As a freethinking, critical observer of current affairs (with five beautiful grandsons whose future seems very uncertain at the moment), I recently paid a visit to the Occupy sites at St. Pauls Cathedral, Finsbury Square and the Bank of Ideas in order to see for myself the brave, worthwhile and fully justified direct action which is taking place here.
To arrive at my destination, I travelled by coach from Norwich and got off at Stratford where I took the Tube into the City. On my way back home, I had a couple of hours to spare before my scheduled departure, so I decided to explore my surroundings – a massive newly developed shopping mall, providing the backdrop to the Olympic village and through which the thousands arriving to see the events this summer must pass in order to reach their venue – a stunning example of ‘bread and circuses’, if ever there was one!
The contrast, therefore, could not have been clearer between the occupiers who are concerned about a hierarchically organised, economic system, run by an elite few, which is wrecking the planet and creating all sorts of problems on the way and those on its lower rungs who are still ready, willing and able to enjoy its products with, apparently, no thought for tomorrow or the nasty and harmful practices which it spawns.
So, it seems to me, the conundrum is this. How can we encourage the two groups to engage with each other? In my opinion, one way in which this might be achieved is by putting out there in the public arena some thought provoking questions.
For example, given the current general dissatisfaction with the status quo and its in-built domination, obvious unfairness and lack of sustainability, isn’t it time we all started thinking about taking back complete control over our lives and surroundings from the 1% (and their minions) and organising our own affairs for and by ourselves? And, should we decide that this could be a healthy and attractive way forward, i.e. the introduction of ‘Self-Government’ throughout the land, how might we establish a new social framework within which this could be made possible? (Perhaps, via the creation of ‘horizontally linked, regional networks of interconnected, decentralised, self-managed communities’ everywhere?)
And then there is the concept of ‘ownership’. Surely we should be challenging this outdated, dysfunctional and no longer appropriate social convention – because it causes so much damage, insecurity and unhappiness – and replacing it with a new and more functional mental construction such as ‘Stewardship’ combined with ‘Community Registration’? [Very briefly, what this might mean in practice is the recording in a register, located in ‘The Community Centre’, of everything ‘within its catchment area’ over which an individual or group of individuals have been entrusted to take good care, including their own bodies, the bodies of their mates and children, all of the land/buildings where they reside, work and/or play and everything else for which they are the care-takers, responsibility for which would be removed from them, if found wanting? (And, thus, in the case of privately owned property, the laws surrounding conveyancing and inheritance will no longer apply or be required. They will simply evaporate and disappear!)]
And, as for money, how about getting rid of it altogether and establishing ‘a world of free access’? (But, perhaps, we are not yet sufficiently developed and enlightened enough, as a human race, to make this major evolutionary leap? In which case, we might like to consider taking some intermediary steps in the meantime until we become so. Thus, for example, in the pursuit of encouraging increased honesty, we could introduce the principle of transparency into all financial dealings, whereby all bank accounts are made open to inspection by any body, following a six months amnesty in order to ‘sort out any cover-ups’? Or, for the sake of simplification and greater fairness in the affairs of humankind, we could throw out all of our present currencies and replace them with a system of universally applied debits and credits, thereby enabling all people everywhere to enjoy equality of opportunity?)
These are just a few of the radical, concrete and practicable ‘Ideas of Change’ which, as a global movement, we could begin airing – with the aim of starting a debate about the kind of society we would all like to live in, not only for ourselves but also, and more importantly, for those who will be coming after us, i.e. our children’s children and their descendants? (Thus, in my view, we must go beyond just recommending a nicer version of the existing system which, all are agreed, even in an ‘improved form’, has no long term future!)
But, whatever innovative and more mature ways of doing things it might be decided to discuss amongst ourselves and then put forward to the general public for their comments, we should make sure that the overall picture we are painting is of a new and better world. In particular, we should make it clear that the intention of these urgently required adaptations is to create a joyful, stable and united society (in contrast to the present one which is full of fear, insecurity and division.)
And so the hope must be that such a vision will appeal to all people everywhere (including the 1%, their minions, supporters and offspring?) who will then want to help bring this more elevated civilisation into existence. Otherwise, I think there is every danger that, without this radicalism, the Occupy Movement, having had some influence on the introduction of a few reforms to the status quo, could very easily be sidelined and/or absorbed into the current (dis)order.
Hence, it has been encouraging to see, from my visits to the sites in London and now Norwich, that parts of it are already moving in this r/evolutionary direction with, for example, the attempted use of ‘inclusive, horizontal, consensus-based, decision making and participatory democracy’ (as referred to by Luke Shore on page 9 of Issue 9 of The Occupied Times of London) and the holding of ‘a really really free market’ (in Norwich over the weekend of February 3/5.)
But, as can be seen from the content of this article, I feel very strongly that we need to go much, much further than this and, perhaps on the back of these initial questions about governance, ownership and money, start putting together and then outlining, for an even bigger public debate, what might be the main features of a ‘more advanced society’ and how we might get there.
Colin Millen, Sheringham, Norfolk, UK.