Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.” --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967
One. Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person is entitled to dignity and human rights. No application needed. No exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.
(Credit: WagingNonviolence.org)
Two. We must radically reinvent contemporary democracy. Current systems are deeply corrupt and not responsive to the needs of people. Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. Communities must be protected whenever they advocate for self-determination, self-development and human rights. Dissent is essential to democracy; we pledge to help it flourish.
Three. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to human rights. Amend the US Constitution so it is clear corporations do not have constitutional or human rights. We the people must cut them down to size and so democracy can regulate their size, scope and actions.
Four. Leave the rest of the world alone. Cut US military spending by 75 percent and bring all troops outside the US home now. Defense of the US is a human right. Global offense and global police force by US military are not. Eliminate all nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. Stop allowing scare tactics to build up the national security forces at home. Stop the myth that the US is somehow special or exceptional and is entitled to act differently than all other nations. The US must re-join the global family of nations as a respectful partner. USA is one of many nations in the world. We must start acting like it.
Five. Property rights, privilege, and money-making are not as important as human rights. When current property and privilege arrangements are not just they must yield to the demands of human rights. Money-making can only be allowed when human rights are respected. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries, and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.
Six. Defend our earth. Stop pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.
We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail.
Seven. Dramatically expand public spaces and reverse the privatization of public services. Quality public education, health and safety for all must be provided by transparent accountable public systems. Starving the state is a recipe for destroying social and economic human rights for everyone but the rich.
Eight. Pull the criminal legal prison system up and out by its roots and start over. Cease the criminalization of drugs, immigrants, poor people and people of color. We are all entitled to be safe but the current system makes us less so and ruins millions of lives. Start over.
Nine. The US was created based on two original crimes that must be confessed and made right. Reparations are owed to Native Americans because their land was stolen and they were uprooted and slaughtered. Reparations are owed to African Americans because they were kidnapped, enslaved and abused. The US has profited widely from these injustices and must make amends.
Ten. Everyone who wants to work should have the right to work and earn a living wage. Any workers who want to organize and advocate for change in solidarity with others must be absolutely protected from recriminations from their employer and from their government.
Finally, if those in government and those in power do not help the people do what is right, people seeking change must together exercise our human rights and bring about these changes directly. Dr. King and millions of others lived and worked for a radical revolution of values. We will as well. We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail. We expect those for whom the current unjust system works just fine will object and oppose and accuse people seeking dramatic change of being divisive and worse. That is to be expected because that is what happens to all groups which work for serious social change. Despite that, people will continue to go forward with determination and purpose to bring about a radical revolution of values in the USA.
190 Comments so far
Show AllIMO, not one of these is =out-of-the-box=.
Trylon
I wish I knew what the hell you said
=I wish I knew what the hell you said.=
I said divide the Presidency into two conjoined posts: President for the Interior & President for the Exterior. Elect one man and one woman to the Puce House, situated in Nebraska. Elect them to one, six-year term, trading Presidency posts after three years.
After taking their inaugural oath, each President undresses completely, except for padded sox, and does not wear a stitch of clothing for any reason until leaving office when they are handed back the clothing they removed six years ago.
Each President is always accompanied by a cormorant. Of the opposite gender. On a leash. An end is put to Easter Egg hunts and turkey amnesties. Turkeys can earn clemency by alternative service as cooked geese. The new national anthem becomes:It Was A One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater.
That's called thinking outside-the-box. You can tell I've been doing this since kindergarten. And I'm not tired and I'm not going to bed.
Trylon.
What a worthless waste of time. Who said the purpose of this article is to think outside the box? Not the author. This not kindergarten. Go away and find one to play in.
Thinking outside the box, is a classic, paper and pencil puzzle. I'm sure it is on the internet somewhere. See if you can pass the test.
Your comment suggests that you won't. And your survival depends upon enough others around you passing the test, then kindly saving you with them.
Trylon
Have you read Dr Leonard Shlain's work : Sex,Time, And Power ?
I've ordered the book to my public library. But I suspect I disagree with his basic anthropological premises. At birth the human head is one third of the baby. I don't think this was an adaptation to bipedalism and the tilting forward of the female pelvis. As stated elsewhere I give little credence between skull volume in cc and =intelligence=. On average, the Neanderthals had 1500cc brains and Cro-Magnons 1300 cc.
Pelvic tilting DID place the female genitalia out of constant sight of the great ape male, and I suspect this had various affects upon evolution. Shlain could benefit, I suspect, from the digested observations of Jane Goodall.
Trylon
I will await your analysis after you review the book. His earlier work "The Alphabet Versus The Goddess" is something I recommend to you as well.
Are you familiar with the book "The Forest People" by Colin Turnbull? I suspect I would enjoy your analysis of his work as well.
You push a Regret Button. In stead of helping human beings, I should have chosen veterinary medicine in my youth. On hikes across ANY wild terrain I compliment all the flora and fauna. I speak to, and pat trees as if they were family. I'm sure people think I'm nuts. Who cares?
Trylon
I understood your original comment, and your explanation was excellent.
Made my day, mate. All of your comments were spot on. Big-ups.
SIGN ME UP!!!!! I'm 68 and America doesn't in the least look like the America I grew up in!!!
"Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. "
Do this step and the rest will follow
How would this work exactly? I know you're a big advocate of this, but how would this work?
Lots of sites on electronic direct democracy. A good one is ni4d.us.
.
ezflyer (quoting Bill Quigley) wrote:
"Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. "
Do this step and the rest will follow
- - - - -
Excerpt from What is the "National Initiative for Democracy?":
The National Initiative does not change or eliminate Congress, the President, or the judicial system. Laws created by initiative must still stand up in the courts just like laws created by Congress. The National Initiative adds an additional check –– the People –– to our system of checks and balances, while setting up a working partnership between the People and their elected representatives.
URL: http://ni4d.us/national_initiative
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The Democracy Act":
3.PROCEDURES.
The United States Electoral Trust (hereinafter "Electoral Trust") shall qualify initiatives chronologically and shall conduct the entire initiative process chronologically. The Electoral Trust shall take advantage of contemporary technology in implementing these procedures. The essential elements of the initiative process include, but are not limited to, the following:
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The Democracy Act":
1.Citizen Petition.
An initiative shall qualify for election if it is the subject of a petition signed manually or electronically by a number of registered voters, to be specified by the Electoral Trust, within the relevant government jurisdiction. The time period allotted to gather qualifying petition signatures shall be not more than two years, beginning on the date the first signature is collected.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "The Democracy Act":
Signature, Electronic
"Electronic signature" is a generic, technology-neutral term that refers to the result of any of the various methods by which one can "sign" an electronic document. Examples of electronic signatures include: a digitized image of a handwritten signature, a secret code or personal identification number (PIN) (such as are used with ATM cards and credit cards) or a unique biometrics-based identifier, such as a fingerprint or a retinal scan. The Electoral Trust will specify and/or implement electronic signature technology to be used by voters who choose to submit ballots signed electronically.
Signature, Manual
A person's name or equivalent mark written in the person's own handwriting.
URL: http://ni4d.us/act
* * * * *
My Comments:
Please note that the National Initiative for Democracy will neither eliminate nor necessarily even transform representative government. There is no reason to suspect that if we "[d]o this step and the rest will follow."
Also, note that the Act itself states that "The Electoral Trust shall take advantage of contemporary technology in implementing these procedures."
Modern electronic technology like the Internet is not needed to implement a direct democracy system and in fact should only be used for disseminating information about legislation initiatives, advisory referendums, the petitioning process, and voting processes, but not for the actual signing of petition or casting of votes.
Voting by mail using a manual hand written signature is bad enough and should carry a warning that voting by mail eliminates the possibility that a TRANSPARENT guarantee of a secret ballot can be provided by election officials.
The use of electronic signatures for petitions or voting should be prohibited to prevent the possibility of robo-signiing. Robo-signing wouldn't be all that difficult, particularly for someone on the inside.
People should be encouraged to vote at their local voting precinct and insist on a paper ballot as output.
I haven't looked at the entire act yet and might find other provisions in the act that I find objectionable.
* * * * *
My Reply to ezfyler,
ezflyer,
Do you ever actually spend any time thinking about the details of various direct democracy proposals that you have linked here on Common Dreams?
You never seem to say anything specific about any of the proposals you link even when asked or discuss any of the potential problems with direct democracy.
I am in favor of more opportunities for direct democracy including at the federal government level. But, generally speaking your comments are limited to utopian statements suggesting that direct democracy is some kind of panacea.
Reading this stuff is like an LSD acid flash-back. It makes me light-headed and giggly, plus I can't be sure if I'm hallucinating. I remember an old guy telling me in my youth that if we took all the money in the world and distributed evenly, in twenty years it would all be back in the same hands again. Funny, I thought -- but none of this stuff is ever going to happen. It is only fantasy, Commie Dreams.
Yes, of course, if you retrieve stolen loot from thieves and return it to the victims, yet do nothing to stop the ongoing theft, all of the money will eventually be back in the hands of the thieves.
"Commie dreams?" You are hallucinating.
Yes, this is ecactly what happeend in the former Soviet Union. Tradeable assets of the former state enterprises were evenly distributed amongst the Russian, Ukranian, Goergian, Kazakh, etc. citizenry. But then they made the big mistake of adopting unregulated capitalism. In a couple years, all those assets were in a few gangsters hands and they were under the dictatorial rule of the boss gangster Yeltsin.
"Tradeable assets of the former state enterprises were evenly distributed amongst the Russian, Ukranian, Goergian, Kazakh, etc. citizenry. But then they made the big mistake of adopting unregulated capitalism."
That's not the way it happened at all. Shares were never "evenly distributed".
word.
Mr. Quigley,
ALL of the points you state are tied to/stem from one fact.
The United States of America and its Constitution have been sold off to the United States of Global Corporate Domination (which has no allegiance to any nation).
The republicans, libertarians, and democrats are all corporately controlled and the main law of business is "anything goes." Words are meaningless maneuvering for corporate profit.
Are you denouncing all corporate parties in government?
If not, "forget about it."
Robert C is right... w/o a plan, none of this will happen. So let me offer one. Instead of "Occupying" parks, the Occupy people should get a list of Bank Repo houses, apartments and vacant lots (community garden space) and occupy them. Provide the homeless with housing, allow neighborhoods to raise fresh local food. Who's going to stop them, the police? Hah! Just explain to them that you'll leave if they insist, but you'll also be right back the second they're gone. What're they going to do, place a guard there every moment of the day? It would develop its own momentum, as people got USED TO the idea that housing should be used as housing, not a profit-generator for an absentee landlord. Also, it raises the question of who REALLY owns what. By what authority does a failed bank, in existence ONLY because of infusions of tax-payer money, claim priority over those who will USE the property? This isn't Pie-In-The-Sky... it's immediately do-able with your current resources.
Love the squatters movement. But people new to poverty are isolated and blame themselves thanks to their national myths.
Squatters movement was running like a freight train in The Netherlands when I lived there in the late 70s. Their issues were somewhat different from ours, but not entirely (i.e., housing is a RIGHT of citizenship in a so-called civilized nation). The challenge is to educate and organize people new to poverty (as well as those historically embedded), BUST THE MYTHS.
Are you saying the school curriculum is key?
In earlier ages 'squatters' were called 'The Diggers', 'Luddites', 'communists', 'anarchists', 'socialists', 'Nazarenes/Essenes', 'heathens' and 'pagans'.
And the psychopathic mental illness called 'Civilization' treated them all the same way. With contempt and the edge of a sword.
Nothing has changed, except the broadcast of the knowledge that *this time* there are those who WILL fight back, who will defend themselves.
You're certainly not reflecting the thesis of this ten-step program to a "radical revolution of values". Fighting back is the current paradigm - everyone fighting for their piece of the pie. There's no need to fight if we simply take back our dignity, freedom and rights. We've always had the power to do that, but not the vision, courage or will.
Actually all of the things you have mentioned are happening, not only by the Occupy group, but by activists in communities all over the country and has been ongoing for several years now. In my own community, we now have 78 community organic farms and 16 farmers markets where our goods can be sold. Just look up "New Green Deal" for starters, but there are many other names for groups.
Item 10: having work available for everyone, an important, fabulous idea. Of course the idea of everyone receiving a "living wage" will not happen any time soon, but we should certainly begin this process, perhaps with a public/private partnership. I envision temp work agencies such as Manpower partnering with the government to have work available for anyone who wishes. There are always things of value to build, clean, and repair. When I was younger I sometimes worked Manpower jobs. They did not pay much, but they were interesting and one learned a bit here and there, and for the frugal, that little bit of pay can make quite a difference. For artists and various 'searchers' having even a small financial lifeline always available is immensely valuable.
Item 10 is worded differently. Go back and check. It talks about having work available not for everyone as you wrote, but for people who want to work. The implication is that it should be ok if some people don't want to work. Maybe that should be item 11, something like "socialize enough goods and services such that people who cannot work, or do not wish to work, still can enjoy a reasonable life". This would resolve the current problem of not having enough work for everybody. Some will say that it would create the opposite problem, of not finding enough people to do the (little amount) of work that needs to be done. I don't think that will be a problem, because the usual incentives that make many people work today would still do the trick. In other words, many people would want more than a bare-bones existence, and would have the chance to work some hours, and get more out of life, in terms of both money and life experience.
You didn't consider that for many of us - professionals especially, work is not WORK, it is an occupation; something we need to do within ourselves to give our lives meaning; something we engage in to better ourselves and to leave some tangible result of our existence; something that we do as a need to express ourselves, not simply a means to a more lucrative and materialistic life than a bare bones existence. Such people become scientists, philosophers, authors, doctors, artists, musicians, etc for their love of the endeavor, the personal growth it provides, the service to the world and the boredom it relieves, not for the paycheck.
Sativarius, that was an excellent response. I agree completely. If I was offered an opportunity to live on a minimal income for doing nothing, I would still learn a trade and do something to make the world a better place. And my kids would, too. This is a hint of the world I want to see.
Exactly! I want to live in a world where I spend my life doing what I love and to which I excel, not in the present world where my activities are limited by an employer, seeking profit from my time and talent, in trade for surviving another day.
Have you read Murray Bookchin?
Nope, sorry, not familiar. And please don't recommend him. Due to a traumatic brain injury, I no longer have the real attention span to read books. I once read 7 books a week - I had a long train commute, but haven't read a book now in 8 years.
But, I must say, this site is ripe for misinterpretation. Simply declare that giving a living stipend to each of us, for merely existing in the society, as a right, would not lead to most of us sitting around drinking beer all day, since most people would strive for creativity and a way to occupy themselves constructively with their free time, has sure lead to a misundestanding of my meaning, socio-economic beliefs and solidarity with my fellow ditch-diggers of any occupation. And this merely because I used, as examples, present day occupations that ARE engaged in by PROFESSIONALS doing what they personally enjoy, rather than only for the paycheck.
Next time I'll be sure to mention that sewer workers, coal miners and McDonald's burger-flippers are also engaged in occupations they would do were they paid or not for the mere joy of it. And let's not forget prostitutes - I'm sure most of them would be doing 15 strange guys a night even if they had to pay to do it.
Everyone feel better now?
Do you?
Yes! I've been saying this forever and I never see it expressed explicitly anywhere.
My friend and I were just discussing this very issue the other day:
I think that if everyone who wanted to work were employed, then everyone could work less individually. (What's the logic in having one person working a 70 hour week, while another can't find work at all? Why not have them "split" the job and each work 35 hours and each make a decent/livable wage?).
Yes, you might have some people sitting around doing nothing, but who cares, that's what they're probably doing no matter what system they live under. And it is only themselves who will suffer from having an empty, meaningless life. (I think even with these "lazy" people out there, there would still be PLENTY to go around if we changed our lifestyles a bit and valued things other than consumer goods and hoarding money. I don't buy the idea that there's this scarcity.)
It all rests on the MYTH that's constantly drilled into us: That MONEY/material wealth is the only motivator possible for a human being. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We've survived and developed for MUCH longer than we have been in an economic system based on money. Were there doctors before the modern economic system of capitalism? Of course there were! And they did it for the love of the craft, or genuinely from a desire to help people. If suddenly there were less or no incentives for a job like being, say, an engineer, two things would happen: it would expose the parasites who are in the profession only to make money, and it would attract/retain those who are doing it for the good of humanity.
As for the less-than-desirable jobs, like sewer workers etc, I think we would be surprised at what would happen with these and many other occupations if we went to a system like what we're talking about here. There would be a radical restructuring of everything we as humans DO..... i.e. it would be much easier to apply common sense to how we choose to spend our time and energy individually AND collectively. Most of these tasks and jobs that people believe are completely necessary and without them civilization would collapse, I think most of them would be revealed to be unnecessary.... and we would find that these crappy jobs would no longer exist, at least in the way we think of them. This idea of "human progress" and the virtue in always keeping busy-- I just don't get it. Is it a puritan thing? I am much more inclined to agree with Kurt Vonnegut who wrote something like, "You're here on Earth just to fart around, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.'
If we tried something like this, maybe we'd find that all these teams of engineers working on building yet a more perfect vacuum cleaner (haven't we perfected this technology already?) would be better suited to designing a smarter system for waste management-- hey, maybe some garbage robots or something! Or, we might find that we no longer NEED advertising, for example.....
So we would find that probably way more than HALF the things we're doing collectively are pointless, only existing as some byproduct of the capitalist-consumerist BS system. THIS would be the major shocking idea that would throw people for a loop. To question if even one's own occupation is really needed, this is probably emotionally horrifying for many.
I think a lot of what we see in terms of inefficiencies and pointless systems etc is because of this economic gun-to-everyones-head...... Think how honest you'd be at work if "getting fired" wasn't a death sentence, or a ticket to shame and destitution. Think how quickly programs and organizations that don't work would be dismantled......
I think a huge mistake that critics of this kind of "utopian" thinking make is that they simply imagine today's world, with all the same values and jobs and activities etc, and put that world into this potential future-state which would actually be much much different.
YES! And I am saying this constantly! Have you read "The Forest People" by Turnbull? Check it out, immensely liberating. REDUCE THE WORK WEEK! - Also check out Murray Bookchin
Love that Kurt quote. To kick it up a notch; the Creator says to Her newly created children "I give you a new world to play in; a blank canvas. Now go, and paint a beautiful picture we'll all love." Don't hit the Puritans too hard. In the 17th century everything was hard, tedious & time-consuming to do. Believe it or not, they (& others like them) made it POSSIBLE for more than just a few hundred million people to live on the Earth (the Creator probably thanks Her children for accomplishing this). They had to come up with a way to do it, and not just give up. Their Myth served them well, but this isn't the 17th century anymore. Now; to co-ordinate a great variety of Stories: from star trekkiness, to neolithic hunting-gathering, and everything in between, including cooperation with fellow Earth intelligences (the fairy folk & others like that). Life WILL become more interesting in the not-too-distant future.
PostScarcityAna... thanks, I am checking out those leads right now.
lnb- Interesting, I was only venturing a guess that the "constantly busy/idle hands" attitude was a hold-over from puritan times. It sounds like this is true? I'm curious, how did they make it possible for the population to expand as you mentioned?
I think on this specific topic, people have trouble understanding a different way of organizing human activity because of this false idea of a genuine split between "leisure" and "work." My understanding is that this is a relatively recent concept, invented or at least intentionally expanded on by the consumerist powers that be. If you went back 15,000 years and saw someone, say, hunting, or weaving a basket-- and you asked them "Is this work or leisure for you?," they'd probably answer both, or neither, because the question wouldn't make any sense to them. In the present day, we have this concept that you work hard all week, and then you get your leisure time, which by design should be as indulgent and unproductive as possible (if we are to believe what we are propagandized to believe). Or for example, people work all year so they can go on that expensive cruise, and they better get their money's worth because look at all the hard work they've been doing to "deserve" it. It never occurs to anyone that the artificial dichotomy is making each extreme more extreme, more compartmentalized: ever more excessive forms of "leisure" are required to balance out the excessive "work" we are doing.
Obviously, the ideal situation would be if people were doing what they love to do and are naturally inclined to do-- in this case, leisure = work and vice versa, and the distinction isn't so black and white.
PS- lnb, love me some Trek ;)
I agree with what you're saying, but don't confuse "work" with "a job". We don't need to dress up work by terms such as "occupation" or "profession", and we need to stop demeaning work, which is what gives meaning to life. We need to all quit our jobs and get to work making this world a better place.
I'm hip to that.
Cleaning sewers for minimum wage is "work" - it's a drudge and no one does it for a sense of satisfaction and joy. Designing bridges is an "occupation" - it occupies your time and your mind.
Do you think we should dispense with language as a means to convey abstract concepts? You're stuck in semantics, not meaning.
I'm sorry, "work" does not give my life meaning. My life is my own and I give it meaning. You, obviously, are too stuck in the Protestant bullshit propaganda to understand. Work does not make you free.
disativarius: You are stuck in class thinking, and you are arrogantly demeaning humanity. So if YOU must do your occupation, someone MUST clean your shit out of the pipes for you- that is what it sounds like you are saying (semantic) what is your meaning? Does your definition of "A Room Of Ones Own" preclude everyone from having one- only artists and bridge builders deserve them? Imagine the bridges and artistic expression possible when humanity is freed from the bondage of authoritarianism and class structure, or is that "work" to you and you are to "occupied"? And by the way, I have enjoyed the service and opportunity to help meet the needs of the human condition ( meaning: I was satisfied and joyful) doing fouler things than your so called drudge. It is not some bullshit Protestant propaganda to advocate community, and that means sharing. Thanks for sharing what you offered, now I offer this: We must all work together to be free.
I am not. Point to me a manual laborer who would rather clean toilets than, say, engage in a beloved hobby. The difference between she/he and an engineer, say, enjoying the creativity his or her work, is oppurtunity and the structure of society, not their desires.
Alter that society and no one need trade an occupation they love for a paycheck based on work no human would find meaningful.
You are the classed one, who thinks people in drudge work are there because that is what they were born to do, instead of forced to by our dysfucntional social organization.
I want a world where everyone can do what they love and desire, not where some are destined to support other's lifestyles, who then justifiy the exploitation as being someone's "place", insisting they must enjoy it, or they wouldn't be doing it.
Damn, a socialist accused of class thinking and demeaining humanity! What elitist bullshit you are stuck in.
I point to you. Look in the mirror and consider what you are saying. Your original sentiment was juxtaposed with what you are expressing now. It is you who insists in creating division of labor (that is a term used in socialist circles), and not I. How are the headaches? You opened your response with "I am not." Semantics or real meaning: I offered to you that we must all work together to be free- you responded "I am not.". Are we working together?
deleted
Frankly, you both make good points (excellent points, really), but I think PostScarcity might benefit from a clearer read of Sat's comments. I did not read where Sat insisted on anything...
Some people like the tough and dirty but necessary work, see it as a challenge, appreciate that it is essential and makes an unambiguous contribution to the general welfare, and derive great satisfaction from it. I always have, and have worked along side many who feel the same way.
Contributing to others gives my life meaning, and I do not think of my life as "my own." That sort of individualism is highly egocentric and anti-social.