http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Understanding-the-Occupy-Movementf-tp7210588p7212257.html
Thanks for the update, Nick. It was very helpful to me.
> 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.orgMeets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College