• ·         Is there anything about capitalism that’s worth keeping?  What kind of system should we have?
• ·         Should the economy be regulated? Should the government provide for the basic needs of its citizens?
• ·         Does change have to be gradual? Can it be sudden and immediate?
• ·         If we pursue reform, should the first step should be getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood?
• ·         Are radicals and reformists necessarily opposed?

Is there anything about capitalism that’s worth keeping?  What kind of system should we have?

I agree that all the problems you point out with capitalism and our current form of government are inherently wrong and must be addressed at some point during our evolution as a civilization. The government and our capitalist economic system don’t serve the interests of the people, but rather the super-rich and multinational corporations. The government has a monopoly on the use of force, which it uses to perpetuate the corrupt power of these institutions. The result is that the people are disempowered, and wealth, material resources, and power are distributed ever more unevenly. Competition is valued over cooperation. Sociopathic tendencies are rewarded, while compassion comes at a price. The cost of living in this type of “civilization” is human misery of unimaginable breadth and scope. I would be blind if I said these problems should not be of concern to us.

However, I consider myself a reformist, rather than an anarchist or a Marxist or a socialist. There are two reasons for this. The first is that I think there are some good things about capitalism. As brutal a system as it can be when left unregulated, it does encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, which pushes society towards great efficiency, innovation, and technological advancement. It incentivizes us to act on the creative urge which is inherent in the human spirit. This helps us reach our highest potential as human beings. I think we should be wary of throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

The Anti-Capitalist Perspective

Daniel Sullivan (Dallas Texas, USA) This sounds like a good discussion. I’m glad to engage with you. I’m a communist, myself, as many of my posts make clear.

I think that — respectfully — you underestimate the depth of the problem. It comes down to this: The system is not broken. It is working as it was designed to work. From the beginning, and at all points since, our country has been controlled by a relative handful of wealthy people… Merchants, industrialists, and to a lesser extent planters, in the early days. Industrialists next. And in the modern world, increasingly, bankers. And the system is designed — from 1776 on — to preserve their rule.

There is no fixing the system short of getting a new deal… Short of replacing the current system with a system designed to permit the rule of ordinary working people, a system designed to work for working people the way the current system is designed to work for bankers and other capitalists.

Capitalism has many problems. But one particularly ugly and insoluble one is this: Every year, it becomes possible for us to make more and more stuff using less and less labor. This has been going on since the early days of the industrial revolution. But it does not become possible for people to BUY more and more stuff, because wages remain, for the most part, at basically a subsistence level.

The result is that we have overproduction… People can’t pay their rent, can’t buy food or clothing, etc., not because there is not enough stuff, but because there is TOO MUCH stuff, and therefore no work.

The only possible solution is for working people to take control of the country and reorganize the economy for use and not for profit… To give working people the full value of what they produce, rather than the minimum they can live on. And that’s what I call a revolution.

True revolution is not possible in the immediate future. It won’t happen in 2012. But eventually it will happen because until it does, the problem won’t be solved.

The problems the Occupy Movement seeks to address are the fundamental and insoluble problems of capitalism. Most occupiers haven’t recognized that yet. But eventually, they’re going to.

Owen Sanders (Portland, Oregon, USA) How do we achieve that necessary shift?

Daniel Sullivan 

There aren’t any easy answers to that.

We have to use whatever means of struggle are most effective at a given time, and we shouldn’t limit ourselves too much. At one time it may be strikes and demonstrations, at another, it may be the ballot box, or whatever.

The task is to get people to recognize the need for this, to understand what the problem actually is, and to get them organized to make it happen.

And all of that has to be done while the various police agents are running around doing whatever they can to keep us from succeeding. That can range to arrests at a protest, to violence, to sending in infiltrators to confuse and disrupt, to rounding us up as best they can and sending us to Guantanamo — which also won’t happen in 2012, but may come sooner or later.

The only way that has ever really worked is to combine broad, loose organizations like the Occupy Movement with tight, disciplined organizations of people who are very serious about what they are doing. That is basically Vladimir Lenin’s method. In this way, you can mobilize a great number of people, but you can also keep a tight core.

Joe Diaz (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) I do want to read the whole post, but I’m on my way out and didn’t get past reading the thought that capitalism inspires “the entrepreneurial spirit” in people. In which people? People in the suburbs? Anyone else? I know a lot of people in which capitalism has inspired the spirit of self-doubt, despair, self-loathing, absolute fear, fitful resignation, deep spiritual discontent and darkness – the sense that there’s no way out… or worse, only one way out.

Brent Stone (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) I think most of this post is fair. But I’d agree with Joe – Capitalism only promotes creativity in the 1%. It creates misery, poverty, alienation and depression in the rest of us. That’s like….why we occupy.

Kevin W Muniz (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) I also agree with Joe. And your plan would take far too long. Most of us would be dead by the time your plan was completed.

The entrepreneurial spirit and creative spirit is not in every human being. Your wrong. Check with the psychologists. Neither is the competitive spirit inherent in every human being. So what happens to those people? They have committed no crime.

Also if you read your psychological experts , our system breeds sociopaths. Capitalism breeds sociopaths because of the competitive nature of it. No doubt about it.

Decline Finletter Sorry I stopped reading at, “… which pushes society towards great efficiency, innovation, and technological advancement. It incentivizes us to act on the creative urge which is inherent in the human spirit. “
This has been have shown time and again to just not be true. It’s also the same argument anyone supporting the extension of the totally f’ed up trademark/patent/copyright laws makes.

In fact in many ways, capitalism stifles creativity and advancement.

Now I admit I’m all for reforming/patching/fixing at the moment as there is absolutely no way we are ready to totally replace the current system, and frankly any anarchist that thinks otherwise isn’t thinking. But lets not full ourselves about capitalism creating more incentive and creativity than non capitalist systems. It just doesn’t.

David Firestein (Oakland, California, USA) There’s a theory I love that the worst slave owners were the benevolent ones, the ones who fed and clothed and housed their slaves decently, didn’t beat them or rape them, didn’t break up families and even spoke kindly to his slaves.

You may say that certainly you would rather have that master than some psychotic sociopath, and I would agree. However, it is the benevolent master who makes the slave wonder if the system is really so terrible. After all, he is given food and clothing and housing and protection. Who could promise such good treatment if the slave were suddenly emancipated and turned loose?

To reform capitalism is to accept the yoke of its oppression and merely to ask not to be whipped so hard. It is a brutal, racist, destructive system that sets people against each other, themselves, and their planet. Anything less than its complete destruction is unacceptable. 

I accept your fear about the unknown of radical shift or revolution. It is a scary thing to buy into when we cannot offer you a picture of what point B looks like. I remind myself that the concept of democracy didn’t exist until someone had it. Now it seems obvious, but there was a day before that thought existed. That we don’t have the words yet doesn’t mean the seeds haven’t yet been planted. Capitalism is like the cartoon coyote who runs over the edge of the cliff but doesnt fall until he looks down. It will fall. We don’t even need to push it. We are merely the voice yelling to look down.

Finally, I want to confront your idea that entrepreneurism and creativity and progress are linked to capitalism. This is objectively false and part of the blinding propaganda the system uses to stifle dissent. In fact, research shows that money is a very poor motivator. The golden age of Greece happened before capitalism as did the Renaissance. Creativity will continue after capitalism. Frankly, I’d go so far as to argue that capitalism stifles creativity as evidenced by the fact that it has destroyed our ability to imagine anything else.

Mike Colatruglio (Syracuse, New York, USA) I actually think you are being too nice to capitalism. It certainly does provide a certain level of motivation to survive. I would argue it does not drive us to efficiency. we are in fact very inefficient. 40% of food produced gets thrown away. there are more vacant homes than there are homeless. people competing as individuals is not efficient.

as far as innovation and technological advancement, one could argue that it has been the discovery and use of fossil fuels that has led to the prosperity of our nation. further One could argue that our system is actually preventing new technologies to surface because they compete with old ideas or are deemed less profitable. examples of this would be renewable energy sources and cures for illnesses.

Alex Brown (London, United Kingdom) Owen reform of capitalism has been tried before. The reforms never hold, and get rolled back. The captialist system is a cancer, it can never be run for the long term, it is only thinks about profits. It is the most inhumane system man has ever devised.

Phil Simpson Reformism got us here in the first place! The things you want to reform make the reforms impossible. The system is owned by people who do not share our interests. So trying to work within that system will always leave us frustrated.

Laurie Sterling Jensen (San Diego, California, USA) “But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.”
― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and The Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance

We have to free our minds first, and I think the Occupy movement is doing a pretty good job of waking people up. It can’t happen overnight, but I think it can happen

La Mar Williams II (San Diego, California, USA) The chief solution is intermediary steps — crumbling power from within through a series of reforms.

The fundamental problem of capital is: wealth flows upstream. those who perform the most physical labor often take home the least in wages and are economically discouraged from engaging in the sort of work which typically commands a higher wage, often at the cost of a lifetime of debt. further, all wealth generated in the system of capitalism is at the expense of an exploited labor class — every ounce of gold mined, drop of oil drilled, cent of bank fees paid. it’s coercive in the sense that, if one does not maintain an association with an employer, and perform certain tasks for certain amounts of time out of each day, with or without one’s express agreement, one simply does not receive capital and therefore cannot purchase food, housing, clothing… hardly a system of free association.

Anarchist solutions include replacing the vote with concensus as the most basic practice of democracy; decentralization of food and energy production (i.e. – food not lawns, microgeneration), water collection and treatment and communications; proliferation of the instruments of creative expression and useful production (tools and shit); the establishment of safe spaces and free schools; expropriation of housing and workplaces left dormant; the defense of autonomous communities from outside enforcement; outreach into disenfranchised communities.

The Pro-Capitalist Perspective

James Robert Foster II (San Diego, California, USA) I consider myself a libertarian socialist, but I, like you, advocate a progressive shift rather than a radical one. It would certainly be less violent. I am afraid that it may, like Marx theory suggest, come down to a violent revolution eventually, or worse, we’ll end up in a corporatocratic dystopia of Orwellian proportion.

Are you familiar with the economic metanarrative theory of economist Joseph Schumpeter? Marx clearly underestimated the propensity of capitalism to initiate socialist-type controls to mitigate class division and avoid–or at least offset–violent proletariat revolt. Joseph Schumpeter, though a sympathizer with Capitalism, proposes that Marx was essentially right, but that socialism will replace capitalism non-violently and endogenously. In a nutshell, he says that capitalism will generate economic prosperity and create wealth to the point that an academic class grows very large, and attacks capitalist wealth-inequality on moral grounds, pushing society toward socialism. In his theory, as I understand it, society eventually collapses as it’s unable to sustain itself, but I don’t see any reason a syndicalist or communitarian society could not self-sustain, especially with a high level of automation and integration through technology, in the vein of Jacque Fresco.

Elaine Lopez (Dallas, Texas) I love your posts, Owen, but who are the “they” you speak of? Who actually CREATED the problems you pointed to? Each one began by straying from our Constitution and free market system. It’s not the fault of capitalism, but the fault of human weaknesses found in EVERY form of government. BUT, it is ONLY under capitalism, not any other system of government, can true and fair justice be metered out for the wrongs committed in violation of our Constitution. All we have to do is return to it. 

Pov Chatline Owen, I started reading your post. At first I was bracing myself for the usual unrealstic blah blah blah that I usually read on here. The I got to paragraph two. I started saying, “OK, I’m listening”.

First, capitalism is the engine of growth for many reasons including those you cited. I agree that out of control capitalism can be troublesome but true capitalism abides by the laws of the market and those are laws that just can’t be broken by anyone. For instance, if a store like walmart grows to be the most gigantic store in the world, they still can’t do one single thing that is vital for their very own survival and that’s make you shop there. And if you and I and all of us were to just quit, they fold. Just like that! It’s the law of the market. But it must be trusted and that’s where most people go wrong. They feel it must be helped with regulations.

Well, personally I don’t have a real problem with what we could call common sense regulation but the level we’re seeing today is just a problem! I’ll give you a quick example. I want there to be an FAA. And I want the FAA to regulate airplanes. And the reason is I don’t want to see the engine outside my window fall off!!! But there is downright idiotic regulations going on out there. I don’t have to time to go into them but just trust me, they’re there. But unfortunately, capitalism has gotten a bad name. The problem is, it truly is the engine of prosperity!

Alternatives like socialism has been proven over and over to fail, basically for the same reason you articulated in paragraph 2 above, just in reverse. However, the other day a guy said that socialism doesn’t, hasn’t and never will truly exist and I said he was wrong! In fact it dates back to pre-historic times. Socialism exists in the form of families, neighborhoods, co-ops, and even some communities. The biggest problem with socialism is it begins to fail once it grows too large. One key ingredient is you must be able to personally know all of the members. A nation that tries to operate as a socialist system means that most people won’t wan’t to sacrifice for those they don’t even know and many will just take and not give.

Dbudlov Johnson My view as a voluntaryist is, if you want money out of politics, you need to stop giving politicians the power to involve themselves in economics, which means either free markets (right anarchism) or direct democracy (left anarchism) both are in opposition in many ways but also attempt to improve on the current system by allowing free association.

The first thing we should really do is define capitalism, what do you mean by capitalism?

most would say anarcho-capitalism is capitalism…

free market anarchism & voluntaryism potentially allow for capitalism but dont require it… same applies to socialism/communism under voluntaryism

if your question is mostly focused on “how do we get there”

voluntaryists would probably say through avoiding/ignoring the state & finding voluntary solutions

agorists would say through counter economics

anarcho-communists/socialists seem to like revolution ie: people taking to the factories & seizing them? (this is not my area, i may be wrong)

some libertarians seem to focus on reducing the state through political means too, ie: voting for smaller government

i think the main thing is to explain to people that endorsing government is endorsing violence against peaceful people, once people realise government is the problem not the solution, we can start organising freely, though itll take time.

David Robins (Libertarian from Pinellas Park, Florida, USA) Keep the government out of it. Don’t let them provide cheap credit and promote bubbles. If corporations – banks included – want to borrow money, let them borrow it from people that earned it, not from the government with its printing presses, devaluing everyone else’s currency as they roll. Hard to believe you haven’t heard Paul talking about the Fed already?

Also, let them pay real interest rates, not arbitrary ones, based on the market and the number of savers and lenders.

Mike Colatruglio (Syracuse, New York, USA) ….As far as the fastest way to transition into something new or fix what we have, the key lies in not fixing the system, but reeducating the people. capitalism should not have to be regulated at every turn if the citizens are well informed and vigilant shoppers. if people don’t like a bank, take your money out. if you think a food corp is corrupt, shop elsewhere. if you don’t like companies who send jobs overseas, don’t buy from them. at some point we need to look in the mirror and admit many of the problems were caused by us. once people are educated that change is and always has been in their hands change can be swift. educating the people is perhaps going to be a slow process as most people are still soundly asleep.

Sheree Harrell Draper (Wilmington, North Carolina, USA) Some might say reform the corporatism and no more. We are not all Socialists, after all.

David Salerius No one that I am aware of in OS is advocating for ANY time frame. In fact, it is often said among us “This is only the beginning of the beginning.” Meaning, “This could take a LONG time to see any significant positive changes in our government.”

Also, we are seeking a return to government based on the premise that it is one by, of and for the people. Unfortunately this concept has deteriorated in practice such that we need a radical transformation in our governance. That transformation will be from the bottom-up. We can no longer allow ~1% of the population dictate what the rest of us do. I don’t care what we call it, I’ll leave that to historians. One thing I do know, the people are smart enough to come up with a novel, and more equitable system of commerce and/or government on our own without having to rely solely on 19th century concepts to do it (capitalism, socialism, communism, …ism).

Claire Mooney (Syracuse, New York, USA) ‎^The problem is getting the rest of the public to accept this.

Forrest Blocker (San Francisco, California, USA) Thanks Owen, I agree with you.

Another way to think about it is big capitalism and small capitalism. I think we all agree that big capitalism where monopolies flourish (read steal) at the expense of the workers and tax payers is not working. But everywhere in the mix of practical (historically demonstrated) communism, socialism, democracy, and a representative republic, some form of capitalism takes place. The task at hand is to move the power back to the workers and tax payers so that we can control the flow of capital, goods, work, etc. The idea of getting rid of capitalism altogether is not really an immediate option and quite possibly not an option at all. Small business, particularly local business where supply and demand are tied to the needs of the community are beneficial to all.

Vickie Steen (Liberal) I agree with what you have said. The reforms should include capitalism as
well as socialism with a balance. I think many people have a misconception
of what socialism involves. We already, as a nation, use these concepts
through our publicly funded schools, roads, firefighters, police, etc. and
all these areas need reform to work the way they should. The first step
does need to be putting a halt to the money flowing from corporations, etc.

Paulo Castro (Conservative from Hanford, California, USA) If the occupy movement wants to go mainstream and away from the communism/marxism/socialism shadows, it needs a better understanding of the differences between capitalism and crony capitalism. Capitalism and the free market do not include bailouts, government favoritism, a rigged tax system or boom-bust cycles caused by central banks. Also, American capitalism is responsible for every American being a 1%’er at a global level.

Therese Robinson I still have to look at the ‘occupy vision’ you posted, so I don’t know how much of that I agree with and I personally don’t see corporations as much different from unions at this point in time but I appreciate the overall idea of your post and the thought you seemed to put into it.

I agree with your view that capitalism promotes creative potential, and believe both capitalism and socialism (Marxism, etc) hold the same exploitive potential of greed. David brings up a very good point, without the active participation of the people in their own freedom and wellbeing it is all for nothing. The people need to be interested in their own knowledge and critical thought and to understand the responsibility that comes with true freedom. Then they need to realize the heights they can reach as individuals and the depths they can fall to should they choose to grasp the reins of this freedom/responsibility and hopefully, hopefully have the faith in themselves and their fellow man to do so.

I’m not convinced that you can ‘create’ a great society through legislation but would I think be most successful in this goal by creating a safe environment with as few rules/requirements as possible in which man can find his way and help his neighbor to be the best possible self he can. We can’t depend on legislation to make us good people (otherwise murder would never occur) but if we can each find it in ourselves to start with the most basic rules of nature and human decency and attempt to work together with respect for the views of others we are far more likely to become the people we think we all should be. But as with Guys explanation of revolution, this effort can only be maintained by the individuals continuing interest in personally doing what they consider to be right not by a willingness of the people to be ‘herded’ in whatever direction is most ‘popular’ or aggressive at the time.

Benjamin Trussell  (Manhattan, New York, USA) So less oversight and regulation of the markets??

Therese Robinson most regulation is more likely to keep the ‘little guy’ out of the game then to keep the ‘big guy’ from figuring out a new way around them. We’d probably be better served to just attempt to point out when someone is doing wrong and allow the people to refuse to do business with them than to squelch their potential competition through over regulation.

Owen Sanders ‎Therese Robinson, I’m not talking about business crippling regulations here…I’m talking about commonsense checks against corporate greed. Let’s just outlaw all the stuff corporations do that’s evil. We could legislate that corporations must act ethically or face dissolution.

XForrestx Dranseen (Anarchist from Fairbanks Alaska, USA) If indeed I am an anarchist, it’s only as a means to an end. I agree 100% with your points about capitalism. I consider myself a capitalist, and I do not believe we are operating under true capitalism at this point. It’s some sort of cronyism/corporatocracy/plutocracy bullshit, and that’s what needs to be torn down, not capitalism.

If indeed I am an anarchist it is because I see the only way to fix the system is to demand that it change from the outside, so that we may begin again to have a functioning inside. I will be happy to play the game, but only when the rules are fair. Until then, I see no point in continuing to throw away my vote on a bipartisan clown show.

Brian Leissner (Dallas, Texas, USA) Crony capitalism is the problem, capitalism by itself is fine.

DalAnon Mous (Dallas, Texas, USA) Capitalism is a system just like any others, and is only as good as the people within it. I’m not married to any particular system and am confident enough in myself that I feel I can thrive regardless. However, the capitalism I support isn’t the old, busted laisses-faire of the 19th century or the mixture of interventionism/isolationism that was abundant in the first decades of the 20th century. Modern capitalistic economies recognize the benefits of regulatory powers to reign in monopolistic over-reach, and require accountability to the people within the system to flourish.

Ever wonder why capitalism seems like such a miserable failure to so many people these days? It’s for the same reason communism failed in the USSR– over time came a lack of accountability to people and an overbearing control of the system by smaller and smaller oligarchical groups. Any system has those weaknesses, so I’m not really disagreeing when they’re pointed out against capitalism since they’re pretty universal. But economically speaking? Yes, I prefer a free and fair marketplace where the bigger one gets doesn’t equate to more representation in politics.

Mike Brill (Phoenix Arizona, USA) You can’t go blaming corporate America or anybody else for the way our government works, the system is simply a representation of those that it governs, because those of you who choose to be governed by these laws do do by choice. The first step to changing the current system is uniting as a whole, as Americans and refusing to participate with the current system in place. If nobody participated the system would collapse on itself and ultimately it would be left to the people to implement a new system in which they feel represents them best. However, there is still currently more people that choose to be governed by this system then there is that want to change it. Hence where we stand now as a nation. So in all reality what we must do, if we do intact want change is educate everybody in your life’s path on what is happening around them, and they will choose to accept the truth for what it is or deny it. Until more choose to take the metaphoric Red Pill over be blue one, nothing will ever change. So in retrospect people need to stop trying to change the world and change themselves from within and lead by example.

Owen Sanders ‎(Portland Oregon, USA) Mike Brill, I see what you’re saying that if we all just stopped participating in the system, it would crumble. However, as you point out most people aren’t too keen to do that for whatever reason. My point is that people are very entrenched in their unwillingness to stop participating in the system, and I don’t think we can realistically expect to get the huge mass of people on our side to do this effectively. So I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think it can be done, at least not in our lifetime. Which means we have to find an alternative route to changing things, no?

Mike Brill Agreed.

Should the economy be regulated? Should the government provide for the basic needs of its citizens?

Lloyd Ritchey I think Owen Sanders’ heart is in the right place, but he has no idea how interrelated the issue of corporate malfeasance is with big government.

Owen, my boy, all those regulations and bills you want made law would be written by the lobbyists of the corporations–just as they are today.

The core of the problem isn’t corporate malfeasance–that is just a symptom. The core problem is a government big enough, and involved enough to affect changes in the market. Corporations simply respond in their own best interests according to the stimuli provided them by government.

Get government out of economic matters, and you’ll see none of these problems.

If a government has no legislative power to grant special favors (regulations, tax breaks, subsidies, etc.) then they won’t have any means or incentive to corrupt the system to their benefit.

Benjamin Trussell Regulations are not favors. Cutting regulations are massive favors.

Danielle Brewer Regulations strangle the free market, we need less regulations, less government. If your cut the hand that feeds these corporations, then they cannot take bailouts or vote with their pocket.

Lloyd Ritchey Regulations most certainly are favors–to big businesses. They are a constraint on competition because small businesses cannot fiscally absorb the impact of new regulations. Big corporations can–and do. It is in this manner that regulations are de facto economic protectionism.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/09/entrepreneurs-under-attack

So here’s where we’re going to butt heads, Benjamin Trussell: you’re a Keynesian.

Danielle Brewer (Libertarian) Government is the problem, not corporations. The people running these corporations are doing the same thing the entitlement junkies are doing, the same thing all the people at the OWS holding signs that say “Pay my student loans” or “pay off my mortgage“…..they are looking for a handout and taking advantage of free money. Stop the government corruption, and you stop the corruption from the corporations. Wall Street is not the policy makers, they are not voted into their jobs by their constituents, they are not the one selling lies for votes. You need to move the focus of your movement to the source of the problem, which is government.

BTW – Greed is a good thing, it motivates people to achieve, it delivers money to shareholders, to business owners, to employees, I hope that greed will payoff for me when I retire.

Wall Street may influence the policy makers, but it’s our government that allows this influence. Wall Street is not a civil servant, they can sell lies, they are not voted into office and sworn to follow our constitution and protect our rights.

We have every right to boycott the products from these corps…..I love when i see the OWS protestors with their iPhones and MP3 players drinking Pepsi and eating McDonalds……they are fueling the corporations they are protesting. If they want to hurt these greedy corporations, they should start with boycotting.

Benjamin Trussell I (and our firm) work with a lot of the firms people seem to not like; goldman sachs, morgan stanley, jp morgan, and BOA and a lot of the people I’ve talked to say they action were unethical at best. However, government regulation is really the only avenue that would be effective.

Jim Triche We don’t want the regulations that the corps write for themselves. They can afford to fulfill and meet them. The startups can’t, which is how they’re designed. Remove all the regs, since 95% of them protect those very companies you listed.

Danielle Brewer We need less regulations, less government involvement. Our taxdollars should not be used to bail out anyone, corporations or people, this is not part of our governments function. They need to protect our rights and follow our constitution, which does not include bribes, payoffs, bail outs, none of this corrupt bullshit.

Benjamin Trussell It’s not as much bribes or payoffs, but funding for campaigns. Well some forms of “payoffs.”

Like I said people don’t want more government regulations, but that would be the only real thing government could do.

DalAnon Mous (Dallas, Texas, USA) One thing that regularly makes me laugh about the RONPAULRONPAUL crowd, who love quoting Smith or Hayek as examples of what a “true” free market should be (which is like a No True Scotsman fallacy, since there are many), is that both Hayek and Smith advocated for government handling of the basic needs (often cited as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) for the general labor force. Food, housing, and healthcare would be not only acceptable but optimal in their view, since it allows for the greatest amount of time to be put into allowing creativity and production to flourish in the marketplace. All in all, very libertarian socialist, don’t you think?

Of course, since Ron Paul doesn’t actually READ those guys and seems to take all of his ideas from Friedman and the Great Hack Ayn Rand, it doesn’t matter what the historically relevant economists actually wrote.

Elsa A. Porter (Portland, Oregon, USA) Thanks, Owen.  Good discussion!  I have a question about many people’s use of the word “regulation.” It seems to have acquired a hellish reputation–a generalization that equates with evil. I grant that some government regulations can go too far, but basically they are the way we collectively protect ourselves from evil and injustice.  When regulations against banking mergers were removed, Wall Street moved to exploit the creative opportunities that presented.  I am grateful for the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations that manage to keep the most dangerous snake oil hawkers at bay (although I wish they had not allowed them to hawk their wares on TV.)  Why has “regulation” become such a bogeyman?  Do anarchists really believe that a healthy, civil society can exist without a few?  Who then administers them?

Does change have to be gradual? Can it be sudden and immediate?

My sense is that many of you advocate for a swift and sudden shift from the current system to a new one. Am I correct in that impression? My concern with this approach is that so far I have seen no compelling evidence that such an immediate shift is possible. So my challenge to you is, please convince me that we can go straight from point A to point B without intermediary steps. Show me the basics of a plan, and if you successfully convince me it’s viable, I’ll gladly follow it and spread it as far and wide as I can.

Thomas Burke (Syracuse, New York, USA) This has always been an ongoing battle even before occupy. As I have stated before. we need to put one million plus right in DC unannounced. Me personally would love to see every one there armed to the hilt. yes I know wishful thinking but still consider that a last alternative. However as for a time frame it need not wait and should be swift. but as others have said the movements numbers are not large enough. There are a lot of things brewing worldwide and as I see it, the whole thing just may collapse I hope not but it sure appears to be headed in that direction.

Mike Brill (Phoenix Arizona, USA) I agree with the step process.

Steve Weston (Columbia, South Carolina, USA) I totally agree, there can be no sustainable sudden shift or change. Weather we are talking about the economy, politics, or regulations. They all need change, they all need incremental change.

Adam F. Smith (Portland, Oregon, USA) I believe in nonviolence. Nonviolent tactics cause change that is gradual.

Jonathan Cobb (Portland Oregon, USA) As for the “sudden shift” you mention, I can’t speak for the other radicals, but I personally prefer a dual power strategy, which is neither reformist nor is it the “sudden shift” that you mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power

Däv Oh (Portland Oregon, USA) I think we can all agree that you can’t just flip a switch and expect a post-capitalist society, as well. In fact, many of the ideological differences between many anarchists, syndicalists, marxists, etc lay in our frameworks for precisely how to transition into such a future. The dual power method posted by Jonathan above (Originated by Lenin and since adopted by many anarchists) is just one methodological approach. There are many others… I’ve spent about 16 years studying them and it is beyond the scope of a facebook post to detail them here… but, this is an ongoing debate within anti-capitalist circles, trust me.

If we pursue reform, should the first step should be getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood?

I agree with the majority of people on occupyvision.com that the first intermediary step should be getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood. Before we can create an ideal society, we must tame the hungry wolf on our doorstep, the corporatocracy, which is the single greatest threat to the common good of the modern age.

The problem is that through the insidious influence of lobbyists and campaign contributions, the corporations have seized control of our government in a covert coup d’état. The only way to get corporate influence out of government and make the politicians listen to the people again is to ban corporate money from politics, and to replace it with public financing of elections. Once we do that, we will steadily regain control of government, and we can make laws that strictly regulate the corporatocracy and outlaw its evil practices.

After we’ve won the battle against the corporatocracy and reclaimed our power in government, we can use our power in government to dismantle the current system and replace it with something new and better. 

Mike Brill (Phoenix Arizona, USA) My question is do you think that banning corporate money in elections will really stop corruption? Criminals even of that caliber will always do their best, and find ways to exploit people to get what they want. After all mood altering drugs are illegal without prescription and most just flat out illegal, the whole point of that was to prevent people from doing drugs. Yet after all these laws being out in place, millions being shelled out in drug abuse education across the country over a 20 year period, we are at an all time high in opiate and methamphetamine addiction. So my question to you on your plan even though in theory is completely logical, is do you really believe that banning the corporations the ability to exert influence legally through different lecals of government through campaign contributions and what not is really going to solve the problem?

Owen Sanders (Portland Oregon, USA) Mike Brill, thank you for the thoughtful comments. I think that banning corporate money in politics will eventually get rid of corruption in government, and public financing of elections will make politicians accountable to the people again. 

Joost van Steenis (Amsterdam, Netherlands) It is an utopian discussion, there are ideas about another kind of society but the road to that society is neglected. This road is important because during the struggle people can learn new things. Here small steps are mentioned. “getting money out of politics. But how you do that – yes by law but how the people in politics who get money are going to vote that they will not receive any money anymore is left in the darkness.

This money comes (and with reason) from somewhere and that is not discussed. The 1% has the money (and the power) to buy all politicians. But I do not know why people are concentrated on politics, that is a secondary force. When you want change you have to start with the center of power, the 1%. But Occupy seems to forget that we are the 99% and there is a 1% that is distinct. That is our target, the greedy rich, nothing more.

Angela Sparks (Portland, Oregon, USA) I think you are right on the money, Owen. I agree with your first steps, but I have to agree that those who benefit from the current arrangement have the power to retain it. We have to ask why they need us? Why is the coup d’etat covert? Maybe the power can be dismantled by exposing it completely. Tough, when they own the media, but WikiLeaks has begun it.

David Robins (Conservative Libertarian from Pinellas Park Florida, USA) Nope. That’s utterly ass-backwards. So long as politicians have power, they will be corrupt; so long as they are corrupt, they will be for sale; and so long as they are for sale, there will be money in politics.

The first fix must be to reduce the power of the state. Your idea is to drain the pool by moving water from the deep end to the shallow end. It won’t work….

Following [the Constitution] would be a good start. Pretty much all of Paul’s ideas are good gradualist steps.

Derek Wittorff (Brentwood, California, USA) Honestly, Owen Sanders, you have a good idea going on, you just have to realize that the statocracy works for the corporatocracy. You cannot overthrow the corporations using the state, because the latter works for the former and you will lose political momentum as soon as you do your own breath. My suggestion is that you work to free yourself, your friends, and your family before you worry about anything else.

Brian Smith (Illinois, USA) I’d also like to add is to not only stop corporate money…but corporate people as well. ex: Boeing and other big corporations have employees who work in our legislative offices three months out of the year! We can’t have people working high salary wages in corporations, working in the office as well. Too influenced by their employer….

to finalize what I think we should do…we need to be educated. reroute the schooling system so that we aren’t going through school to join the capital powerhouse powerline, and end the idea of education being a 12-16 yr thing into a life long pursuit. people won’t be stressed, and will be more educated to make better decisions. one being, not easily influenced by political guarantees every four years for tax decreases.

Adam F. Smith (Portland, Oregon, USA) Owen Sanders: “…the first intermediary step should be getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood…”

…and the repeal of the Leach-Bliley Act, the bank deregulation law that allowed banks to play with depositors assets on Wall Street that caused the whole economic collapse in the first place. It’s still on the books.

Kathy Bruce Owen, well stated and I agree completely!!!!

Guy L W Hardy (Redding California, USA) Well put, Mssr Sanders…

Debra Leslie (Dallas, Texas, USA) when lobbyist & special interests groups are banned from the running our country of course…why would we ligitamize this farce of a government until or unless it is in the hands of the people? all else is futile…fraudulent election are the norm so any effort in this current condition is insanity….repeating the same action expecting different results….remember voting for “change”….need I say more?

Linda Reedijk (Portland, Oregon, USA) well said. there need to be intermediate steps and getting corporate money out of government and politics is a great place to start.

Pahl Scharping (Seal Rock, Oregon, USA) Friend Owen, what has actually worked (if somewhat slowly at times) is making our country back into a Democratic-republic. We’ve become an OLIGARCHY (this is the old term for what you call a ‘corpratocracy’ and serves). I do agree with a plan to instigate public funding of federal elections (it should be an important enough cause to justify use of TAXes) but that will take a while. I suggest we focus on electing a ‘super majority’ that can move a Progressive agenda through Congress and I still have enough trust in the President that with this authority, he WILL join these efforts.

I want to emphasize that NO GOVERNMENT, or RADICAL altering of our system of popular elections, is doomed to failure. Even THIRD PARTIES just dilute efforts to achieve worthy goals (Nader got us BUSH, not Nader OR Gore). Let’s not commit the same old mistakes and get the same old results. FOCUS on holding the White House – gaining a Super Majority – remove corporate ‘personhood’ and reclaim our Democratic – Republic. It’s a start, and I believe DOable!

Julie RobinHood Rambo (Syracuse, New York, USA) Great idea! There are some people who just like to complain…gives them a place to go but first they must envision the solution as well!

Carlos Rodriguez del Moral (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain)That is what I’m advocating too… It’s neccesary to propose a solution; solution for an intermediate system or for a new system, but proposal is neccesary. A good idea is to open a project like a forum where the people can propose their ideas or schemes. People could build the solution like hackers did with linux, this time with a system for the people.

Tony Desler (Dallas, Texas, USA) I agree with you whole heartedly on the first two steps…getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood. I support Occupy, but I’m also still a firm believer of working within the system. Utopian dreams are just that.

Mike Danelia (Detroit Michigan, USA) Very well-written, Owen, agreed on all points! as someone who is politically-minded, I get approached by people constantly who want to know why there’s a point to talking about politics, because they believe “there’s nothing we can do”, and it’s always been my theory that the reason they believe so is because they too believe in the “point A to point B” concept, which is absolutely impossible in my mind. Presenting a next step to everyone around us is a much more effective way to help them believe in change, rather than just stating our end game and going off hopes and dreams that we’ll just somehow end up there.

Pahl Scharping (Progressive Democrat from Seal Rock Oregon, USA) Friend Owen, what has actually worked (if somewhat slowly at times) is making our country back into a Democratic-Republic. We’ve become an OLIGARCHY (this is the old term for what you call a ‘corporatocracy’ and serves).

I do agree with a plan to instigate public funding of federal elections (it should be an important enough cause to justify use of TAXes) but that will take a while.

I suggest we focus on electing a ‘super majority’ that can move a Progressive agenda through Congress and I still have enough trust in the President that with this authority, he WILL join these efforts.

I want to emphasize that NO GOVERNMENT, or RADICAL altering of our system of popular elections, is doomed to failure. Even THIRD PARTIES just dilute efforts to achieve worthy goals (Nader got us BUSH, not Nader OR Gore). Let’s not commit the same old mistakes and get the same old results. FOCUS on holding the White House – gaining a Super Majority – remove corporate ‘personhood’ and reclaim our Democratic – Republic. It’s a start, and I believe DOable!

Rita Bowles (Washougal, Washington, USA) Owen, you are wise beyond your years. Of course we must take it one step at a time, and of course the first step must be getting the money out and deleting ‘corporate personhood’ from life. It is usually easier, and far less bloodthirsty, to work through the system. We need to find enough people who are 100% behind this to run for election, and we the movement must collectively support them.

Bill Neiche It seems to me that we have to buy back our politicians first. If we no longer have representation then we can’t affect any other changes.

                Michael Gita Shramek (Portland, Oregon, USA) The whole system is bought out.

Bill Neiche Exactly. We need to put the control back where it belongs. With the voters.

Dottie Wise (Hiram, Georgia, USA) I think you are absolutely correct. I have been hearing of many good plans that could work….even together. But we have to be free to put them into practice. Citizens of the world can coexist with each other, locally and globally. It is the corrupt governments and those who want total control at any expense that conspire against the rest of humanity. They must be removed from their positions.

Bees Hive When is Occupy going to produce write in candidates in state primary elections for Congress?

Black Light (Anarchist from Oakland, California, USA) We live in a Capitalist Country that has let corporations become more important than the people. The Personification of corporations should have been attacked by not only the left but by churches and humanitarians. Banks do not have souls. They should not own homes people should.

John O’Hara (Wilmington, North Carolina, USA) While I agree with the content of this note in the broadest sense, I feel like I should clarify Marx’s relationship to capitalism. Marx never claimed that capitalism is unmitigated evil, doing only harm. As far as Marx is concerned, capitalism was the greatest thing to ever happen to humanity–it swept away the tyranny of monarchs and aristocrats, the superstition of Medieval religion, the subjugation of women; the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-19th centuries ushered in a mode of production that brought more prosperity to more people than any preceeding mode of production. Capitalism creates the wealth that makes social democracy possible.

But–and here’s the but–it eventually brushes up against its own limits. And when that happens, all bets are off. Social services are scaled back, the tax burden shifts to the middle class, and the wealth that survives a crisis accumulates at the top. We’ve been experiencing this problem for the last 35 years. This is not a problem of greed or of bad people, but a problem of capitalism.

So, to mischievously evoke the spectre of Lenin, “Chto dyelat?” (“What is to be done?”) Communism, a centrally-planned and enacted solution to capitalism, was a complete disaster. High-profile communists of the 21st century such as Badiou and Zizek will be the first to tell you that. And capitalism, as an economic and social system, is too entrenched and too decentralized to eliminate in a single stroke. What you propose is in line with what many anarchists, Marxists, socialists, radicals, and generally leftish people are proposing. Capitalism can take us to the brink of liberation, but can’t take us–all of us, humanity–over the horizon of emancipation.

I’m as wary of anyone who claims to have a plan or blueprint for revolution as I am of anyone who asks for one. It’s a question that seems to miss the point. For a start, however, we can look at the way capitalism replaced feudalism and republics replaced monarchies. There was no one in charge, no revolutionary party, no plan. What happened was a 300-year march of reform punctuated by (often violent) upheavals, including failures and setbacks, from Magna Carta to the French Revolution. That is what I think the transition from capitalism to whatever will come next will look like.

Brian Setzler (Portland Oregon, USA) Owen, thank you for your thoughtful response and position. I am one who believes that nothing short of a paradigm shift will solve the many, massive, interlocking problems. AND, I also agree that regardless of what comes next, getting money out of politics will make sense regardless. 

This is also a concrete action we can get done NOW, within the next 12 months if we are creative and determined. This is an issue that cuts across the left and right and can be accomplished quickly. 

Getting money out of politics shouldn’t cause any of us “radicals” a problem.

Elizabeth Hennig (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) Though I disagree with you on the merits of capitalism, I do believe that the hope of creating the new society overnight in one fell swoop is unrealistic. I think campaign finance reform is a good place to start.

Claire Mooney (Syracuse, New York, USA) I have met very few people who advocate for a swift and sudden shift–it is well-known that such a move is pretty much impossible to do while retaining strength or security in a country. However, what most occupiers (in my experience) are sure of is that we want an irrevocable *paradigm* shift related to the values you wrote of in your first paragraph–and we hope that by spreading our message we can get a such a paradigm shift in politics/the economy.

Plans, well, I agree that we need one, but that’s why I’m strongly advocating for an anti-corporate personhood amendment, because that’s a big step but it should be the first one. I wouldn’t necessarily say I fit strictly in any of the categories you listed above, but i’ll give you my 2 cents as part of the population to whom your message was presumably addressed.

Paulo Castro (Conservative from Hanford, California, USA) As a conservative there are a few points I actually agree with you here. We drastically need to get all non-human influence (money) out of politics, unions included.

Scott Prichard  (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) Well, I agree with Owen Sanders insofar as he is advocates first getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood. There is no doubt that this goal has a broad consensus across the political spectrum. Before OWS does anything else, these goals should be accomplished. 

Radley Eric Glasser (Red Hook, New York, USA) As somebody who believes in the practical necessity of perusing reform based legal and political tactics along side (rather than instead of) “radical” direct action, I was disturbed by your implication that we must for some reason choose between these strategies. Even in a world where there is a clear distinction between what actions are taking place ‘in the system’ or ‘outside of the system’, direct popular pressure is always going to compliment an agenda of legal reform because it is the only tool the people have against corporate influence. 

However, I don’t actually think that there is any clear distinction between being a radical and a reformist. In the political non-speak which your post is written you can draw theoretical distinctions, but these disintegrate if you try to be even a little specific. For example, you argue that the first goal should be to remove money from politics. And as a reformist, you think this should be accomplished ‘within the system’. What does that mean? I assume waging election campaigns to get the ‘right’ people in office? Writing our senators? Given the state of campaign finance I cant imagine this is the entirety of your plan. A plan which you don’t outline but ask people if they agree with. No matter who is in office, the donations from PACs and corporations are going to keep rolling in. In the face of that, you feel that we need to make sure politicians remain accountable to the people. If elections being unfair is the main issue, how do we accomplish that? Is protesting working in the system or is it radical? When our protests are shut down is perusing civil disobedience reformist or radical? Is occupying public space reformist, but occupying corporate space radical? Is a demonstration reformist until the police start arresting people, at which point it becomes radical? You acknowledge that corporations own the elections and the airwaves. What is left to us that is not radical?

You say that we can’t have a brand new system over night and then go on to argue that getting money out of politics is a good first step. You do this as if getting money out of politics would not itself constitute a new system. Fair elections, publicly funded elections, restrictions on independent expenditures, bans on gifts to politicians, bans on taking privet sector jobs in a sector you oversaw as a regulator – these are not tiny little ‘reformist’ goals. It’s true that there are many people who want to go further and establish a more democratic system in various other ways, but you can’t have honestly convinced yourself that “radicals” are for some reason opposed to these goals. The only difference between a ‘reformist’ and a ‘radical’ who share the same goals is that the former has tricked themselves into thinking that if they can only appear reasonable enough, rational enough, willing enough to play ball, willing enough to compromise – that the people in power will suddenly decide to listen. That is not the case. That has never been the case. Major reforms have only ever been accomplished because they were pushed for during a time of massive public action. Reformists have never been successful at the bargaining table without activists and radicals in the streets.

Courtney Savoy (Sunnyvale, California, USA) I agree, step at a time. Get money out of politics and see where it leads.

Chrystal Coleman (San Diego, California, USA) I agree that steps are important. Without a violent uprising there is no possibility of a complete change of our system immediately. And I think we can all (mostly) agree that violence is not our MO. #1 get money out of politics. After that the next step will reveal itself. But the big boys are not going to go down without a fight, thats for sure. We have our work cut out for us. IMO we need to pull out every “weapon” in our arsenal: legal, moral, ethical, social, political etc etc and “attack” from every possible angle, simultaneously and in conjunction with one another. Every person has their strengths and we should capitalize ( for lack of a better word) on all of them.

Laurie Sterling Jensen(San Diego, California, USA) ‎Chrystal Coleman said “get money out of politics. After that the next step will reveal itself”. My thoughts EXACTLY.

Benjamin Trussell (Manhattan, New York, USA) To change corporate “personhood” an amendment to the constitution would have to be passed.

There’s a first step.

David Robins (Pinellas Park, Florida, USA) Or, the US Supreme Court could reverse itself.

Owen Sanders(Portland, Oregon, USA) We can also pass local city ordinances outlawing corporate personhood.

Are radicals and reformists necessarily opposed?

Däv Oh (Portland Oregon, USA) As for reforms: Most of us aren’t opposed to reforms. We are not reformist and do not believe that reformism should be center stage, but we’re not opposed to gains where they are made. There are some ideological exceptions… but I haven’t run into too many of the old communist breed who would prefer that things go to shit so as to cultivate a revolutionary consciousness within the masses… at least not here in Portland… not many Focoists here either, so you can probably be sure that the electrical grid will remain running for the foreseeable future.

If you can get money out of politics, go ahead. Most of us will support the reform. We will probably not take up much of our time and effort in pursuing it (As Jonathan said, we have much room in this movement for both approaches) but rather support a wider diversity of tactics so that we can all work closer toward our more general goals of a healthy and sustainable society.

Mike Brill (Anarchist from Phoenix Arizona, USA) I agree with reform.

Lauren A F Hardy Nice post Owen! I won’t presume to speak for the various anarchists, Marxists or other radicals. But I will assert that socialist and reformist are by no means mutually exclusive characterizations.

William Cassidy (San Diego, California, USA) Can we really affect a progressive shift from within the system? Should our goal be to groom it to be over thrown? We can’t sweep it aide without massive fallout. A middle ground must be seen.

Reformists and Radicals. This is an old argument. The solution was thrust upon the other as will be the result in this occurrence unless we can find our common ground and move on from there. We’ve been trying to reform this government since its conception, to clearly no avail. Bottom line is change needs to happen.

It is, I feel semi illogical to destroy everything we have and to expect that no positive action can be taken from within the system. It also seems illogical to believe that the only way to correct the problem is to work within the channels that are preexisting and clearly unsatisfactory.

Owen Sanders(Portland, Oregon, USA) Däv Oh and Matt Folger, what are some points of commonality between you? What are things that you agree on? Do you both like the idea of getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood for instance? Do you both agree that the problem of wealth and wage inequality must be addressed?

Däv Oh (Portland, Oregon, USA) My position: Yes money needs to get out of politics, but in order to do that, we need a significantly altered political system with process based safeguards against corruptibility. Yes, Corporate personhood should end, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The incentives gap between those controlling business and industry and the public at large must be eliminated; The manufacture of scarcity in those areas where it does not exist (intellectual property for instance) must be destroyed and the system of paying off people who lie well enough to convince investors that their company can sustainably outstrip their earning capacity and sell the speculative illusion that permanent growth is possible must come to an end.

Matt Folger (Portland, Oregon, USA) I’d agree with nearly all of Dav Oh’s last few comments, except probably the particulars of the last statement that has a certain Malthusian ring to it….Indeed, let’s work on things that we all agree on. Ending corporate personhood would be nice, for example.