Understanding the Occupy Movementf
Locked
Understanding the Occupy Movementf
 
|
I know the hot topic now is SOPA. I understand this is important. What I do
not understand is the occupy movement. The basic idea goes like this: * perception: 1% of the people own 99% of the money * reason: injustice! inequality! * action: sit down and occupy their places Something which everyone can understand and do. It is a agreeable demand for most of us, because only a few can claim they belong to the 1%. I certainly don't. It looks like the most primitive ideas are the most successful. The problem is: the basic idea of the occupy movement "99% are suffering while the 1% enrich themselves" is not new, it is around since the French revolution and would fit perfectly to socialism or communism. Socialists generally argue that capitalism concentrates power and wealth within a small segment of society that derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. And yet socialists or communists do not support it, and the members of the movement are neither socialists nor communists. Are the classic social political parties and ideologies like socialism and communism too complicated for the occupy activists or is the occupy movement too primitive for them? In the western world we live in modern states which have a democracy with freedom of speech where everyone can join or found a party. Looks like the occupy activists would rather found their own party than join an existing one, although their basic political idea is not new. They don't want to put their new wine into old wineskins, but it is the same wine and the same wineskin, only younger, isn't it? Is it really about political ideas or just a fight of generations and the lust for rebellion? -J. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
Jochen, hi,
For a while I have shown the sense to stay quiet, but let me try to address this one a little, because I can send a file that has some technical papers which I think address some of these points. It seems to me that the 99%/1% paradigm and Occupy are targeted at slightly different things, though they have become natural traveling companions, and the two are now generally associated (probably also in the minds of the participants for the most part). It seems that the 99/1 paradigm is targeted at social inequality, and addresses the question of what kind of society we want to create. That seems to be the main question you address in your post. If I understand correctly, Occupy, with its particular focus on Wall Street at the beginning, was targeted at the influence of corporate power in corrupting the legal system, at all levels from law-making, to day-to- day regulatory operations, to law enforcement. I think this is a somewhat different question, in that it addresses the major de facto difference between the society we claim to have committed to in the political system, and the actual working of that system. I choose to narrow the focus of Occupy in my own mind -- probably more than it is actually narrowed in the minds of many who participate -- for the sake of highlighting this distinction, because I think the two questions are addressed to some extent differently. The distinction I am making also follows an official position taken by Yaneer Bar-Yam of NECSI, in the attached rtf (which hopefully the list curator will permit to forward) . I have looked at some of the articles referenced here, but it would take a more careful analysis of method than I have made the effort (or probably have the expertise) to perform, in order to know how tight the conclusions are. There are so many topics in Friam history that touch on this question (how institutional frameworks function, what it really means to aspire to a form of culture through our choice of formal institutional commitments, and how close to the aspiration we ever get with the ever-fragile machinery), from the importance of incomplete markets to making much of microeconomic theory, and "micro- foundations of macroeconomics" irrelevant, to the question of the autonomy of thought from environment, that I see questions related to this constantly on the list. It is also related to interests of my own, which have to do with the relation of individuality (both developmental and evolutionary) in relation to ecology, and to error- correction in hierarchical complex systems, and the limits to what kinds of function can actually be maintained robustly. It seems to me that almost all the high-level abstractions about the intervention of power in markets and politics can be nearly deconstructed, they are so hard to think clearly about, but that these are excellent questions to pursue. Somebody several weeks ago (this time I'll have the sense not to use the name I think I remember, in case I have it wrong again) commented that Occupy seemed false because the participants wear clothes, eat food, communicate with consumer electronics, and live in tents, produced by the industrial economy, and therefore they lack the consistency of Ghandi's followers who made their own salt and wore khadi. That apparent distinction might be self-contained if the claim were actually that corporate function is the enemy (and if one could factor out differences in population, access to land and coastline, the fact that you can go naked in most of India most of the year without freezing, the huge differences across continent and across time, making it much more difficult for all but a fraction of people to find a space to survive outside the industrial economy and the land and assets owned through it in the US today, etc.) but the question becomes trickier if one takes the position that the productive activities of corporations are not deemed bad per se, but that their circumventing the regulatory apparatus that is supposed to provide stability is regarded as the main problem. (Of course, either of these could be the target, depending on which set of problems we are discussing. The ecological economists, including Herman Daly and followers, would indeed say that many forms of production are themselves the problem, but I think that is a different thread from the one you have raised, at least on a first pass.) My sense, that the timing of the financial collapses, and the many demonstrations of corruption by banks and bankers, which were not really pursued to the extent that they could have been, and suggested the tip of a much larger iceberg, as the trigger for the start of Occupy, would support the distinction I draw here. I hope that Bar-Yam et al.'s quantitative analysis, if not my own post-processing of them, are useful in some way. All best, Eric ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Bar-Yam annotated bibliography.rtf (19K)
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Oops, sorry for two posts:
To address the specifics of your post, which I meant to do. If social inequality is the main question, then it may be a partisan issue, because there will be a spread of opinions in the society of what is desirable, and at some level of approximation, the adoption of positions by parties provides a way to sort out how that spectrum will organize to come to a decision. Mechanisms for qualitative change presumably often originate as partisan issues, and then become mainstream if one party can hold them long enough that they become inculcated. If the question of the gap between the claims of the law and the reality of the law is the issue, then that would more naturally be a party-independent question, since any party depends to some extent on the existence of "rules of the game", and would on some occasions have reason to object if there are no rules. Of course, I understand that I also make these distinctions as if they were clearer than they are in practice, but I think they are a starting point from which one could try to sort out the mess and categorize a bit. E ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
Dear everybody,
I have been working at the edges of the occupy/99% movement in Santa Fe, where we just put together a sizeable demonstration to welcome the governor and the legislature back to work. We are now trying to figure out which legislative actions to support and oppose in the short 30 day session. One strong possibility is a bill to tax Walmart's etc. at the same rate as local businesses. Yes, folks, national corporations in NM have worked out a deal where they pay fewer taxes than the local businesses they compete with. And New Mexico has a budget problem. I was surprised to see exactly zero FRIAMMERS at the demonstration. I don't think of myself as a leftist outlier. The strain in the movement is a familiar one ... everybody agrees that the political system has fallen into the hands of thieves. To the extent there is disagreement, it is about what sorts of methods will recover it. The more optimistic view is that "all" we need to do is mobilize all the people who are being screwed by the current government (the 99%) and substitute new people in the legislatures and administrations. Call this the reformist view. The more radical view is that such reformist efforts will just result in the election of slightly-les- evil politicians (democrats?) and that we need new institutions from the ground up. These folks are more likely to be attached to novel methods ... the" mic check" and the "general assembly" and a desire to challenge institutions generally, rather than to issues and policies. I guess we have to call this the radical view, although the term makes me uneasy. Nobody has any stomach for violence of any sort. There are half a dozen organizations, loosely cooperating , that range across this spectrum, perhaps a thousand people in all. Each of them is googlable. They are, from Reformist to Radical: We Are People Here (Craig Barnes group, many members, working on the tax bill, primarily) Move On Org. A very vigorous LOCAL group. (I have criticized Move On for sucking political money OUT of communities, but this group seems to be reversing the flow.) Communications Workers of America Somos un pueblo unido is organizing around the driver's license bill. Occupy Santa Fe (Un)occupy Albuquerque I know I ought to be providing links, but I can't take the time now. If anybody will write me directly, I will do so later, but you should be able to find them on your own. All of them are in desperate need of technical help (but don't know it), and if any of you were wealthy enough and patient enough to down tools for a month or two and help with webpresence, you might have a very big effect on the movement. My sense is that we need some sort of web interface that is democratic but does not get totally out of control I have been experimenting with google groups, but I am not very good at it, and I am only person, and old and lazy at that. Thanks for your attention. Given that I am also ADD, I can appreciate what an effort it was. (};-]) Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Eric Smith Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:22 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Understanding the Occupy Movementf Oops, sorry for two posts: To address the specifics of your post, which I meant to do. If social inequality is the main question, then it may be a partisan issue, because there will be a spread of opinions in the society of what is desirable, and at some level of approximation, the adoption of positions by parties provides a way to sort out how that spectrum will organize to come to a decision. Mechanisms for qualitative change presumably often originate as partisan issues, and then become mainstream if one party can hold them long enough that they become inculcated. If the question of the gap between the claims of the law and the reality of the law is the issue, then that would more naturally be a party-independent question, since any party depends to some extent on the existence of "rules of the game", and would on some occasions have reason to object if there are no rules. Of course, I understand that I also make these distinctions as if they were clearer than they are in practice, but I think they are a starting point from which one could try to sort out the mess and categorize a bit. E ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5
Looks like you have lost interest in Psychology? Your book about the new realists with Eric seems to be published, right? I guess it was called 'A new look at new realism'. No other book in the pipeline? I think Psychology is still much more fascinating than Politics.
-J. Sent from Android ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
Disagree about politics vs. psychology, though they are deeply intertwined.
And Nick, I salute you for your activism. Did NOT know that WalMart has a different tax rate than local businesses. Them that has gits. Pamela On Jan 21, 2012, at 2:35 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
"The first fall of snow is not only an event, it is a magical event. You go to bed in one kind of a world and wake up in another quite different, and if this is not enchantment then where is it to be found?" J. B. Priestley ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Thanks for the update, Nick. It was very helpful to me.
Grant On 1/21/12 11:05 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > Dear everybody, > > I have been working at the edges of the occupy/99% movement in Santa Fe, > where we just put together a sizeable demonstration to welcome the governor > and the legislature back to work. We are now trying to figure out which > legislative actions to support and oppose in the short 30 day session. One > strong possibility is a bill to tax Walmart's etc. at the same rate as local > businesses. Yes, folks, national corporations in NM have worked out a deal > where they pay fewer taxes than the local businesses they compete with. And > New Mexico has a budget problem. I was surprised to see exactly zero > FRIAMMERS at the demonstration. I don't think of myself as a leftist > outlier. > > The strain in the movement is a familiar one ... everybody agrees that the > political system has fallen into the hands of thieves. To the extent there > is disagreement, it is about what sorts of methods will recover it. The > more optimistic view is that "all" we need to do is mobilize all the people > who are being screwed by the current government (the 99%) and substitute new > people in the legislatures and administrations. Call this the reformist > view. The more radical view is that such reformist efforts will just result > in the election of slightly-les- evil politicians (democrats?) and that we > need new institutions from the ground up. These folks are more likely to be > attached to novel methods ... the" mic check" and the "general assembly" > and a desire to challenge institutions generally, rather than to issues and > policies. I guess we have to call this the radical view, although the term > makes me uneasy. Nobody has any stomach for violence of any sort. > > There are half a dozen organizations, loosely cooperating , that range > across this spectrum, perhaps a thousand people in all. Each of them is > googlable. They are, from Reformist to Radical: > > We Are People Here (Craig Barnes group, many members, working on the tax > bill, primarily) > Move On Org. A very vigorous LOCAL group. (I have criticized Move On for > sucking political money OUT of communities, but this group seems to be > reversing the flow.) > Communications Workers of America > Somos un pueblo unido is organizing around the driver's license bill. > Occupy Santa Fe > (Un)occupy Albuquerque > > I know I ought to be providing links, but I can't take the time now. If > anybody will write me directly, I will do so later, but you should be able > to find them on your own. All of them are in desperate need of technical > help (but don't know it), and if any of you were wealthy enough and patient > enough to down tools for a month or two and help with webpresence, you might > have a very big effect on the movement. My sense is that we need some sort > of web interface that is democratic but does not get totally out of control > I have been experimenting with google groups, but I am not very good at it, > and I am only person, and old and lazy at that. > > Thanks for your attention. Given that I am also ADD, I can appreciate what > an effort it was. (};-]) > > Nick > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf > Of Eric Smith > Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 7:22 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Understanding the Occupy Movementf > > Oops, sorry for two posts: > > To address the specifics of your post, which I meant to do. > > If social inequality is the main question, then it may be a partisan issue, > because there will be a spread of opinions in the society of what is > desirable, and at some level of approximation, the adoption of positions by > parties provides a way to sort out how that spectrum will organize to come > to a decision. Mechanisms for qualitative change presumably often originate > as partisan issues, and then become mainstream if one party can hold them > long enough that they become inculcated. > > If the question of the gap between the claims of the law and the reality of > the law is the issue, then that would more naturally be a party-independent > question, since any party depends to some extent on the existence of "rules > of the game", and would on some occasions have reason to object if there are > no rules. > > Of course, I understand that I also make these distinctions as if they were > clearer than they are in practice, but I think they are a starting point > from which one could try to sort out the mess and categorize a bit. > > E > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
|
Jochen, it seems like your question is generating a variety of types of answers, maybe you want to clarify your meaning in the context of the answers given so far?
That said, this would be an excellent Quora question/set-of-answers.
I think (from my very tangential experience, I am perhaps the least informed in this matter of the answers so far) that the intent of the Occupy movement[s] is something that both Eric and Nick have mentioned but not directly addressed: the diversity of agenda (already a plural of agendum [something that embodies agere - past participle, I believe?], by the way). If one is communist, part of the attendant ideology is recognizing the tend towards imbalance that capitalism engenders, but there are many other conclusions drawn in Marx/Engels and subsequent works: that the way to break the cycle of power via wealth is to have a [violent] revolution of the proletariat leading to a unified party guiding collectivisation (of resources, labour, et cetera) and other activities, for example. If one is socialist, one may advocate more (perhaps opt-in) social programs provided by the government. If one is anarchist, one may advocate localised individual decision-making within communities. And so on.
However, this specialisation will lead to predictable reactions: if one is communist, one may expect (at least in the modern-day United States) a 'Red Scare' - a dismissal of ideals due to political alignment. This goes for any philosophy. So such an association with an 'old wineskin', though perhaps not disdained or frowned upon, might not help one's arguments to be heard.
So the Occupy movement seemed to decide that only one axiom would be required: the statement that corporate interference in matters of governance leads to inequality (via pork and vested interests and many other systemic phenomena). As this was a common observance among much of American society anyway, it was not likely to be too controversial. However, by marking this statement with an officialised movement, and making this movement publicly visible in prominent places (like Wall Street) made (or attempted to make) it the Main Issue up for public discussion and analysis, which (one would expect) would naturally lead to it being dealt with as an issue more easily/quickly/effectively. Thus Occupy served as a forum, rather than an organisation or individual or faction or party to be ignored, or cynically considered. Indeed, I have rarely heard even opponents of the movement describe it in terms of being untrustworthy - it just does not apply to this kind of social structure. The criticisms have concerned whether or not Occupy will fail in it's goal of popularising social change.
While it may be just lust for revolution/rebellion, it is not produced restlessly or without forethought. Anyway, this openness of aims is why there is a spectrum from 'reformers' to 'radicals' (a word much abused, and best used in context of etymology: anything dealing with the 'root' of a problem/issue) or between '1/99' and 'Occupy' as noted by Eric.
I hope this helps.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movement
|
|
Nick, Eric, Arlo
thanks for your kind replies. Your elaborate responses enlightened the topic for me a bit. I have never been interested very much in politics or sports, because I find it boring and because I am not good at it anyway. If Newt Gingrich is better than Mitt Romney, if the San Francisco 49ers will win against New York Giants, or if Bayern München will beat Real Madrid - all of this is entertaining and important today, but forgotten tomorrow. And it has only regional importance. People in Europe don't care about the NFL, while Americans don't watch the UEFA Champions League (or national soccer leagues like the German "Bundesliga"). For example in the German national soccer leaque, Bayern München lost against Borussia Mönchengladbach 1:3 last friday. It was big news here in Germany, but who cares in Santa Fe, NM, about it? Nobody. And even here it will be forgotten in a few weeks. Dealing with these fleeting, nonpermanent things can give you the feeling that life is meaningless. Jean-Paul Sartre said "life has no meaning the moment you lose the illusion of being eternal". Kids can give you this illusion. Or science. If you consider a sports game as a collision of two adaptive systems or if you construct agent-based models to explain fundamental political processes - like Robert Axelrod - it may become more interesting, though. As long as you are not a star in politics or sports, or the founder of your own movement, it is hard to find a lasting meaning there. Satre suggested that each of us has to find the meaning of his life himself. I have recently read the diaries of Etty Hillesum, a young Jewish woman who lived in Amsterdam during the German occupation. Face with the threat of extinction and the terror of Nazi Germany every day, she was looking for the meaning of life. She writes in her diaries "We seek the meaning of life, wondering whether any meaning can be left. But that is something each one of us must settle with himself and with God. And perhaps (each) life has its own meaning, even if it takes a lifetime to find it." [I have added "each" in brackets, because it occurs in the German translation: "Vielleicht hat jedes Leben seinen eigenen Sinn, und es bedarf eines ganzen Lebens, um diesen Sinn herauszufinden"]. Nick, if want to go into politics, good luck. It is hard to be successful there, and it requires a lot (!) of money. John F. Kennedy became president not because he was suited for it - quite the contrary, he had Addison's disease and his elder brother should become it instead - but because his father was one of the richest people in the USA (see "The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster", John H. Davis, McGraw-Hill 1984). Politics is all about power, money and marketing. I would prefer if you stay here and answer our stupid psychological questions! ;-) Jochen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movementf
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by David Eric Smith
Thanks Eric, shed very useful light, both the distinction between 99 & Occupy, and the surprising work by Bar-Yam.  I hope robustness is a compelling argument to politicians, it certainly should be.
The recent success of the populist response to SOPA and PIPA gives one some hope that we can steer our ship of state at least on very particular and concrete issues, at least.  I was absolutely astounded that both of my senators and my representative in congress were for them both.
  -- Owen On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote: Jochen, hi, ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movement : or Pay Attention, What you do Matters!
|
|
In reply to this post by Pamela McCorduck
Eric -
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the question... FRIAM is prone to deep dives (relatively) into answers without necessarily looking carefully at the questions. Nick - I also salute your engaging (participating) with Occupy. I'm supportive of the movement but not particularly motivated to do more than wave happily as I drive by any public event. I'm glad you have found a way to help and I hope someone else can pitch in and help you. Often the shape of the negative space is as informative as that of the positive. What is this lack of involvement by the technorati of Santa Fe? Are we too comfortable? I believe that the *general* occupy movement actually negates the popular assumptions/statements about "getting involved". The illusion that we do not deserve to have an opinion unless we are getting involved, having strong opinions, even voting. I'm afraid we *do* deserve our opinions (and even their expressions) at any level of involvement, thus Occupy's unwillingness to be reduced to any simple set of demands. This is not to say that those who do vote, who do stand in the streets or sit on the lawns or wave the signs, or sadly even those who throw rocks and bottles and overturn police cars, do not deserve their opinions. Remembering the slogan of the 60's "Power to the People" and juxtaposing it with a good friend's assertion "Power doesn't corrupt, it IS corruption" suggests that as "we the people" wrest power from "them the enemy" we should be ever vigilant to not take more power than is intrinsically our own. It is surely as heady to drive the police from the square, or pull down a despot's statue, or jam up business for a day or a week or a month, as it is to win a major election (or better to steal it). We have at least two examples of effective retaking of power (and then not immediately becoming the next despot) in Gandhi and in Nelson Mandela... so I'm not without hope for us. Occupy, as well as even some of the more violent groups in the Arab Spring has at least some of this tenor. I believe that while it may take great conviction and effort to retake the power we have lost (no, not lost, *given*) to the despots of wealth (don't forget many of us are part of some percentage significantly greater than 50% in our populations, US or elsewhere, if not 99% exactly) and of political power, it takes greater amounts to do it humbly and with care to maintain the ideals we started with. Pamela - I was not surprised that New Mexico uses tax incentives to lure and keep big businesses in the state. It is anecdotal in State Economic Develop circles that had we been more progressive about that Microsoft would still be in ABQ. I don't think retail businesses like WalMart are as appropriate for such incentives, however. I vote against WalMart by not shopping there (and choosing local over big-box national as often as possible which for me is nearly exclusively). I'm not sure, but it is likely that Target, Lowes, Best Buy, etc. have similar if not equal tax breaks to WalMart. The Movie industry incentives go beyond lower tax rates, and most progressives applaud that. The message and situation is not simple. I admit to at least enjoying the sight of my own backyard in virtually every western movie made today... and knowing that some of my friends and colleagues can find work in NM that would otherwise require them to live in LA. Arlo - Thus Occupy served as a forum, rather than an organisation or individual or faction or party to be ignored, or cynically considered. Indeed, I have rarely heard even opponents of the movement describe it in terms of being untrustworthy - it just does not apply to this kind of social structure. The criticisms have concerned whether or not Occupy will fail in it's goal of popularising social change.Exceedingly well said, thank you for this articulation. Jochen - What a superbly negative view of the meaning and relevance of life! I share your opinion of professional sports and am mostly sympathetic about the highest profile politicians. Unfortunately I cannot go as far toward Neitzscheistic Nihilism as I hear coursing through your assessment. I do agree with the relativism of any given bit of politics... that to you in Germany, Santa Fe's roster of City Councilpersons, or even NM's Governor is of little concern and I presume interest. I would presume that the US choice of leadership of the legislative (through majority) branch and of the executive branch of our government and subsequently the direction of steerage of this Leviathan we call the US government and economy *is* a bit more relevant, as is our sometimes interest in the affairs of Europe, of the former Soviet states, and of China, Korea and Japan, not to mention, India, Pakistan, the Arab countries and subsaharan Africa. All- What follows (surprise!) is not exactly more *careful* analysis to add to Eric's and the rest but in that vein, my usual folksy anecdotal reflections on the topic and questions it raised for me: I was far from a Young Republican during the era of civil unrest and reform of the sixties, but more likely a Young Libertarian (dog eared copy of Atlas shrugged in the pocket of my worn, wide bottomed jeans held up by my handmade belt and covering my handmade moccasins)... so I supported the principles of free speech and individualism, but looked down with disdain on the way a lot of the popular movements of the time just looked like a big party among middle class youth without anything better to do. For those who have told their stories of resistance against the monster that was the Vietnam War, I have my own, too torrid to tell (even) in this forum. Just ask, I will not be shy. Age and experience (mostly through the lens of hindsight) have allowed me to appreciate the effects and motivations of those times (if still not always the methods or individual actions). This perspective allows me to look on the current Occupy movements (and the much more engaged and risky activities across the Arab world this year... <nod to Mohammed El-Beltagy in Cairo>) with a great deal more generosity and even hope. My (now 32 yr old) daughter left the MoveOn movement around the 04 election very disenchanted for similar reasons to the ones I quote for my own jaundiced view of the 60's into the 70's. When Occupy stood up (or sat down?) I feared it was another flash-in-the-pan expression of anger/resentment/agitation that would either flash to petty acts of defiant violence or sputter out after the first cold night. It's breadth, depth, and refusal to be pinned down on a specific set of demands has really impressed me (but no, Nick, I still don't expect to pitch in much more than I have, also being old, lazy, and claiming ADD whenever asked to focus for more than 12 seconds on anything less personal than my own navel, a remunerative task at hand, or a juicy Friam thread to be milked into senselessness). Occupy almost lost me when they took up the cry of "we are the 99%", because my cynical-analytical brain immediately asked "99% of whom?" and by rule of thumb suspected that 99% of those Occupying are actually part of the 1% when placed against the world population. Fortunately, I also was feeling expansive and generous and believe that most of the self-described "99%" out in the streets would acknowledge this fairly easily and if "we" ever took back more of the control of our economy and political system, might even remember that they were no longer "us" and had become "them" (again) to the larger world system... and maybe take whatever appropriate action the 1% *should*. It is precisely this kind of humbling that I believe is required for real change to occur. I also flashed quickly to "why 99% ?" This seemed like a pretty arbitrary number. Why not 99.9% or 98% or 90% even? Well... of course it is a nice, round catchy number in our decimal number system, in the per-cent system even moreso. It also brings attention to the power-law and self-similar systems and structures many of us here are fond of studying (considering?). If tomorrow the 99% dug a big hole and buried the 1% in it (I'm not advocating violence mind you, just offering a strong image to make a point), would we not truly just have a new 1% and a new 99% with the same (or similar) inequalities (after distributing the 1% to the 99% either equally or proportionally). If we changed the slogan to "we are the 80%" it would lose it's punch but probably not it's central point. 20% of our population holds an (even more) inordinate amount of control of assets and political power. I don't think this distribution is accidental and those (Eric?) who study systems which exhibit power-law distributions by day can probably explain it pretty easily. Pamela did a good job with her own folksy "those who have, git". There are reasons that lots of systems demonstrate preferential attachment and and compound interest. So, my inner curmudgeon always wants to ask pointed questions like: "What if power-law distributions are inevitable?" and "What if renormalizing the results of this have about as much effect as trying to fill in an arroyo between rainstorms?". Not to suggest too strong of an analogy with eroding landscapes, but what if the solution to an eroding (eroded?) financial and political landscape is to carefully study the myriad everyday things we do that have undermined the complex ecosystem which formerly maintained a matrix of structure which held the soil in place, and to remediate those things rather than demand that those who own bulldozers come to our back yard and fill in the arroyo system growing there? Or more to the point, for those who live on the delta where the arroyo enters the river (BTW, I live near such a delta) and own dump trucks (and own my own antique dump truck) to fill them and bring the sand and silt back to the ravines forming up-arroyo. Of course, I'm not sure we've ever had a economic, political (or more to the point?) social "Savannah" where all were equal and the many creatures (people of all economic, social, ethnic backgrounds) roamed peacefully with plenty to eat and little to fear, fat and lazy in the sun. It seems like a more careful consideration of just what we propose this "Savannah" might look like in the future (if not in the literal, real past) would be worthwhile. My inner cynic may be showing through a little, and I really do want to curb him. While I still acutely remember the moment that I realized that most if not all fantastic literature was utopian or dystopian in nature, and then even more acutely when I realized that utopias are always dressed up dystopias (and examining cyberpunk, one could easily say dystopias are dressed down utopias). I may be wrong in this (yet another) analogy, but I like to think of Occupy (the larger movement) as being a little like a neighborhood watch group whose response to rising nighttime street crime is to keep lots of bright flashlights in their pockets and floodlights on their homes and respond to sketchy activity simply by shining a bright light on it. It is a little like focusing on the question rather than the answers. *somebody* may call 911, or run out with their baseball bat or shotgun and intervene in the particular activity of the moment, but the simple shining of a light on a problem is amazingly powerful and facilitates the latter. The quote attributed to Nixon (or was it Kissinger?) that "if you don't have a better solution, to keep your criticism to yourself" is generally accepted as just plain wrong headed, but Occupy seems to defy it directly. My own cynical self who generally eschews popular movements finds this one at least tolerable if not actually palatable unto nourishing. I may not be able to find a way to participate directly in "Occupy" but I know I will be sad if they dry up and blow away. The closest I have to offer is a reaffirmation to "Occupy my own life". I have only small hopes, but perhaps the millions who have lost their jobs, or returned from war to none, or remain in school hoping some will emerge, will find something better to do than sit around and wait for someone else to solve their problems... that many will find entrepreneurial activities that are self-generating, that fill small but viable niches untouched by corporate America (or Europe or pan-Arabia)... that many will learn to prepare meals from raw ingredients rather than whine about the cost of McDonalds or of frozen Microwave meals... that some will plant rooftop or courtyard container gardens instead of whining about the price of produce or lack of taste in the perfect hydroponic grown tomatoes at their favorite upscale grocery... or at least visit the farmers market where their neighbors are doing the same... or turn down their thermostat 5 degrees and wear a sweater... or walk and bicycle when they would otherwise have driven... I say "Occupy our own lives!" which for some means picketing in front of the Round House or on a street corner perhaps, but for the rest, maybe it means "pay attention, what you do matters". - Steve Disagree about politics vs. psychology, though they are deeply intertwined. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
On 1/22/12 9:02 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
There is a feeling I often have these days which I describe as "shocked but not surprised" and I apply that to this situation. It is not unlike what I felt when the Congress nearly unanimously approved the invasion of Iraq. The problem is not (merely) with our (specific) legislators, but rather with the *nature* of our legislators in general. We paradoxically demand that they be well educated (indoctrinated?) in systems like Law and Politics and have strong wills of their own, while also responding to our every whim. We expect them to have strong drives and strong principles, yet we also expect them to throw both of those over to serving us on any given topic. Alternatively we could ask for strong leaders who share our values, but we would first have to have sorted our own values more clearly and not allow clever salesmen (aspiring politicians) to sell us their snake-oil, no matter how much we want the goodies without paying any real price for them. We have all been seduced into various multi-level marketing systems of politics where we are standing AmWay up against Shaklee or MaryKay up against Avon and pretending we believe in their products when really we are just hoping to get rich ourselves. (Pity the fool who first suckered ME into an AmWay pitch!). On the surface, "stopping online piracy" and "protecting IP" sound like *good things*... and from our technorati perspective, one would think that any educated/intelligent person (which describes many though not all of our political leaders) could see the second order consequences, but in fact they are trained not to look beyond the first order effects (or second if the law in question is promoted by their rivals). Few if any laws under consideration are easily questioned on their first-order merits, it is always second or third order implications which make them horrible laws. I suspect our legislators are masters at crafting laws whose real impact are neither in their first nor their second-order effects. Those are too easy to rally support against. And those that fit that profile are probably there to distract us from the ones that really matter, being passed quietly in the shadow of the high profile ones, or as riders on the ones they *can* bully through. Theirs is a war of attrition for us to lose, and we do. It seems that the proponents of the laws craft them with obvious first-order effects that are at least delectable to their own constituents and probably to most of the population but whose second or third order effects are carefully crafted to result in power shifts toward themselves personally, or at least to their political party (i.e. Dem/Pub) or sub-party (e.g. tea-baggers)and/or various partially hidden agendas. All (at least Dem/Pub) are interested in what big business is interested in. I personally don't want to see the individual artists (musicians, actors, writers, directors, maybe even producers) lose their livelihood over online piracy. On the other hand, I really would like the same people NOT to be beholden to large corporations to maintain their viability in the first place. Did Capitol Records make the Beatles or vice-versa? And why would the Beatles form Apple Records themselves? And where did all the money flow? And what of Capitol Media Group (or Apple Records) today? And what of the Stones, Decca and the Universal Media Group? Who cares? Just get offa my cloud! So I (and obviously our legislators) are quick to support actions which protect the interest of the artists even though those interests have already been subordinated to large media conglomerates. Do any of the legislators crafting (or supporting) PIPA/SOPA understand that they are undermining some important things beyond the piracy of intellectual property? Surely many understand it very well and promote it anyway... their interests are apparently somehow furthered by undermining the interests of "we the people", if not also the true creators of the intellectual property they claim to be protecting. Could they admit that? Why would they (except in the smoke-filled back rooms where they and their kind broker these things)? And if they manage to give us what we think we want on the surface, why would we shine a light into those rooms? Occupy seems at least be getting out their flashlights and practicing with them, if not yet cracking open those doors. How do our own representatives stand in this game? I am less interested in whether my representatives align with me on all principles, but rather that they be truly principled in their alignments. The non-partisan self-styling of Occupy seems to support this. The many liberal/progressives who are not afraid to question Obama's actions support this. In a very lame way, the mud-slinging the conservatives are festing with right now supports this. All is not lost... yet. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movement : or Pay Attention, What you do Matters!
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Ed -
I do believe this version of the story as well... and agree on the point you make... tax-incentives are less important (even counter-productive?) compared to increased skill sets in the population. It *does* however, fit into the pattern of preferential attachment and compound interest, or as Pamela said "those who have, git". I'm ambivalent (in the strong sense of the term) about increasing our technical talent pool and drawing the kind of business to NM that is implied. We are already suffering many of the ills of rapid growth (urban sprawl, water, energy, pollution) and in some ways, an increased number of high-payed, highly skilled jobs aggravates the much-demonized disparity of wealth exhibited around centers such as NM state govt, LANL, SNL. The point I was making was re: Incentives. While we may revile big-box stores (specifically WalMart) and question why our state government would throw them bones to come/stay here, we often apply a double standard when it comes to seeking the attention and affections of high tech or media (think Intel, Sony, etc.) Industry. Many of us with high paying jobs (or businesses) are very liberal/progressive by many measures yet still subscribe to our own version of Reagan's trickle-down economics (pay ME and my friends lots of money and we promise to spread it around to the rest of you). LANL is probably the most egregious example where (anecdotally) the largest percentage of millionaires (state, country?) live (fueled by two-PhD incomes, a hoarding mentality, and a modest if not low cost of living) but generally do not spend in the local economy. The Rio Grande valley that provides half the labor force (mostly labour class) for LANL thereby has the easy-money that fuels the highest concentration of Heroin abuse and other related and attendant ills (feast your eyes on the infamous police blotter in the Rio Grande Sun if you will). Santa Fe County is a patchwork of barrios and trailer parks interspersed with multi-million dollar homes, many behind locked gates. My question is *does this really work?*. The closest thing to an answer I have is "maybe" and "barely" or "sort-of". Coming from severely poor areas (Catron County in far west NM and Southern Arizona's Cochise County) where there is little or no significant source of high payed work, I know it is not necessary to have ultra-high paying jobs to survive proudly. In some ways it is risky (class resentments, the crime associated with attractive nuisances of wealth next to poverty). On the other hand, I chose to become skilled/educated and find a place where I could be highly paid for intellectually stimulating work. I am here and feel obligated to help make the best of it not only for myself, but for my myriad neighbors (near and far) who have such a diverse set of backgrounds, opportunities and skills. To engage with them on their ground as well as offer them opportunities to inhabit parts of my own. I intend to continue to work on raising the quantity and quality of workers ready and able to work in the high tech industry and to help bring more of that work into NM where I can... but I think in the balance we also need to pay attention to the natural strengths of this region, of it's historic ability to provide for ourselves through agriculture and other (nominally?) sustainable (minimally extractive?) activities (forest products, light mining and industry, etc.) as well. This is one of the things evolving at the Santa Fe Complex which I applaud. While the main work is to help shape a new economy around high tech work (1099 nation, hollywood project model, etc.) it has also evolved to support less obvious but equally important work such as implied by Community Supported Agriculture and lower-paid Art/Artisanal entrepreneurship (especially at the intersection of Art/Technology/Science). We need to support this by buying (or growing) produce (and perhaps other food items such as meat and cheese) from local producers even if the price is a premium over what factory farms in California, Florida, Texas, and the Midwest can ship to us by the refrigerated boxcar/shipping-container/semi-load (subsidized by low-cost fuel and industrial fertilizer and pesticides and practices). We need to support this by building and furnishing our multi-million dollar homes (or modest mud huts, depending on our circumstance) with the help of local artisans rather than using prefabricated and commercially produced products shipped in (again) from industries halfway across the country (or globe). Even if we have to downscale our personal opulence and convenience to accommodate the real economy represented in the extant local production and skill sets. As our local industries grow in the nourishment of our trickle-down wealth, perhaps those less fortunate than ourselves can afford to shop local as well. Many already do, they apparently understand the web they are part of better than we do. For me NM has been a wonderland, allowing me to pursue high-tech work while heating by wood (and solar) on my own well, growing a garden, with only a few neighbors to negotiate issues like tinfoil hat wearing, gun laws, and what to do about the barking dog. I don't know if this is acutely responsible or irresponsible. If it is a pattern that scales or not. My selfish and optimistic self says yes, but I don't trust that self completely. I hope others are asking (themselves) the same questions... "how does what I do matter to the community I live in?", "what are my biases, and can I renormalize my decisions to account for them?". This is perhaps what I mean when I say "Occupy my own life." I specifically appreciate your good work at UNM and at SF_X to bring what you are talking about to NM and in no way want to devalue that (despite my stated ambivalence). This state (and especially the Norteno region) is typified by it's extreme diversity and I think expanding the diversity of the high-tech field (away from "mere" National Laboratory employment) is a powerful part of that. I know the examples in this discussion have become extremely NM/Norteno-centric, but I hope there are parallels among the many members of this list distributed around the world. I suspect Gary Schlitz in Ecuador and Mohammed El-Beltagy in Egypt and many others are in the middle of similar questions and opportunities for their own extended communities. I also think (hope) that the topic is highly relevant to ever-present complex systems questions, not just the overt political/economic/social embedding it is framed in here. What *of* diversity and complexity as a source of robustness in this context? What of emergence? What we cannot predict or cause directly, perhaps we can nurture into existence? - Steve During a visit to ABQ to dedicate the microcomputer exhibit at the ABQ Museum of Natural History and Science, Paul Allen denied the truth of the often told anecdote of why Microsoft left ABQ. He told the special student question and answer session we put together that at the time when he and Gates were forming Microsoft, they had already left NM and were in CA. There was no reason for them to return to NM since NM lacked the pool of talent they needed. To me that last point is the one that should concern Economic Development. The way the anecdote is often told, the blame is put on the banking/investing community rather than our inability to a sufficiently large pool of technical talent. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Understanding the Occupy Movement : or Pay Attention, What you do Matters!
|
|
I totally agree re Walmart. I was only commenting on the generally accepted version of the Microsoft anecdote.
Two comments on incentives. First, I don't think you can find a reputable economist who would defend incentives as a long term strategy. What they are potentially good for is building an industry and then there should be a sunset provision, which never seems to happen. Second, governments are usually terrible at picking winners and losers, an observation which often overrides even the use of temporary incentives. I'd much rather see the state doing something about its education system and providing infrastructure such as decent broadband that could support many industries. Here's another NM anecdote I was told by someone fairly high up in Intel whom I was sitting next to on a flight to ABQ. When Intel was negotiating building their first fab in NM, one of the local bankers asked where they were getting their chassis. Stories like that led me to believe the Microsoft story until I was at Paul Allen's Q&A. Ed __________ Ed Angel Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab) Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico 1017 Sierra Pinon On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |