freedom my hard-earned pension gives me enables a perspective devoid of these compromises.
In my mind there are no doubts at all, the Third Act is the time for the human spirit; and I believe that time is part of the natural order. The Elders are wise, they have experience, and have much to offer. I imagine tribal man looking after the elderly a little helping them forage for food and seeking their advice, is this true or a romantic perception? More recently the old retire to write books that are never read – like blogs, the natural function of passing on their wisdom. But in western society how are the old envisioned? Pains in the arse who have to be looked after or money found to put them in a home.
So I come back to my friend’s quote and I realise that there are fallacies in Jane’s excellent talk. Firstly the Third Act is the Act of wisdom but many of our older friends are not in a position to give of that wisdom. Dottie also said “But with the present generation of people in their 80’s, I’m finding some of them to be more disgruntled than my grandparents & great-grandparents were….”. I think they are disgruntled for a number of reasons, including having been suffering with their health for a much longer period.
Let’s begin with that health. Dottie’s Great Gran was out on the farm shooting chickens late into her 80’s, her farm diet and life outdoors sustaining her body allowing her human spirit to develop. But for the disgruntled Dottie mentions, these people have spent a lifetime on a 20th century toxic diet leaving them in their old age in a constant battle with degenerative disease such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s etc. As our bodies age they take their toll on what Jane Fonda described as human spirit, and if all that people can remember is their recent life of fighting degenerative disease it is no wonder they are disgruntled. But ageing need not be bound up with suffering, we don’t have to have our human spirit tied down by our bodies, if we eat healthily live within the necessary natural bounds of our ageing bodies then the Power of the Third Act can be enabling in that the human spirit can soar – without the tempestuous problems associated with youth and without the enslaving compromises of the 1%.
I think there is another important contribution to the making of Dottie’s disgruntled. As the 20th century turned into the 21st so our culture has become more and more youth orientated. In my profession, teaching, teachers are marginalised as they get older – long before retirement. There is a professional reason for this, the students are so ill-disciplined that the older teachers don’t have the energy to chase around trying to keep them in check. But if you find a more sensible discipline situation – a big if, then your experience and understanding has much to offer. Unfortunately the older are wiser and see through much of the hypocrisy of those young people in charge and it is much easier to control the less wise young. Often enough these sycophantic young are put in charge by the profiteers, and as happened with me I watched a succession of young careerists compromising education for the profits of the owners and the advancement of their own careers. Whilst I did some fighting it just got harder and harder to deal with their lies and watch the unnecessary impacts on the students’ education. I am sure the same is true in other professions, this youth orientation.
Occupy gives me hope in this. I watch Occupy and I see a great deal of wisdom in these young people but I also see on the periphery many elders who I hope are having an influence. Maybe I am deluding myself.
Jane Fonda said that now in the Third Act statistically we are older longer. My hormones let that one slip by, because as Dottie said “that stat probably includes many children dying from diseases that we are no longer dying from….”. And now I am not sure where the truth lies. It seems generally accepted that fewer children are dying from childhood diseases but now many of our children are suffering from the damaging plethora of vaccinations. Then we have to ask questions connecting health and medicine. In our working life we might take more antibiotics to be at work longer but does the increasing damage to our liver help us? In general how much does the medicine we take actually help us? I feel far healthier from a good natural diet, do not visit pharmaceutical doctors – occasional visits to the acupuncturist, so I say to you Jane we need to give the description of the health component of the Third Act much more consideration.
As we are older so the health of our bodies more severely impacts our well-being because of the increasing effects of degeneration. So our Third Act might well begin with a detox leading to a recognition of natural diet – Zandtao Healing Plan is an example. Over the 7 years it takes for our bodies to regenerate through the healthy food, our human spirit can begin to soar, and following that regeneration we can review our lives and offer help to others. Hopefully then more people will recognise the greater potential for the Third Act to contribute to life’s wisdom. Such a contribution however is unlikely to occur if the major value that our society places on human beings is their value as wage-slaves to produce more profit – 1% it is time for you to learn the value of the wisdom of age.
Occupy the Third Act.
It was one of those meditations where I had to keep myself sitting when I wanted to come and write. The washing is in the machine, and I am raring to go.
The first one is the Internet eBookshop, unfortunately something like this might already exist. I have seen different schemes about how writers might make money through the internet, but in truth if you are making money the chances are you are only contributing to the 1%. So what about the writer who is also a mindful consumer? Then this writer does not want to be a part of the monetary system or would want to be part of a community currency.
Let’s bear this in mind as we examine how the 1% publishers work. They decide whether the work is to be published based on commercial interests. They control the distribution and sales outlets. And readers as consumers spend their leisure time going to bookshops deciding which book will decorate their bookshelves. And for this the writer is paid a small royalty, and the 1% exploits through monetary profit based on distribution and sales. Now what the writer also gets is access to distribution, and this is important. As an unread internet writer I have no access to distribution. I am convinced that my work is as good as some that is in bookshops (what writer isn’t). Objectively I actually have no idea how good my work is, but as I am driven to write at least Nature must feel it has some value. Of course every writer in the blogosphere would say the same thing.
Distribution is the first key. And with the internet one aspect of distribution is absolutely no issue – download, and for non-commerical writers like me free downloads are the order of the day for Zandtao, Wai Zandtao – SciFi writer, Matriellez and eventually Mandtao. I have no idea how strong Creative Commons is, but hopefully copyright is also covered. But the other aspect of distribution covered by the browsing in bookshops is getting your work recognised. Now this is determined by the publishers who own or liaise with the sales outlets, have book tours – to be honest I don’t know enough about this but they sound awful; they are all part of the 1% control. As a result of these processes books are displayed in bookshops, people buy the books, some writers make an income, the whole process is exploited and the 1% make their profits.
An internet eBookshop would cover these aspects of a publishers’ control. Browsing in an internet bookshop would be no different to browsing in a bookstore, you can even choose your own coffee!! Distribution would be the download, OK the books on your bookshelf would get old! But this is a small price to pay for mindful consuming.
Now publishers have editors. I have no contact with these people so the following might be doing them a disservice, my apologies if it is. An editor’s job is to choose the books and make the books saleable because the business they are in is selling books. So of course populist novels are a safe choice and the taste of the consumers is oriented to this popularism. Whilst there are books available that expose the 1% for who they are – because these books can also make a profit, they are not chosen for their content. I would personally not enjoy an editor’s consideration of my work because I would not trust their outlook, however I do believe in the process of editing because no matter how may times I revise my own work I find mistakes. But an editor whose livelihood depends on profit-making for the 1% does not encourage me to seek their services.
Perhaps the internet eBookshop would have editors, or maybe peer review would help. Being eBooks a writer would have easy access to be responsive to such peer reviews. Who knows how this could develop? But the point is that there is nothing here that would warrant writers enslaving themselves to publishers.
The main problem is of course payment. And so we come to mindful consuming. In my own case I begrudge paying for anything that I could possibly download because of who gets the profits. But when it comes to an author we need to be making an exception, but not an exception that involves paying the 1% through publishing. We could however pay royalties directly. This could be organised through the internet eBookshop where the writer could be connected to the eBookshop, and a means of paying royalties be established by them.
But this is still not the solution. The eBookshop might use Paypal, but in using Paypal they are still using dollars – a currency of the 1%. I once proposed #O as a currency of Occupy, and here is another example where #O would come into play. Making an intitial dollar payment to establish your #O presence, you could then pay the author royalties. But now if this transaction was part of a wider possibility of transactions such as crafts, organic produce and other mindful economic ventures this #O presence can establish a meaningful transactional base. As Occupy is also talking of alternative banking, this community currency, #O, could integrate into that.
Occupy Internet eBookshop is also a possibility because Occupy has the computer expertise to carry this out – OWSinternteBookshoponline.com is well within their capabilities.
And there is one final possibility that could make this work. Occupy has many famous writers who are associated or support it. These authors such as Naomi Klein, Cornel Wilde, Michael Moore and many more could be the names that build the platform. Once consumers get used to paying #O royalties rather than paying the 1% or searching for free eBooks, this #O internet eBookshop has a possbility of growing, especially if it were part of a wider #O mindful consumer network.
21/9/13 – Maybe Bitcoin is positive?