Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home3/tandem/public_html/golemXIV/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160

A Way Forward. A modest proposal.

We all know we are in a mess. The problem is, our choices for what to do to rectify it and move forward to something better, seem as futile as each other.

We can sit back and tell ourselves that our leaders corrupt, incompetent and venal as they seem to be, actually do know what to do and do have our best interests at heart. Good luck with that, if that is your choice.

We can decide the political process, both the democratic process and the laws which should protect it, are all now so corrupt and so owned that poltical engagement is futile. What is the point in voting, we can say,  when our only choices are parties which are not even prepared to discuss any alternatives to the ‘bail-out the banks and force the public to suffer cuts to pay for it’ plan, which they all proclaim is the only way?

But what then? Prepare for mass civil disobedience? Armed resistance? How many of us are actually prepared or preparing? Who among us is finding out how to organize for revolution or violent resistance? Anyone? Which leaves us where?

It seems to me that the political process, if not already broken and wrested from us, is out-gunned and ill equipped to deal with the forces ranged above and against us. But rather than turn from politics and either roll over and play dead, or pretend to ourselves we are simply waiting and preparing for violent revolution we must take back the democratic process. It was ours. It must be ours again. And I think we can do it.

Here is my proposal.

Founding another political party, or throwing oneself into one or other of the smaller parties does indeed feel futile. How long would it take to build such a party, to elect local councillors, then County councillors and finally to aspire to a single MP?  Too long. And then what? A political party can be top of the heap in Ireland, Portugal or Spain but if it tries to rein in the global banks and their system, they simply say,’You can’t do that. You can’t regulate us.’ And they are right. A large part of what has been so dispiriting about the political failure of the last 5 years and more, is the way that the internationally organized financial system has again and again faced down nationally based political power.

Our political system and it’s power is 19th century. It is based upon and limited by National boundries. The banks are not organized nationally. They are organized internationally. They laugh at national boundries and the petty powers they circumscribe. We are trying to fight men who have invented Iron, with stone. We are losing.

So let us orgaize a new politics and a new party internationally. I propose we found a new party – which is organized from the outset, internationally. And we already have one venue where we can organize internationally – Europe.

Now to those of you who distrust the European experiment. I agree that the European experiment has been corrupted and turned into a charter for busy-body bureaucrats and corporate lobbying. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can take it back. Look at Nigel Farage. You don’t have to agree with him or even like what he argues for. The fact is – he has made a platform for himself. He uses the power of being elected in Europe against Europe. There is a path to power waiting for us.

There is no point in creating another party to fight for national power. So let us not bother. Instead, we know what the  core crisis is, and we know that it translates perfectly across all national boundries because the same crisis is afflicting us all. Imagine we found a party – the same party – in all our nations. We make it clear that our intention, our focus is to elect MEP’s not MPs. Let people vote for who they feel comfortable with in local and national elections. We would never become a power in any nation – so let us not waste out time trying. Especially because such national power is useless against international foes.

What we must do is set aside the rest of our political and philosphical differences to forge an international European party. One that concerns itself with protecting us internationally and does not seek to meddle where it has no mandate. Let the local govern the local. I believe we not only must do this but can do this. Libertarian or Marxist, Spanish or German, MMT or Gold standard, none of these is the core of this fight or the crisis in our democracy. We all know what the crisis is that is facing us. We all know the forces tearing up our democratic process and undermining the rule of law. We all know the crisis is affecting us all, in all our nations in all our  lives and homes. It is affecting all our children. We can and we must unite to fight this common enemy. When we have taken back our democracy and brought the rule of law to bear upon all equally once again, we can return to the fun business of calling each other rogues and knaves as democratic peoples have the right to do. But if we do not unite to fight together the power ranged against us all, then we will not have a democracy. Not a real one. Of course we will have the dress up version where we can dress in its clothes and pretend. Like children playing doctors and nurses. But if we want the radical content of our democracy back, we must put our differences aside for a while. Fight this fight first and foremost.

Just imagine if we could get only one MEP elected in a country, but managed to do so in several countries. Is that impossible? We would still be no one in each of our nations. A minority party destined never to attain national power. Fine.  That’s not the power which we are after. But if we had one MEP from each of 10 nations we would be a power in Europe.

The weakness of politics in Europe, what makes it such a monumentally flatulent talking-shop is that all the parties there are nationally based and focussed. When they send representatives to Europe they arrive as the poor-relation extrusions of parties concerned with national agendas and national policies. They form blocks which achieve little or nothing except flaccid and wordy compromise.

No matter how powerful a party is at home, when in Europe it has no mandate to speak for anyone at all beyond its own narrow national boundries. We, our party, organized internationally would be able to legitimately say we had a direct mandate to speak for a minority in ALL the nations from which we were drawn.  That, I believe is a new kind of power.

Our strap line might be – “Why vote for another No-Hope national party, when you could vote for the Only Hope international party.

 

I propose our platform should be –

To stop bailing our insolvent banks.

To force private debts back on to those whose debts they were. They pay them or they die trying.

To recapitalize solvent banks to take the place of the insolvent.

To separate the casino from the deposit side of banking.

To raise the bar for ‘confidentiality’ so high you need binoculars to see it. A presumption of open public acces for ANY information for any public or publically traded body.

To roll back and severely limit the rights of corporations as people-like entities. They are not people. They should not have those kind of rights.

To regulate Derivatives.

To declare that all products must be marked to market. No excpetions. Those products the bankers say are hard to price … their problem. No one forced them to make hard to sell and price products.

To enforce the law upon those responsible for the fraud of the last 5 years.

To STOP the revolving door from finance to politics.

To hugely limit lobbying and party donations.

To reinstate very tight limits on leverage. Which will include bringing within such law the trades in Euro-dollars.

To take swift, Europe wide action against tax havens and the off-shore industry.

Essentially if you want to do any business in Europe you abide by our laws you meet our standards or you don’t do any business here.

I believe a tightly defined and focussed platform will translate into all our countries.

Could we do all of this on day one?  No.  What could we do?  Look at what one bloke in Scarborough with no access to any privy information and no authority has already done.  Now imagine ten such people with the authority of the people who elected them as MEP. What could they not do?

I suggest we call this party – if the name is free – “99%”

 

Subscribe

Subscribe to posts by email

110 Responses to A Way Forward. A modest proposal.

  1. Roger May 22, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

    David you can put me down to help organise in and from Sweden. May as well try this in the absense of any Barricades for now?

  2. Desmond Dillon May 22, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    sounds great….

  3. Hobnob with Bob May 22, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    You propose one world government? Really? A benevolent suprapower does not and can not exist. We need decentralization, not world control.

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 2:47 pm #

      Hello Hobnob with Bob,

      I share your distrust of power removed from the people whom it MUST serve. I don’t think I am proposing a world government. I am simply proposing that people should not turn their back on democracy.

      If goverments have been corrupt. Elect better people. Stay in closer control of those people. I am NOT saying forsake local government or national if you think there are good people there. I am simply saying we must take back power at this international level. The international cannot be left to corporations and the IMF.

      We can decentralize all we want. They are not going to.

      How else are we to fight those internationally organized powers who have already bought our national governments than by opposing them at that level?

  4. Orville May 22, 2012 at 3:14 pm #

    How about Hoi Polloi? It’s Greek as well.

  5. Amanda May 22, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    Mix some of this into the brew and then you’re talking 😉
    http://www.johnmcdonnell.org.uk/2012/05/radical-alternative-to-austerity.html

  6. Arvind Damarla May 22, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    Sign me up. Let’s do this. NOW.

  7. keekster May 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm #

    Interesting thoughts David, but I’m not sure. Have you read Orlov’s Reinventing Collapse? And its comparison of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the USA. I also follow Charles Hugh Smith’s ramblings and his points about centralisation of power. I think the current elite will destroy the current status quo by themselves. Only through collapse can an alternative voice of reason, come forward to fill the gap. That will the right opportunity. But the future is one of post growth. And a decentralised approach is most likely to work, and corporate business fails due to lack of profit. Perhaps your approach is the right alternative to fill the gap though.

    • Roger May 22, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

      Keekster,
      I am no fan of centralisation or Globalisation but stopping the rot now before the Corporate Globalists corner any opportunity to reverse them seems to make sense to me. Whilst there are still levers of power masquerading as democratic it may be worth trying to wrest control of them before we’re all shipwrecked on the Global Corporate Gulag.

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

      Hello Keekster,

      I haven’t read Orlov’s Reinventing Collapse. I will try to.

      But please bear in mind I am not advocating a centralization of power. I am not advocating that a European party abrogate to itself or try to poach powers that are best left at national or local level. The power that can be effectively decentralized should be.

      What I am suggesting is that things that can only be done at the international level and the power to do them, should be under our control and not the control of the corporations.

      • Piano Racer May 22, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

        You’ve got it exactly backwards, Golem: NOTHING can POSSIBLY be achieved on the international level, you simply don’t have any chance. I wish this were not the case, but your time and energy are far too valuable to waste on the siren song of political action, especially on the international level. You’ve got to go to the other end of the spectrum, and work on the people in your own life and sphere of influence, starting with children. Only when we learn to raise children peacefully will the problems you want to solve be solvable.

        The world is messed up because it is full of violent people, and the world is full of violent people because they had violence REPEATEDLY committed against them when they were very, very young. Read The Origins of War in Child Abuse to understand this, and to understand that the source of our problems is not greedy bankers or even lying politicians, but in fact violence, and more specifically violence against children.

        Here is an interview with the author, if you’re interested. The chapters on Europe and specifically Nazi Germany absolutely blew my mind:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNLq1Y_OFEQ

        • backwardsevolution May 22, 2012 at 8:40 pm #

          Piano Racer – while I agree with what you’re saying, that we have to get to the children, there really is no time to waste here. Getting to the children would require changing the education system (what and how the teachers teach, the textbooks that don’t tell the whole truth), educating parents, etc. This is no time for this. It would take generations of undoing indoctrination and conformist thinking. THAT would only come after a major unheaval.

          You need the upheaval first, the “we’re not going to take it any more” marches. You need to take it back before you can change it, and the powers that be are at present not going to sit back idly while you go about doing it.

          Violence, corruption, fraud, greed comes from wrong thinking. The people in power are self-centered narcissists, for the most part, and some border on sociopathic. They have set up what, for them, is a wonderful system where they can’t help but prosper, and we can’t help but decline. They could care less about society. All they want is for you to keep paying taxes and interest, keep having babies so they can grow up as consumers, and keep silent when they’re robbing the till and funnelling the money into offshore tax havens.

          Watch this good nine-minute video (American) on how money “trickles up”, how we really have no control over anything. It’s a pyramid where all money is funnelled back up to the top elites.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l37RhdFGVsM

          If people don’t stand up NOW, there will be no standing up at all. Fix your society AFTER you get it back. Get it back first!

          • R. Eric Swanepoel May 23, 2012 at 11:26 pm #

            Totally agree with this. In fact have just started a campaign along these lines: http://tiny.cc/notconsumer

          • Debra May 24, 2012 at 8:55 am #

            In France, I am rather pessimistic about the way we are heading right now, precisely on these questions.
            The two elephant parties, socialist, and right wing, have become true believers in a supranational, non democratic Europe, which, incidentally, is NOT run by the corporations, but which is run by a political structure hand in hand with banks, and corporations.
            This blindness to what the electorate has already expressed as desiring (a resounding “no” to a Europe federated solely around commerce, and the market, in a referendum 5 years ago now ? I can’t remember…) is leaving the door wide open for the older Front National, whose deeds and words duriing WW2 and the Algerian war are still in the minds of an older electorate, but unknown to a blissfully ignorant younger generation.
            At this time, the FN is the only historical.. legitimate ? political party defending the sovereignty of the nation state, and there are quite a few people in France who still feel like defending that sovereignty, which includes.. controlling the supply of money, for example..
            On the subject of violence : I think that as animals, we behave in a consistent fashion. The less physical violence there is in our world, the less violence we will tolerate, as the “norm” continues shrinking. And.. the more we will look for MORE contexts to apply the word “violence”, and condemn it.
            Curiously enough, it is in the few generations since WW2, the generations which have known NO WAR in the general population, that we have such low tolerance of violence in ANY FORM.
            This.. increasing intolerance will end up.. blowing up in our faces, in my opinion.
            Is it a result of overcrowding, and overpopulation ? Maybe… fear ? insecurity ?
            But, the last time I checked, I did not… (yet ??) live in Disneyland, and my world has not (yet ?) been reduced to the script of acting out “It’s a Small small world”…
            I also question our blind ? faith that education will solve our problems. This “faith” is disguised rationalism, and while reason has its place in our lives, we should not have blind faith in it, in my opinion.
            My ears pricked up the other day upon hearing that some Greeks, at least were saying that they did not want to be SAVED…
            AHA… good job.
            When we manage to go beyond looking for salvation, maybe we will emerge from this.. human madness ?

  8. Pat May 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm #

    There is already one party I can think of that exists in a similar form in many EU countries, that has some measure of support, and whose aims that would surely accommodate, or at least be compatible with, those that you outline above – namely, the Greens. They are also, as far as I know, the only party that honestly addresses the issue of natural limits to economic growth. I humbly suggest that building support for such a pre-existing international movement would be quicker and more effective than starting something new from scratch. I realise that this is primarily a blog about economics and malfeasance in the banking sector, but the banking problems are part of a bigger picture.

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

      Hello Pat,

      I know the banking and debt crisis is part of larger problems. Problems that are larger and more intractable than our financial problems. I know this. I have always voted Green. BUT would a coalition of all those different people who are affronted by what has been done to our freedoms, our economies and our welfare by the bail-outs, suddenly vote Green if these issues were added in to their policies? I don’t think so.

      So to do this within the Green Party would be to get no more support for it than the Green party gets. What would that achieve?

      No, I think we either make this work or it won’t happen.

    • Wirplit May 27, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

      Irish readers might be more dubious about the Greens given recent history

  9. Jonahsdad73 May 22, 2012 at 5:11 pm #

    I am willing to help out in any way I can on this. Often I feel powerless to do anything about this ongoing crisis (none of our main parties, or those in Europe, seem willing to act in our interests), and this leads to a great amount of frustration.

    I appreciate Keekster’s point about a centralisation of power (although I have to confess to not having read Orlov’s Reinventing Collapse, so do not know what was written), but that is precisely the problem at the moment. It has been centralised to such an extent that it is beyond democratic control.

    I would like to make it clear I am not advocating any violent revolution, and I also would appreciate that the French, American and Russian revolutions did not necessarily turn out swimmingly and perfectly. There followed great abuses of power (especially in France and Russia). However I am also sure that notwithstanding that there were abuses, the ideas advanced by these events have made the western world a better place. So even though there have been damaging centralisations of power following previous collapses, it doesn’t mean that the world has not advanced as a result.

    What David is proposing seems totally opposed to a centralisation of power, and there need not be such an outcome if enough people are on the same hymn sheet..

    It is clear that our democratic & economic rights are being eroded presently by a damaging centralisation of power (after several advances following those and other revolutions) and we need to do what we can to get them back.

    A pan-European movement like that proposed seems a good idea. Let’s all support the 99%!

  10. Jonathan Sugarman May 22, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    David,

    During my ordeals to try and shed light on the regulation infringements by UniCredit Bank in Ireland I had the pleasure of meeting senior politicians who are now Labour & Fine Gael minister in Ireland’s current government. Joan Burton, now a Labour minister, raised the issue in parliament prior to the elections. Michael Noonan, Ireland’s Finance Minister, issued a statement that his party, Fine Gael, had never heard of me. Unfortunately for him, there are minutes of a meeting I had at the offices of a well-known Dublin law-firm with a person who is now a Fine Gael minister, in the months prior to Noonan’s statement.

    When ABC TV in Australia made a documentary 6 months ago in which my story is told, the journalist asked me why neither of these politicians had pursued the issue now that they are in government. I told ABC TV that I would love to hear either of these distinguished ministers respond to that question.

    Perhaps this might have something to do with the fact that the chairman of UniCredit Ireland at the time of my resignation, is now a member of the board of directors at the Central Bank of Ireland… So much for the people of Ireland being offered an alternative to the corrupt years of Fianna Fail that destroyed the country for generations to come.

    It was the current Irish government that raped its people for €1.4 BILLION in payments to UNSECURED bond-holders earlier this year.

    Count me in David, count me in!

    Here is a link to the ABC TV documentary:
    http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2011/s3367080.htm

    Jonathan Sugarman
    UniCredit Ireland’s EX Risk Manager

  11. Piano Racer May 22, 2012 at 5:17 pm #

    Oh Golem…

    Reaching for the gun of the state will not solve the problems humanity faces. Violent coercion is not the answer, I am surprised that a gentle soul like yours is capable of advocating such violence.

    This battle can only be won one way, the same way that we freed the slaves and gave equal rights to women: by pounding the undeniable moral argument over and over and over. This is the moral argument, Golem, and it’s very simple:

    Premise 1: The initiation of force is UNIVERSALLY immoral (there is no such thins as non-universal morality). You can look at all of the evidence and history for this by searching “Non-aggression principle”, but I think you’ll find it easy to agree with. Is rape morally different from making love? Is charity morally different from theft? We know the answers to these questions. Furthermore, violence does not have to actually occur for this; pointing a gun at a woman and demanding that she have sex with you is still rape. (I apologize for the crude metaphors, but they are crucial when discussing morality).

    Premise 2: The State is defined as a group of people who have designated themselves the right to a monopoly on the initiation of force in a geographic area. The state IS violence. Taxes are collected through violent coercion: if not payed by property owners, business owners, or anyone with an income, a man in a costume will point a gun at them and throw them in a cage (where they will likely be raped). Regulations are enforced via violent coercion. Property owners are forced at the point of a gun to hand over their hard-earned money in order to build and staff state prison-schools which the state then demands that parents turn their children over to, again at the point of a gun. I could go on and on, but I think you see my point, or as Monty Python pointed out, see the violence inherent in the system:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

    Premise 3: The State is immoral and must be abolished.

    You can run through this same exercise with slavery, or with women’s rights, etc. but the conclusions are always the same: whenever violent coercion is involved, humanity suffers. We must denounce violence in ALL of its forms, with the sole exception of self-defense from those who are committing violence against us (hence the “non-initiation” part). This includes the state, but it also includes violence against children, which ultimately is the only way that we’re going to achieve the goal of eliminating institutionalized, coercive violence.

    I know that the idea of not having a parent-figure making decisions for us is a scary prospect, and one that most people cannot even allow themselves to conceive of, to the point where your brain will scream at you “THIS COULD NEVER WORK AND IS NOT EVEN WORTH INVESTIGATING!!”. I assure you, life without violent coercion is both POSSIBLE and we would be MAGNITUDES OF ORDER better off on every conceivable metric if we could free ourselves of the MILLENIA-long tyranny of the State.

    If you’re interested in learning more, I am happy to discuss here or you can go to http://www.freedomainradio.com for tons of free podcasts and books on philosophy, ethics, morality, the state, violence, parenting, and all of the things that we MUST understand if we truly want to solve these problems.

    Golem, I can tell that you truly want to solve these problems. If you are like me, you are ASHAMED at the world that you will be leaving for your children, whether they have been born yet or not. This is a crucial junction for you; you are crystallizing your ideology. Are you humble enough to throw all of your preconceived notions about the role of the state out the window in order to work towards the best possible world for your progeny?

    I was. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and today I am a free man! Free of the lies and false promises of the state, free of the false authority of laws and politicians and thugs in costumes carrying guns.

    Freedom starts in the mind. Are you free, Golem?

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

      Hello Piano Racer,

      I was not aware I was advocating violence. Having re-read the peice I don’t think I am.

      I am advocating the state. I understand, I think, your concern about coercion. But I take a different view about the state and about taxes. Let’s leave to one side whether taxes raise money or withdraw it (the MMT argument). But I see taxes as asking people to contribute to those things we all need.

      Is it coercion to say to people that some of their labour should go towards paying for universal health care so that those who don’t have much can still expect care when they are sick?

      I think it would be perverse to call that violent coercion. Do you not agree?

      I believe that State can be used for oppression and extortion. There will always be some who will attempt to use the State for preceisely that. But I do not believe it is inherent in the State. The State, for me, can and should be the expression and working of those undertakings which we would like to all contribute to and which benefit from being organized at more than a local level.

      If health care were purely a local thing then poor areas would have poor health care. The State can redistribute a little from the wealthier areas to the poorer areas so that all can expect dcent health care. To some that is the State interfering. To me it is caring. I do not wish to leave such things to the whim of charity. The same for education. I do not see this as coercion or wrong.

      As for bringing up children without violence. Who could disagree. My wife and I are Quakers. We are not much attracted to violence as a solution for anything.

      We have brought up our children to regard violence as a failure of the imagination.
      While I therefore agree on the importance of bringing up children to be life- affirming people, it is not enough. Quakers have been doing it for 400 years. The world is still a shit heap.

      Bringing up my children and yours to be decent people, for me, is not enough on its own.

      So I find I agree with most of what you say and most of the sentiments you express. But I personally feel they are not enough. I would like to do more if I can.

  12. Dave Holden May 22, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    “Libertarian or Marxist, Spanish or German, MMT or Gold standard, none of these is the core of this fight or the crisis in our democracy. ”

    * Boy does this need to be emphasised! *

    From my perspective – that’s a well thought out largely politically agnostic list of goals I could subscribe to.

    I also think many would follow automatically from just these two:-

    To STOP the revolving door from finance to politics.

    To hugely limit lobbying and party donations.

  13. steviefinn May 22, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    It would be great to be doing something positive instead of the usual, just between ourselves, exposing more filth under stones from the ever growing pile that is the rubble of our governing systems. Count me in, I’m not sure what I can do to help, but if there is something, I will give it my best shot.

  14. Michael Fish May 22, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Now my take on all of this is
    You have a political goal, you join or create a political party,
    you pass a program, you try to get elected.
    Any other path raises a backlash,
    assures the election of people determined to roll back any reforms
    that have been won previously – union rights,
    minimum wages, pensions, national health care
    subsidies for anything,
    and persecution of minorities, women, the poor, the sick, and the defenseless
    and in extremis, the Jews and Muslims…..
    and so,
    I counsel the Greeks to elect Tsoukis (or whatever) and his program
    to look at all of the financial transactions
    in which the country engaged over the last twelve years
    and to expose and tear up all of the crooked ones.
    and to insist on the following :
    TA-DA…!
    The way forward is a European political union
    to go with the monetary (well Currency) Union.
    That is what happened in the USA and in Canada
    so many years ago:
    1815, 1861-64 for the US, 1845, 1867, 1950 in Canada.
    all of which which paved the way
    for the development of the resources,
    human and material, of the continent.
    That is about the only solution.
    save bailing the country (Greece) out completely
    with transfers and low interest loans,
    printed money if necessary.
    Capitalism or Socialism doesn’t have anything to do with it.
    Science and ethics are what count.
    Also the European tax havens simply have to end,
    the American tax havens have to end,
    The tax rates on the wealthy have to approach 90 percent,
    as was the case when I was a young person.
    And separate the banks
    from the insurance companies
    and the brokerage houses.
    Regulate derivatives,
    and kill the ones that lead
    inexorably to criminal activity.
    Install the Tobin tax….
    Unite Africa…there’s a big one…..!
    Oh yeah, deal with global warming
    with a modern infrastructure program
    that puts everyone to work
    and saves the planet from a catastrophic melt down.
    Forget all the rest about welfare bums, laziness and so forth.
    Oh and the ‘Mafias of Europe and the Americas
    have to be properly dealt with….
    Oh yes, and marijuana at least, has to be legalized.
    and the formation of unions
    has to be encouraged everywhere.
    Especially in the US…..
    Then we can talk about new social projects
    like single payer medicine for all,
    free education for all with the ability,
    Art and culture in the cities and towns.
    and prison reform….
    and good public transportation
    and sensible electoral reform
    etc. etc.
    Michael Fish Longueuil Quebec Canada

  15. flaminlambojimbo May 22, 2012 at 8:25 pm #

    i’m feeling left out down here in N.Z. how can i help? knit mittens or start sailing from these ‘ripe for a fascist state’ islands?

  16. old dog May 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm #

    Not joined a party since the Soc Dems, happy to support your 99% but thought you were going to say vote Green so think i’m with Pat on this,

    then again i have been voting green for years so maybe not aware of any reluctance others might feel, whatever has the greatest chance of success

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 9:54 pm #

      old dog,

      I have voted Green my whole life. But like you I have come to the conclusion that what seems obvious to me does not seem obvious to many others. The Green party has been going for a long time. It has not become the force I would that it had.

      I have talked to people in the Green party about this idea. I have considered asking them if they could support it. If there could be a place for it in their manifesto.

      The worry is that what I think must be a tightly focused platform might become difused and confused within a largere set of ideas and ideals. And those other things would put poeple off. You and I may feel they should not put people off, but what we think doesn’t matter does it. If it does and has put them off then that is the reality.

      To found a new party which is focused on just the issues I mentioned and which does not seek to gain local or national power nor to intrude upon the issues of other parties seems a potentially good idea.

      Vote Green in local and national elections. Vote 99% in Europe. Could that work for people? I don’t know.

      New parties can work. The Pirate party came from nothing precisely by being tightly focused. 99% could do the same.

  17. sheepshagger May 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm #

    The Green Party is a European wide movement.
    What was allowed to happen with unregulated banks
    was foreshadowed by unregulated industry, they are
    different faces of the same problem.

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

      sheepsahgger,

      Thanks for your comment.

      I agree they are part of the same problem. But how we fight them might be different. Some of what I would say to answer you is in the reply to old dog above.

      • sheepshagger May 29, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

        When I left school my parents kicked me out suggesting I go to then West Germany. There I earned great money in factories so much so that the same money would not be on offer today.
        The Social Democrats in the FDR had created a workers paradise in a conservative society. At the time the Greens had still to get electoral success but were there making themselves heard.
        Now Germany is as much a victim of Turbo-capitalism as anywhere else with inept management creaming off profit wherever it can – following Thatcher’s model.
        If an SPD/Green coalition gets into power with or without The Left they just might be able to reverse some of the Thatcherite policies of the CDU.
        It would be a lot easier for them if the 99% could articulate their grievences
        and set the scene for the end of (turbo)capitalism.

  18. bill40 May 22, 2012 at 9:06 pm #

    Golem,

    You know I love this site but you have moved off on a seriously misguided political direction. Politics has been subsumed by the ec onomics of the neo liberals and it is that arguement we need to win.

    The Slog Blog has done a great job of exposing just how brazen politicians are in giving policies by priority to donations. i believe the political battle was lost long ago and I have no desire to make common cause with some you mention.

    The true battle ground is what purpose should a political party have. The answer is economic policy that serves the public interest. Just mentio economics to most people and their eyes glaze over.

    Blogs like this, where free thinkers gather, is the way forward. The only other alternative is violent revolution that will improve nothing. this idea is a non starter for me but please keep up what you are doing.

    • Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

      Fair enough Bill40.

      I fully intend to keep writing this blog.

      I agree that economic policy must serve the people. My question is how can we make it so. My answer is to write this blog but I also wonder if we cannot create a political force that defends democracy and makes economic policy serve the people.

      How else but through democratic means can we defend democracy? And if we don’t defend it – we will lose it. How else can we make an ecomic policy that serves the people but by creating a political force to make it serve them?

  19. backwardsevolution May 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    bill40 – it is the politicians who make the economic decisions (the laws, the regulations). They are the ones who write the laws; the courts carry out their directions.

    How can there be a divorce, a “moving off on a seriously misguided direction” when the two are intertwined?

    Look at David’s recommendations at the bottom of his article. He talks about leverage, tax havens, derivatives, a separation of the financial industry and politicians, a separation of the commercial side of the bank from the investment side, transparency.

    Gandhi did not use violence. He merely resisted. He stopped playing their game. If we all removed our money from these too-big-to-fail banks, stopped using our credit cards, stopped playing the stock market, stopped buying from the corporations who are guilty of avoiding taxes by using tax havens, bought locally, then we could start taking back some control. Hit them where it hurts until they get the message that their behaviour must stop. You don’t need violence.

    All of these things would work, but how do you get people involved on an “international” level (as that is where the bankers are operating)? Blogs aren’t going to do it; you can’t reach enough people.

    I think what David is saying (correct me if I’m wrong) is that by starting a party, or joining an existing one, you can give a single voice to all peoples (Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc.)

    No one needs to get violent. Just stop playing their game, all of us.

    • Gary May 23, 2012 at 11:48 am #

      “Gandhi did not use violence. He merely resisted. He stopped playing their game. If we all removed our money from these too-big-to-fail banks, stopped using our credit cards, stopped playing the stock market, stopped buying from the corporations who are guilty of avoiding taxes by using tax havens, bought locally, then we could start taking back some control. Hit them where it hurts until they get the message that their behaviour must stop. You don’t need violence.”

      I like this.

      In South Africa , the 99% just refused to co-operate with the institutions that gave the oppressors power. No power can stand up to that kind of mass action. Here the banks are the power. Without the current financial system the political setup has no power.

      Essentially it boils down to 1 law that must be repealed :

      The legal tender law.

      Get rid of that law, the law that forces you to use their money system and they lose their power.

      I suggest that we focus on that and demand its repeal. At the same time non-violently withdraw our patronage from their institutions. Form our own financial co-ops or use those that may already exist.

      The failure of the occupy movement showed that you have to have laser-like focus. IMO

  20. yakima canutt May 22, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    There is nothing wrong with the State as an idea. The problem starts when there is not enough fresh blood coming into a share of power, and those who have got used to it, become progressively corrupted. To the point that they think the rules don’t apply to them, and they can cheat and distort facts, and hide the truth, and open the door for their friends, and steal the money. This is, of course, where we are now.
    In a healthy society, you would expect media dissent to grow and counteract the abuse of power. For no good reason I can think of, western media has been captured.

    Without a vibrant mass media, you will not be able to create a large, international political party or movement, For that to work you need open, objective publicity. You will only get mistrust, anti-propaganda and ridicule if you try to start fast and big.
    You have to start small, at a local level. Locally you can get the word out to people, and grow a band of supporters. National media doesn’t care about local issues and local people. If you can make headway at a local, independent level, you can start to elect quality, thinking candidates.
    It doesn’t really matter if they are left- or right- thinking, most people are moderate, liberal (old sense of the word) and tolerant. They will respect anyone with brains and an open mind to understand and solve a problem.

    You don’t need a new party, you need new individuals not tied to the whips. You get 20 of them into parliament, and local government, then you will start to encourage the fringe members of large parties to grow a pair and walk free of central party control.

    The future is in destroying the big parties, not in creating another one. An informal alliance of talent can surely rally around an idea and get to a point where they can break up the corporations, financial behemoths, health, agro-business and energy monopolies; and overhaul an incompetent legal system built on playing games with technicalities and semantics, rather than common sense and true justice.

    As long as you have faith in the quality of ordinary people, there is reason to hope. Things probably have to get a whole lot worse before people will get off their sofas.

    We need smaller everything.

  21. shaun May 22, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Hi David

    One point is that the EU Commissioners ought to be sacked on the spot (or at least as quickly as possible) There is a confusion in the EU between the areas of responsibility of the EU Parliament and the Commissioners. Who has the real power?

    The latter are – unelected, (by citizens), follow a “freemarket” and right-wing agenda, and are not held responsible (apparently). They also have personal “agendas” (Dallo and GM foods) that go against what the majority of citizens want (No GM!).

    Might make an exception for Ashton?

    Slight change to your proposed “name” – as 99% is good but might lead to confusion, particularly as the media and massed politicians-that-pontificate are trying to denigrate the OWS etc. as much as they can.

    Your own suggestion – “Hope international party” could be used as “99%-HIP”
    (99% Hope International Party)

    Good idea though. Non-national politics at last?

  22. Πάρης Μάνιας May 22, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    Αυτή είναι μια θαυμάσια πρόταση ( ίσως η καλύτερη που έχω ακούσει μέχρι τώρα…! )

  23. nell May 23, 2012 at 12:01 am #

    I think David is right about getting involved in politics. Ann Pettifor said the same thing recently. More specifically she understood that people distrusted politics, but for change to happen those of us who feel disgust towards our politicians and politics need to get stuck in and get our hands dirty. The name of the party should reflect the aims of the party. I think 99% is too broad a symbol given the very specific aims and really it belongs to the Occupy movement. But this is a minor issue.The first step is for us all to step outside of this blog where we all pretty much bang the same drum, and start talking to friends and neighbours about what they think about banks and the financial system. Would they support a party whose sole aim is to wrest power back from the financial sector at an international level. This way we can devise a ‘populist’ manifesto. We should also start to make friends with political parties and campaign groups that would be willing to offer support – mainly a platform to spread the message and galvanize popular support. 38 degrees might be interested, postive money, Green Party, Friends of the Earth, and so on.

    • Phil May 23, 2012 at 8:56 am #

      Excellent point about the involvement of 38 degrees etc.

  24. Labled May 23, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    Why not a simple Democracy party?

    I’ve had similar thoughts for a while, i believe over 60% of our population voted against the big 3 parties at our last local elections in May, and most people i knew either voted Green or spoiled their papers, or just didn’t vote, many for the first time.

    I think we can create a new party and the public is actually begging for it to happen. The present day politics, whips, lobbyists sicken most individuals. They don’t stick to manifesto’s and soon cosy back up to their financier friends. The electorate believe they no longer are listened to, nor involved enough in the business of UK Plc.

    If we took your platform for policies for the Democracy Party, the USP for the party would be in voting.

    Each constituency would have a dedicated website whereby the Democracy Party would ask for candidates who believed in the policies above, and their CV’s would be attached so that the constituency could vote for their particular candidate. Each member of a constituency would have a unique code for their voting online. Once a winner is confirmed, the democracy is then taking a huge step further. The candidate in question has a platform that tells the electorate, you have chosen me, and you will make my decisions during Parliament if you elect me.

    The whole idea of the Democracy party is that the public get to vote on all day to day legals that happen in Parliament.

    For instance if on Monday Parliament is voting on an amendment to Legal Aid, then the website would have the articles up for reading, and then a for & against arguments. The constituents can then (if they want to) debate the arguments similar to this website and vote for what they want their MP to do. The MP in question then votes for what the majority of their constituents want. The Democratic candidate should always have the final decision, and fundamentally it should always be with the policies agreed as above.

    How does this sound to everyone else?

    • James E May 23, 2012 at 3:27 am #

      Are any politicians going down for this? And i dont mean a slap on the wrist I’m talking them becoming bubbas biatch for 20 years, getting one hand chopped of so people know they are corrupt, why not go the whole hog and get the guilottenes out in front of syntagma and let the heads literally roll.

      This sounds barbaric however people need to know what happens to them if they become a corrupt traitor!!!

    • margarita June 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

      I agree that we need more democracy and more democratic accountability. But you can’t go making a referendum of everything. Especially not when we have a press that has been hijacked by vested interests. The unintended consequences would be awful. In the UK the government set up a website for people to launch epetitions. A look at some of the ones with the most signatures is enough to strike fear into the heart of any decent person. At the top of the wish list is always a desire for the return of capital punishment.

  25. Phil May 23, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    David, I´m in. I´ll contact you more directly when I get back from Venezuela.

    Stevie Finn, we´ll talk on the well-known social networking site.

    • Golem XIV May 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

      Phil,

      Lot to talk about. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
      have fun.

  26. DANIEL May 23, 2012 at 8:54 am #

    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/05/22-2

    another modest proposal. Only in America.

  27. Roger May 23, 2012 at 9:05 am #

    Praxis is a wonderful concept.

    An Ounce of action is worth a ton of Theory and all that.

    Not playing their game works for me, and thats all I can do presently explaining to those who are interested why I choose the path I have chosen.

    Davids proposal goes beyond their game however choosing the field of Battle may be a case of going to the designated arenas if a peacefull
    restoration of Democracy for the people is to be achieved.

    The idea of uniting like minded people across borders to combine thier views in a force in the EuropeanParliament is a good one in effect we will be creating a Turkey that is absolutely going to be voting for Christmas when the time comes. Or maybe just a Turkey but Praxis is about that too.

  28. Hawkeye May 23, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    I have often considered “political” methods for addressing the power imbalance. But, people are slowly becoming more and more cynical about politicians (of whatever persuasion).

    Standing up with a polictical platform may just invite the very audience we want to listen, to turn their backs in distrust (“what’s HIS/HER agenda then??”).

    The conclusion that I came to is to focus purely on Education, Education, Education.

    Not in the traditional “sit down and listen to me” sense but through discussion and dialogue by inquiring minds. Everything that I have tried to do in the last 3 years is to discuss these topics with people, and try to understand and explain what is going on. That is what this blog and many others have achieved. Just a shame that most people would rather watch X Factor.

    Through evidence and logic we can win the argument. We can demonstrate the injustice being applied to us.

    If the majority of people in this country truly understood what is happening to them (as per the unearthing a Debt Commission would reveal), then the rest will take care of itself.

  29. steviefinn May 23, 2012 at 11:58 am #

    Golem.

    I am assuming that you are thinking that their will still be an EZ existing to put your proposal to effect in. Eurobonds & printing to keep it going perhaps.

    I agree that 99% instantly brings to mind the occupy movement, how about NMP.

    New Model party.

    Just a thought.

    • Glenn Condell May 26, 2012 at 3:32 am #

      Any title with ‘new’ in it will sound old hat before long. New Labour?

      DRP Democratic Reform Party
      GRP Global Reform Party

      I like the word reform; indeed it is one of the items, along with democracy itself, that I would like to take back from the 1% and its court.

      • steviefinn May 26, 2012 at 11:04 am #

        Glenn

        You are probably right, New Labour certainly wouldn’t be the example to follow. I was thinking in terms of the ” New Model Army ” from the English civil war, a revolution in terms of a fighting force which successfully overturned the established order. Didn’t end well of course with Cromwell as a dictator, but it was progress, omelette & cracked eggs comes to mind. I just thought that it might sum up that what G is proposing, a new way of fighting against our modern day established order.

  30. Magicalsushi May 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    I’m definitely interested in this. Wikipedia says UK MEPs are elected by PR (or STV in Northern Ireland), so we would actually stand a chance of getting an MEP, and without having to worry about damaging the prospects of other non-mainstream parties (for the UK seats, at least). I agree completely with Golem that is important to keep this a broad church, focusing on the common ground amongst those who oppose the financier hedgemony.

    What can readers of this blog most usefully do at present to contribute to this goal?

    • Golem XIV May 23, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

      Magicalsushi,

      Hello mate. There is a great deal of practical help readers can be. I will post something soon suggesting some of what I think we need to do next if we really think this idea is worth taking forward.

  31. daveTshave May 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm #

    Nice idea David and I’d like to get involved with this. I have three questions for your consideration.

    Firstly, the next european elections are in two years time. Can we wait that long to do something and will there in fact be a functioning EU at that point?

    Secondly, as an institution the European parliament has very little say in anything, so what is the point of getting ones hands on a lever which has no power?

    Finally, your agenda for change is spot on, but will the general unwashed want to engage with that level of detail BEFORE their pension and savings have evaporated in a puff of smoke? I feel that people want to believe the politicians know what they are doing so they can focus on more important things like playing with their latest iToy or watching whatever dross is flavour of the month on telly.

    • Golem XIV May 23, 2012 at 2:36 pm #

      hello daveTshave

      Thanks for the offer of getting involved. I want to give people a bit longer to think about it all and then I’ll post a ‘Next Steps’ piece for those who are interested.

      Your questions.

      1) Can we wait? No we have to push as hard as we can with the things we are already doing – like this blog. Wil teh EU still be there? I think it will. If it comes to it and it become a choice of letting even a few bigger banks go down versus giving up the entire European project, I think the bankers will find one or two of their number under a bus.

      2) The Parliament does indeed have very little say. But being in it gives anyone there authority and access to info and people that none of us have currently.

      3) We don’t need that many of the general population to be interested. Just enough of them to start a landslide. It only takes one rogue clod to come loose on an unstable hillside for the whole seemingly solid place to find itself in motion.

  32. Kevin Barrington May 23, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    That’s a good idea.
    It sounds like Libertas with logic and manners.
    I think Declan Ganley’s greed and ego got the better of him.
    But he was essentially chasing the same idea – the creation of a lobby group within the European parliament.
    As Dutch Libertas candidate Eline Van Der Broek said in an interview when she was chasing Ganley for money:
    “He launched his own campaign…for him (Ganley) it would have been a bargain if he had got a 20-strong group for 25 million euro. The most effective lobby ever in Brussels. And why not?”
    Ganley may be the worst sort of disaster capitalist but he is not entirely stupid.
    He would have frequented the same sort of besuited demi-monde as Farrage and would have had the added advantage of freedom from all principle.

    One of the things to watch out for with a pan European movement is the existence of glaringly contradictory opinions or the co-mingling of mainstream and extremist.
    That provides great fodder for critics – I played this role with Libertas – and spruces up attack if there’s contradiction to be highlighted or out and out bigotry and extremism to be unearthed.

    Having handled the attack dogs against Libertas, I would be happy to help the media management/promotion of your pet project.

    Cheers

    Kevin

  33. Ben Stollery May 23, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    Fantastic stuff David and excellent and inspiring debate, thanks to all! I agree that ‘we all know what the crisis is that is facing us’ and now is the time to organise the wider public. Action does not preclude reflection and adaption, and will offer hope and focus to people who need hope right now. Will indeed watch this space for next steps.

  34. John Souter May 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

    Ah David I wish you well – and as for the name I would call it the I. P.D.S.P. (The International Peoples Democratic Sovereignty Party).

    But that mouthful said why limit it’s activities to the EU? Why not include local, national and international affiliations.

    As a supporter of Scotland’s independence it is the foundation of its people being sovereign that is the core principle I have based my support on. Certainly nothing xenophobic such as Scottish good – English bad. In fact it is my hope and belief that when Scotland gains its independence it will act as a catalyst for major democratic changes to be forced on the establishments of Westminster and Whitehall.

    However whatever the outcome of that particular issue I doubt it will have a major impact on the prevalent financial idiocy -it’s more likely the idiocy will have a negative impact and for all the wrong reasons. But perhaps, like the moon walk, it will be one small step for man -one small democratic brick in the democratic wall that will support our evolution in harmony with our planet as opposed to ruining it.

    And the thing is this, there are many small and not so small nations, especially the new emerging ones who having only just begun to shake off the mantles of debt peonage and still acutely aware of the suffering it caused, would like to see a sea change of the monetary game. I would suggest an affiliation of these would be a more effective game changer than struggling to get 100 souls with one voice in the EU. For one thing the EU is totally undemocratic and its parliament struggles for the legitimacy to be called theatre.

    The other point I would raise is, this present paradigm of irresponsible capitalism is at the very moment it is reaching for its zenith has by its corrupt depravity exposed its unsustainable and deviant instability.

    As such I think the answer lies in holding national governments to account. In essence to make the politicians fear the people – then we have democracy. Contrarily when the people are apathetic toward their governance and the politicians abuse the apathy we have, as at present, a witless, incompetent and spineless tyranny.

    To my mind a programme with an ever shifting schedule of civil disobedience combined with credit rebellion and one simple universal demand – namely the power of private banks to create debt/money being rescinded would be enough to bring the whole shaky edifice of monopoly finance down.

  35. davem May 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    David, Thanks for proposing this – I think it’s a great idea overall, maybe some of the details I’m unsure about, but it’s obvious we have to act now. Where do we start?

  36. Chris Sharp May 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    Interesting idea David. However I think you are missing out an essential piece of the puzzle: the media.

    Thinking about it just now, the word ‘media’ is a plural of ‘medium’ which means: An agency or means of doing something. It also ties in with the word ‘intermediary’.

    The political parties attempt to gain the favour of the public. The private sector tries to gain the favour of politicians. The reason this system has broken down is that people just have little or no reason to vote. As you point out, where is the point when they appear simply to be the choice of two evils?

    But why do we think it is a 2-party state? Who tells us that the other parties aren’t worth voting for? Who tells the politicians what we want? Who tells us what the politicians are doing?

    The media.

    If you launch a ‘99%’ party you will run into a huge media battle. It will not let you win. We need to take back the media machine and make sure that if it is going to act as a medium between the public, politicians and business then it does it accurately and without bias.

    Unfortunately this is impossible when the media machine is largely controlled by the interests of a few powerful men.

    So let’s be subversive. Go around the bastards.

    Anyway, there’s my 2 pence.

    • Golem XIV May 23, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

      Chris Sharp,

      I agree with your analysis of the role of the media. But I submit that that is one part of the over all project in which we have made a start.

      We already have a means of reaching people not just in one country but in many – this blog and others like it.

      This doesn’t mean we wouldn’t love to have mainstream media support – or at least not hostility. BUT I think we can live with whatever they dish out.

      They cannot gag us as they might have 20 years ago.

      the Pirate party has already shown what can be done and how quickly.

      • Magicalsushi May 24, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

        This seems like a good time to note, I found this blog via comments on a Guardian article. I don’t think I’m the only one, either. Golem’s (and others’?) efforts there do pay off, so keep it up!

      • M7 May 24, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

        Long time lurker with, perhaps, one post to my name (primarily because other posters seem to be able to articulate my thoughts, in writing, more capably than I am). Nevertheless, I like this idea – but I’m not sure how much help I can be sitting here in Canada.

        The reason I chose to reply here is because of Chris Sharp’s addressing of the larger media role and how their overwhelming presence could potentially harm any political movement.

        I think the media blanket would be a difficult one to perforate, let alone punch through, but I do have a couple suggestions which may assist.

        1) – The Real News may offer a platform for conveyance of the message. They pride themselves on be independent so, taken as a whole, they would have to “independently” deem anything the 99% party campaigns on newsworthy. Given their track record I suspect they would be interested in this message. You can check them out here Real News. I’m not sure how extensive their reach is, and there may be other similar outlets, but they are the largest I can think of. Similarly, social media outlets (facebook, twitter etc.) offer a breach in the mainstream media blanket. It’s free and there are nearly 1 billion users. Not using it in some capacity would seem silly.

        2) – Mounting this political fight is most likely going to be costly (monetarily speaking). Why not try to muster as much monetary clout as possible in order to bring the 99% message to as many as possible? Another avenue…? Warren Buffet. Yes, I’m fully aware of his financial might and how he amassed that wealth. He’s also repeatedly gone on the record about what is wrong with all that is financial. Basically, he’s said some things that have made the world’s financial elite cringe. From all reports on him that I’ve read, he’s a very modest man and is fully (completely) at a point in his life where he doesn’t give a f@#k what the financial elite think of his statements. I believe he’s both a logical and powerful ally in this kind of endeavour. Maybe I’m just pie-in-the-sky, but I think he’d be approachable and receptive to this. Perhaps there is a more Euro-centric billionaire out there who has similar views to that of Buffet, but I’m not aware of them. And please don’t read this explicitly as, “hit him up for cash”. The man has a booming voice in world finance and, despite his wealth, I believe he’s leaning much more heavily to the opinions you’ve outlined above.

        As for contacting him, or if it’s even realistic in the infancy of the 99% party, it might be a long shot – probably some kind of connection that would have to grow semi-organically.

        Anyway, that’s my two cents (some would argue I’ve only contributed a 1 cent thought).

    • Sublime1 May 24, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      Maybe a Kony 2012 style campaign could be the solution here?

  37. Bardo May 23, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    David

    I printed out your ‘modest proposal’ for reading and consideration over a cuppa. As a regular reader of his blog I was delighted to see such an idea burst forth. It was needed. My sense is that this could be just the kind of idea that many of those in the occupy movement were looking to support.

    Thanks for being bold and having the courage to step out. This is what we each must do in our own unique way if we wish to change the game.

    Count me in…

    • seedy June 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

      Bardo

      (and David) I think this is a spot on analysis- the occupy movement were attempting to highlight the swallowing of democracy by finance but their message was too opaque. What 99% does is focus it whilst make it accessible to those that need to be accessed? Count me and in on the transition the transition!

  38. The Dork of Cork May 23, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    @David
    The European system has created a classic colony in Ireland and elsewhere , starting with paying off the farmers as Crotty had warned and working its evil way through the system.
    The Irish / European matrix at least is just too embedded withen the fabric of the construct.
    Once they can pay off enough Orcs in the IFA and other organisations they can always carry the day.
    The only hope really is economic collapse itself , which I agree is not much of a hope.

    I mean imagine if politicans signed the ESM 40 years ago ? – there would be uproar.
    Now not so much.
    Treason is comonplace , a little ditty really.
    Something is missing from the core of this society ,shared sacrifice maybe.

    I imagine people has similar conversations during the later days of the Roman Empire when usary eventually forced the citizen surfs to embrace the barbarians as their saviours.

    Its zombie land out there – the bankers have won , it been 100s of years of planning.

    The trouble is its not worth much when things truely collapse , but they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
    Unless we get a Norman like King (Henry 1rst ?) who was not all sweetness and light either – who can somehow become a focus & take on these bastards…… but I don’t see it mate.

  39. shaun s May 23, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    “Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
    – Margaret Mead

    Congratulations David – you seem to have hit a core ideal of a great number of people.

    This article from a blogger on zeroHedge – also shows that small actions can and do lead to results that can be out of proportion to the size of the preliminary effort.. . I reckon there are a lot more people out there than is generally realised, who are ready to change the system(s) that have been put in place. All it needs is a starting point…

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-21-23/it-worth-fighting-%E2%80%A6-even-when-there-no-hope-winning

  40. Andrea May 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm #

    I think this is a good idea, see:

    There is no point in creating another party to fight for national power.

    ….scattered comments.

    If the org. -party- is to aim for electing MEPs then it is founded within an *existing* political entity, the EU.

    However the EU is a weird, clumsy Union, and it would be well to perhaps allow for some participation, support or whatever from the geographical region as a whole, i.e. incl. Iceland, Switz., Norway, Croatia, etc.

    The other extreme, as opposed to a pol party (who can obtain many advantages if they obey national criteria) is those on the whole pesky (imho) associations / orgs / NGOs that are join as you will, pay as you like maybe nothing to promulgate a stance, support ‘issues’, ‘actions’, etc. This model is to be avoided, imho.

    Anyway, the dimension,sketched here, requires some thought.

    Note: Amongst the alternative schemes, the Pirate Party comes to mind. I don’t know much about them, but have the impression that they are only nationally organized (and have had good success) and that they have missed the wider, international boat, although of course they communicate w each other. Another ex. is the Occupy movement, which is totally unstructured, a different cup of tea.

    Lastly, imho joining or subsuming under ANY EU/EU-nation institutionalized party, like the Greens, is absolutely out of the question. Firstly, because they would never take on such an agenda or platform.

    Name:

    the Occupy movement uses the slogan, *We are the 99%.* Googling *99%*: the next four items after the first, which = the number itself, refer to this usage.

    On the first page, there is also an org. called just *99%* – it seems to be some kind of think-tank in the creativity, video, area.

    So really, that is no good. Too polysemic, not original, seems to be piggy-backing, not new, etc. Moreover, it is just a number, and a common one at that.

    —————

    Golem, do you know of Paul Jorion, F ? (he has a lot of influence, well known author, anthropologist, finance specialist, etc.)

    this link gives some eng. trans of his blog.

    http://www.pauljorion.com/blog_en/

    here, blog in F,

    http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/

    Really I think Paul would agree with your platform, and he is someone who probably has half of the anti-banksters in France following his blog, reading his books, paying him a salary each month, etc. He is very respected, appears in the MSM as a ‘dissident’, writes prodigiously in many outlets, academic, news, appear on TV, etc. He is not a philosophical Frenchie innocent, he worked for a Big Bank in the US during the sub prime crisis…

    I point to Paul, because the question of contacts and supports also raises it’s head immediately, that is the ABC of new Pol parties. He was the best ex. I could think of. Note: I do not know him personally.

    • Golem XIV May 24, 2012 at 8:22 pm #

      Thank you for telling me about Jorion. I had a brief look. I think I”l try to make contact. Thanks again.

  41. 24K May 24, 2012 at 1:59 am #

    Nice idea dude.

    You know what I’d call the party….

    • Roger May 24, 2012 at 9:48 am #

      HEy ZBDS,

      I was just wondering if you were going to pitch in here.

      Whats your take on the Occupy thing I saw some folks say its and Idea not a movement and of course thats rathe harder to squeeze into the fail box.

      I think Occupy has raised conciousness I haven’t checked to see what was happening with the Assembly idea recently. ( I will now).

      I know you went down the the Bank of Ideas? whats the news from the front so to speak.

      Anyway I’m going over to your you tube channel to cheer myself up.

      Cheers

      • Roger May 24, 2012 at 10:08 am #

        http://occupylsx.org/

        See news and pre crime arrests Section 14 ( difficulat to abuse at best of times one of my birthday parties was once stopped using it.

      • 24K May 24, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

        Yo dude,

        Occupy tripped up on the ideology. The problem other than corruption is zombie trading. Pay your debts.

        It’s not about turning the whole system upside down, would be nice but seems like swaying from the point. The bank of ideas was a genius idea. There was and is a good movie to be made in these occupations. A thriller based on government agent provocateurs and secret reports fallen into the wrong, or right hands.

        HAHA! Nice. Somebody emailed me from the US asking if they could use WYGD on their political community radio they’re starting up. Made me smile as I don’t think it’s political. It’s Asian Indian tradition. Pay your debt.

  42. backwardsevolution May 24, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Charles Hugh Smith is always a good read: The E.U., Neofeudalism and the Neocolonial-Financialization Model.

    “In essence, the “core” nations of the E.U. colonized the “peripheral” nations via the financializing euro, which enabled a massive expansion of debt and consumption in the periphery. The banks and exporters of the “core” countries exacted enormous profits from this expansion of debt and consumption.

    Now that the financialization scheme of the euro has run its course, the periphery’s neofeudal standing is starkly revealed: the assets and income of the periphery are flowing to the Core as interest on the private and sovereign debts that are owed to the Core countries’ commercial and central banks.

    This is the perfection of Neofeudalism. The peripheral nations of the E.U. are effectively neocolonial debtors of the Core countries’ banks, and the taxpayers of the Core nations are now feudal serfs whose labor is devoted to making good on any bank loans to the periphery that goes bad. […]

    The Power Elites are attempting to set the serfs of the periphery against the serfs of the Core, and this is necessary to keep both sets of serfs from realizing they are equally indentured to the Core’s pathological Financial Elite-State partnership.”

    http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay12/EU-neocolonial5-12.html

    • Starved4Air May 30, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

      Thanks. Good link

  43. Tom Benford May 24, 2012 at 11:08 am #

    An inspiring piece this, Mr.Malone; certainly for me. Every word, and every proposal, rings with the clarity of a bell. Nor have I seen anything, in the proposals submitted subsequently, which strengthens or improves it. Stick to your guns, like M.Hollande.

    I’ve made a couple of small donations in the past, but this piece, for me, merits an immediate £100. I shall go off and make the arrangement now; use it for this cause. I think you have a winning idea whose time has come.

    • Golem XIV May 24, 2012 at 11:14 am #

      Tom,

      What can I say but thank you for your unstinting generosity. I will use the donation for this cause. You have my word.

  44. Jeff May 24, 2012 at 12:28 pm #

    Are you aware of this manifesto taken from a little known novel, Mutler:

    MWE (Mild, Warranted, Extreme) Manifesto
    1 Democracy cannot be expected to ride alone in curing the world’s ills
    2 Elder citizens should be given respect, dignity and company
    3 Television rips at the heart of true culture and should be slowly withdrawn
    4 Laughter and glibness should never become debate’s staple diet
    5 Regular work is often insuperable and should therefore be brought before a panel
    6 Invisible labour must begin to get its due, for long and deep thoughts are king
    7 A new kind of prison must be built for those who fail to embrace politeness and wisdom
    8 Society must end its fascination with images and living exclusively in the present
    9 Man must always challenge man whatever the perceived power and position of each
    10 No longer must our faces be etched in humbleness for a brighter existence holds sway
    11 Feigned sickness will be permitted if the time stolen is used to map out a finer world
    12 Community meetings will become compulsory in order to push back blatant nepotism
    13 Uneducated individuals representing a threat to society must be expelled & fast-tracked
    14 Haste and short termism must never be allowed to suffocate truth
    15 Individuals must be given sufficient non-economic time in which to grow and properly mature (ultimately ending capitalism’s prowess)
    16 Audaciousness must never be made to sit in a corner
    17 Freedom of expression and utilitarianism must always reign
    18 Literature must be allowed its rightful place in bringing empathy to the masses
    19 Councillors should be visible to the public & be able to convince & justify in all they do
    20 There must always be an ear for the pariah
    21 Non-monetary richness must become the dominant mode ‘shackling’ our lives
    22 Technology must be reined in and firmly overridden by beautiful old standards and ways
    23 If you are not able to see society’s pawns, its ‘strugglers’, then you do not belong
    24 Self-belief must never be shattered in lieu of another man’s gain
    25 The exemplary must be allowed to return for if it hides any longer it will starve
    26 Religion must admit its weaknesses and edit scripture where it is clear austerity exists
    27 We must pinch the consciousness of our brain and re-awaken philosophy if we are to stem the tide of half-humans
    28 Vulnerability should be to humanity what robes are to the clergy
    29 Education (secondary) must never be allowed to forego history
    30 We must never be cowed by the threats of big business – we should in fact call its bluff
    31 Change and evolution do not necessarily inhabit the same space
    32 Bosses must be replaced with coordinators; their heavy-footed walk no more
    33 Correcting a wrong must be seen as paramount over and above the need for a signature
    34 Symbols of greatness must become reality, not merely a product of martyrdom/heroism
    35 It is time we slowed down
    36 Commerce needs to return to the back seat of society’s car rather than have its hand on the gear stick
    37 Purporting to alter things without real intent is one of the largest crimes today
    38 The young must be given new books, new heroes, new ways of seeing the world
    39 The earth by definition of its moon is not meant to stay awake for 24hrs (a lesser number must rise)
    40 Retirement must no longer be a pot at the end of an illogical slog – the end of each decade must in addition bring relief of one or two years
    41 The looting of minds in an effort to make money must cease
    42 Perception is much grander when outside the big circles, much sharper when away from narrowness
    43 Expedience must be welcomed only where suffering is eased
    44 Relentless comfort when acutely inverse to the majority’s plight should be halted
    45 Childhood and education must not suffer at the hands of an intrusive commerce
    46 The police should act as arbiters of common sense, not suffer the fate of nonsensical policy directives and certainly not be diluted by a half-police with no powers
    47 One’s health should not be married to the quick fix of drugs unless other avenues have been ardently tested
    48 The leader of a country needs to be an interventionist prime minister rather than one who over-delegates and thus offsets his own responsibilities
    49 Public space needs to be recaptured beginning with inspirational sermons from the clergy
    50 Noise must never be allowed to pierce the tranquillity of a soothed mind
    51 Racial groups should be forced to meet regularly in order to iron out dubious stereotypes and thus forge a firm alliance
    52 Taxes must not be permitted to enter every waking facet of one’s life
    53 A culture points system must be introduced in order to validate one’s citizenship
    54 A higher truth must saddle itself up with a completely neutral system in order to weed out nepotism and unsound loyalties (both publicly and privately)
    55 Idlers should be treated similarly to those with skewed thoughts (their citizenship temporarily revoked while inspiration dances before them)
    56 Justice ought to be face to face where possible – the guilty reflecting on their crimes not before a judge but the affected family (see then if lessons are learned)
    57 Parents who smoke in the company of their children must have the latter ‘clamped’ and taken to a healthier place (no minor should be affected by parental ignorance)
    58 Knowing who died the year you were born must become pivotal to one’s existence (thus holding history up to the light instead of carelessly damning it)
    59 Cars – the infernal begetter of pollution, noise and status – must be weaned off oil by 2012 and indeed be marginalised by a system with trains at the helm
    60 We must swap incurable miscreants with the oppressed and honourable from around the world
    61 One’s grey matter must mature with wisdom, benevolence and discernment rather than a cutting intelligence
    62 Friendships must be regulated where they are deemed a threat to the wider whole
    63 The ‘modesty for assets’ programme must be implemented without delay – no man or woman being entitled to over one million pounds
    64 In time everyone shall look at the sky – pitch their dreams to the stars via observatories
    65 The regular underlining of fine words and literature must take place in order to check that minds are on track
    66 Mediocrity must always be dispelled – towns and cities must bequeath their keys
    67 We must no longer live by the American or British Dream given its guilt in persecuting others
    68 Let us form small hamlets once more and help each other rather than indulge in the currency of greed
    69 The arresting notion of generosity must again be permitted its swiftness, its flight
    70 Allowing the mind to pursue profitless tracts must be at the forefront of who we are
    71 Let not this prepared & largely bruised world redirect us from our aim of equality for all
    72 Money continues to buy bricks and apathy – let us again stress our need to flush out society’s exploiters and opportunists
    73 Alone in our thoughts, we all know how things should be. Let such profundity prevail
    74 No more feeling like a Second World War Frenchman sent to work in Germany
    75 We must sequester from all vehicles – over time – papers, books and magazines which hang literature and seek to substitute it with low culture and grime
    76 In time we shall scrutinize and correct all that is perfidious around us: coarse music; imported wives; TV; man’s deportment; unhinged drinking; drugs; superciliousness
    77 Diamonds for gravel–that must be our cultural aim; to replace roughness with substance
    78 In perhaps doubting the journey we have set ourselves we must always picture the first one or two specimens that came to us and who are now in tune with how life should be
    79 Socialism with a twist – that is what we stand for, what we represent
    80 Those in genuine bad health will have a voice like never before (being that they speak from a place of knowing and suffering)
    81 Artificial anger will again know its place once we have mapped out society’s pointless professions
    82 The minds of people on this earth must first be understood before funds are granted in relation to other galaxies
    83 Force must never be the ultimate arbiter. Our responsibility must be to rein in,not initiate
    84 Membership of our group or a corrupt individuality – that is the choice we put before you
    85 Rectitude must never be undermined by bias and favouritism
    86 Political silence sweeps all before it. No longer should local and general elections dominate the landscape leaving the people with nothing in between
    87 A return to immediacy and true oration must prevail over obfuscation and sophistry
    88 Let us find that beautiful cave between humility and bluster
    89 Our aim is not to repress, but merely offer fairness
    90 Who do we see as the insipid barons of criminality? The miscreants or populists? Both
    91 What do we seek to pluck at? The place adjacent to one’s fear, thus making them whole
    92 Winning is not our goal – such thinking punctures any sense of progress
    93 Hypocrisy – remember it as the place between one’s aspirations and actions
    94 The visceral must be given a higher calling away from its mainstays of gambling & love
    95 Space and time – that is all we are about. Let us find them both and thus rejoice – enable our workings

  45. Desmond Dillon May 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm #

    hi Golem and all human beings i know winston churchill said democracy wasn’t up to much until you considered the alternatives. now we really do need to find a better alternative. i write this because it seems to me that democracy is just a sop to neutralize resistance. the corruption of power even with the best will in the world always predominates. changing it from the inside has always proved to be a non starter. those of us who will not accept oppression have to up our response.

    i was in tunisia just before and at the start of their spring. just before i was asking about politics and it was explained to me in detail that the people had no interest. that the futility of political action was clear to everyone there. rather like uk and ireland and other places.

    mass civil disobedience with no organization is the threat the powers cannot deal with. of course it needs to be non violent and it needs a spark and it needs to be relentless. mark duttons murder was the nearest spark we have had. maybe we have all learnt something from the response. i feel our biggest resource is to be found within ourselves.

    jimmy hendrix said that when the power of love was stronger than the love of power we may have peace. something like that. i wish you all the best..

  46. jim May 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    Hi all
    well Ive read this blog as a way to keep an eye and ear in to whats going on and its really opened my mind to ‘boring’ economics, whatever I can contribute I will do gladly.
    I dont have much time or resources being a farmer and working long days just to keep going but count me in!
    cheers
    Jim

  47. keekster May 24, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

    jim May 24, 2012 at 12:56 pm #
    Welcome. Farming is probably the most important part of the economy, but receives little respect from the financial parasites!

    Golem XIV May 22, 2012 at 4:50 pm
    Orlov points out that the people of the USSR turned their back on the political system, and in doing so recognised that it would fail of its own accord. Interestingly the USSR was in a debt crisis when it collapses, very similar to the US today.

    The State, and the EU get there power by extracting wealth from the periphery. If the periphery cant or wont give its wealth, then the system collapses. I picture a post peak oil, post globalisation, energy scarce future. The most resilient response to this will be localisation and more self sufficiency. Such an approach does not lend itself to centralised power and huge corporations. It may not happen that way, but if it does, an international approach may be irrelevant. Thats why I’m not convinced. However, dont let that put you off. I may be wrong!

  48. keekster May 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    backwardsevolution May 24, 2012 at 10:41 am #
    Thats a great summary. Shame I didn’t read it first before my previous post. I like CHS thinking in this matter, the core and the periphery. One further detail, is that the elite is really the financial sector. If the bailouts stop, and court cases are held. Then they will fall from power. But they will seek to use their political influence to keep their ‘ponzi’ scheme going until the bitter end, and hope the politicians take the fall. But the head of the Syriza party Alexis Tsipras is on to this.

  49. John Souter May 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Does this sum up the state we’re in?

    A little boy asks his dad, “Dad, what’s politics?”
    Dad thinks for a bit and say’s, “Well son, let me explain it this way. I’m the breadwinner for the family, so let’s call me Capitalism. Your Mum, she’s the administrator of the money so we’ll call her Government.

    We’re here to take care of your needs, so we’ll call you Human Needs. The nanny we’ll consider her the Working Class. And your baby brother we’ll call him the Future.

    Now think about that and see if it makes sense.” So the wee boy goes off to bed pondering on what his Dad has said.

    Later that night he hears his baby brother crying and gets up to check on him. He finds the baby has seriously filled its nappy, so goes into his parent’s room only to find his mother in a deep sleep. Not wanting to wake her, he goes to the nanny’s room and finds the door’s locked. Peeping through the keyhole he sees’s his dad’s in bed with the nanny so he gives up and goes back to bed.

    Next morning he tells his father, “Dad, I think I understand the concept of politics now.”

    Dad looks chuffed and say’s, “Good son, tell me in your own words what you think politics is about.”

    The boy replies,” Well, while capitalism is screwing the working class, the government is sound asleep, human needs are ignored and the future is in deep shit.”

    • Starved4Air May 30, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

      Simply Classic -:)

  50. Maia May 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    I am already supporting the new National Health Action Party in the UK which has as its main aim to restore the NHS through winning enough seats to exert pressure on a minority government in the next election, only fielding about 50 candidates against those most involved in its privatisation. (google it, or see @cpeedell & #nhaparty on twitter if interested)

    I overall agree with your point & plan, but we need to get together to organise tactically upon who to vote for in each district – for instance, Plaid Cymru is a very electable party in parts of Wales but hardly an EU player. It’s better to have a political party that, so to speak, exists first and foremost on the ground, but often supports other candidates when that would be most effective. I have been voting Green for a long time now, as i think they are addressing the end of fossil fuels, the biggest challenge to current economics because they allowed the industrial revolution and their end will mark as big a change..

    But yes, to an extent i’m in. Just, winning is the point, one must be focussed…i want change, not martyrdom.

    • Golem XIV May 24, 2012 at 10:20 pm #

      Thank you Maia!

      You are right we need to coordinate our efforts to help not thwart each other. Tell us what we can do to help you.

  51. Daniel Dunne May 25, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    What’s your position on the financial tranaction tax proposed at EU level recently?

  52. FallingLeaf May 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    David,

    Firs time post, I’ve been lurking on this blog and I’ve been thrilled, frightened, depressed, angered, panicked, inspired.

    Whilst I’m not 100% (or perhaps 99% 😛 ) behind everything that’s been written (I voice no specific criticisms, I need to think this through a lot more), I am broadly behind this idea. I thought I’d share a little anecdote that might help.

    Just a few days ago, I met a couple of 21 year old squatters/political activists squatting in south London. It was a lovely day and they were nice so I thought I’d chat. I was raised as part of the 1% but not in too vulgar a way, I hope you understand. And I explained that to them, we had about a half hour dialogue when I explained them the crisis as I understand and as inspired in this blog. Complicated ideas, big words, quantitative easing, debt jubilee, mutual cross debt cancellation etc.

    And they got it. And they were thrilled because things were made clearer. They were clearly optimist by nature but they felt intellectually empowered. I’d like to think this can be some inspiration or comfort for you and other readers here, that ideas like this can be translated to 21 year old squatters in south London who then feel empowered. Can they do anything about it? I don’t know but I’d like to think we all did something to those kids.

    Best wishes

    • Golem XIV May 25, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

      Thank you so much.

      That people such as you are able and willing to empower people with a clear understanding, is what frightens our present rulers.

      More power to you.

  53. Deiza May 27, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Not got time to read all the comments but I ofund this interesting about the German Pirate Party.
    They are structured in a very participatory way – this gives some insight.

    http://bollier-host1.gaiahost.net/blog/liquidfeedback-what-genuine-democratic-process-looks

    I think that the state of affairs of our political system points to greta faults with its reperesentative model and that Liquid Feedback (read the article above) could point towards the answer.

    I also found this article, about the future of democracy, fascinating – well worth a read

    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/speroni20120427

  54. eartheart May 28, 2012 at 12:43 am #

    I think this is one of your worst suggestion David.

    • Golem XIV May 28, 2012 at 8:16 am #

      Morning eartheart,

      why do you think so? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.

  55. C May 28, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    I don’t know if anyone’s pointed this out to you so far as I’ve not the time to read through all the comments – but you seem to have missed the fact that the European Parliament is largely powerless. Perhaps crucially, it’s can’t initiate legislation. It remains largely a place to discuss Council proposals and occasionally push for amendments to proposed legislation.

    Good luck but you’ll need a new European constitution to effect any serious change.

  56. Guido May 30, 2012 at 5:54 am #

    Hi Golem,

    your platform can be reduced to:

    Abrogation of Debt Based Fiat Money and Fractional Reserve Banking.

    Everything else you mention is a direct function of the monetary system.

    • Golem XIV May 30, 2012 at 10:00 am #

      Hello Guido!

      Basically…yes.

      How are you? Any chance of an email with news from your part of the world?

      • vivien May 31, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

        Em,

        how is reinstating very tight limits on leverage basically = to completely ending fractional reserve banking?

        Sorry, I’m not trying to split hairs or the broad church but politics will be fought on the real world consequences of theories – not the theories themselves.
        (thanks God – I have no ambition to go back to totalitarian world views – it is the elites in the last 30 years who have been trying out such theories in the vulnerable places they could get away with it, but I think the public at large have finally learned to distrust such single mindedness)
        And the difference between the two sides of that ‘basically’ the same equation would have significant effect on the real world of small businesses and general social mobility.
        What I would propose as the first next would be that you enlist the help of Richard Murphy if he is willing, or someone similarly qualified, to spell out the immediate & long term effects, as far as we can know them, of the proposals set out above.
        Otherwise I worry about the ‘broad church’ will be just another well known political ploy where candidates very carefully don’t say what it is they are really saying. If you want a return to a gold/bitcoin standard I think you should say those words, because surely saying to Guido ‘basically yes’ is saying that? Or is you are for the proposals of Positive Money say that.
        I have been reading the comments along time, and you seem in general ar more careful to be courteous & welcome to posters with right wing (gold std/mkt fundamentalist) views than people who are avowedly left wing. Charles Wheeler posted here for months, often keeping the blog going with thoughts & links in long breaks between articles. I don’t believe you have ever even acknowledged his existence, or John Souter’s, but anyone popping in to say in effect ‘let get rid of the state’ can be sure of a courteous acknowledgment & reply? This is one of those things that makes me go hmmm.

        Laying out the real world effects (& possible solutions, or discussion of alternative solutions) of the proposals, while being clear & honest about your own views would allow people a much clearer view what is really being proposed & the difference between the party proposal & the proposals of the party members if you can see what I mean. We had this in Ireland with the Green party – and I think it is often a weakness of Green Parties – in that they expect to be voted in solely on environmental concerns & too often think they can get away with eliding being pinned down on how they would vote on the many other decision that will be put before them in government.

        Would you propose for example, that party members would abstain from voting on matters not related to these matters, or as I mentioned in my reply to your Next Steps post, would you be happy for members to campaign and lay out their stances on other issues as long as they stick to the party line on the proposals laid out?
        With possibly the understanding that the party would remain a forum for open debate of many issues & would promote democratic discussion of alternative solutions which aren’t presently allowed to feature in the narrowed political debate of the current time?

        Totally not expecting a reply, being a lefty an all

        Vivien

        • Golem XIV May 31, 2012 at 4:06 pm #

          Vivien,

          It’s not often I feel insulted but you have managed. Perhaps you didn’t mean to but you manage to pack a large number of insults into quite a small space. Your comment is a tour de force of uncharitable innuendo.

          What you recommend, while thoughtful and obviously motivated by sincere concern, manages to be both condescending and to insinuate all sorts of unpleasant dishonesty and partisan favouratism on my part.

          You are quite right with your very first question. Is reining in leverage the same as totally outlawing fractional reserve banking? No it’s not. But neither is getting rid of fractional reserve banking necessarily the same thing as returning to the gold standard. It is more a matter of abrogating the ability of private banks to inflate/create the money supply and instead returning the right to issue money to the naiton state.

          I am quite happy for the state to print up money without reference to gold reserves. But I do want to deny the private banks the facility of creating their own fiat currency via debt creation.

          I could have said all this in reply to Guido and thus made my remark clear. I should have and then we might not be having this exchange.

          I didn’t because Guido and I have exchanged our opinions for several years and he knows I don’t agree with him. So all I did was leave a fragmentray reply basically designed to say ‘hello’. By saying …basically…yes.. I think I was indicating that there is plenty of scope for Guido to give the proposed platform the time of day.

          Now let’s move on to your first piece of snippy condescension.

          ‘..enlist the help of Richard Murphy…or someone similary qualified…” Surely you can see how condescending this is? That is precisely what the bankers have said to me and people like me from the start. Run along little boy and leave it to the adults.

          You suggest I should get Richard to look at what the ‘real world’ consequences of what I have proposed might be. Indicating that I cannot possibly have done so myself or if I have then I am likely to have gotten my little self all confused. Ask a grown up is what you’re saying.

          Vivian, why are you here reading this blog? As soon as you see something you think indicates that I support something you don’t like and you immediately question my whole understanding and suggest I get a real expert involved.

          Why don’t you read Richard’s blog not mine. You’ll feel safer and I won’t have to be condescended to. Richard is a very nice man. I actually had a very long conversation with him yesterday. Say hello for me.

          Next you suggest that I ignore left wingers and am more keen to welcome right wingers and in particular feel I ignored Chrles Wheeler and John Souter.

          You then tie this to wondering about my politics and seem to be suggesting that I might be being careful not to reveal my own politics as part of ‘that well known political ploy’ of not saying what I really believe.

          Well as it turns out, over the course of this blog (remember I have been writing for a while now) I have been called ‘Comrade Golem’ by those who saw left wing bias, you have accused me of being right wing and as it turns out I am a left wing Green voter.

          I have been asked a few times what my own views are and have always replied when asked. I do not make my own views ‘clear’ all the time because I do not want this blog to be about my views.

          Of course my views inform what I write and what I think. But I hope they do not intrude and get in the way of the issues I write about.

          I do try to say hello and welcome to all commenters. I think I would have done so with both Charles and John. I certainly have left the odd comment of appreciation when they have contributed something above even their usual brilliant standard.

          If I have been remiss in not saying thankyou enough to them then I apologize to them. For the record I think they are both wonderfull contributors who have often made brilliant points and shared sources I was thrilled to find out about from them.

          My silences (which I know were disappointingly long) and any lack of response to anyone in particular were no disrespect to anyone but a result of circumstances in my personal life.

          Generally I try not to be partisan. When I talk about the need for a broad church of people coming together to fight common enemies and to defend democracy I mean it.

          You cite the Irish Green Party as a group who were disingenuous. I agree with you the Irish Greens were rank and stupid opportunists who betrayed those who voted for them. That is their crime. Not mine.

          You ask about what I think party memebers and those who might stand for the party, should do about issues outside of the platform. As you say you raised this point in the first article. I took it on board as a good question and thought I had addressed it in ‘The Next Steps’ when I said we would need to be flexible and allow for differences in the exact platform adopted in different countries.

          Perhaps I should have said more but I felt I had already said quite a bit.

          For the record I think the party would need to let candidates make clear their other views so that voters knew who they were voting for. What I would say is taht all candidates should make it clear that the core platform is their and teh party’s main concern. But what each country felt was acceptible in a candidate and what was not would have to be for them to decide not some central committee. That would make for strange mixtures but so what? All I said beyond that is we should avoid the politics of hate.

          I hope I have now responded to all your points.

          • margarita June 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

            Hello I am a new reader, just found my way here today and am working my way through, fascinating and inspiring stuff. I am an ordinary person with little understanding of economics but I have been reading a lot recently, trying to understand the reality we find ourselves in and how our political system got hijacked in this way. I red blogs like zerohedge and the Slog and I have got quite an education from reading comments threads below the line on Guardian articles which are often very well informed. Although I am something of a leftie I also read what people post on right wing message boards as I think it gives a rounded view of the electorate’s thinking.

            The reason for my post is to say that the solution to the problems we face today would be better presented as not being an issue of left or right, it is too important for that. The solution must be one that people will sign up to, whatever their own political colour, and which can’t be crudely dismissed as simply ‘anti capitalist’ or whatever, by vested interests.

            Good luck to you, I hope your ideas turn out to be the solution we have been waiting for. I will keep reading..

  57. Starved4Air May 30, 2012 at 7:12 pm #

    Hi David,

    Your proposal is anything but modest. It is quite far reaching and I wish you luck.

    I must say I am totally blown away that on the strength of your blog someone has been inspired to donate 100 quid. I think you may just be able to make this idea work. I am in Australia /SE Asia generally so am not sure how your proposal pans out down under.

    At any rate it is rather ambitious for my liking. I would much prefer trying some tried and true solutions …for example after the South Sea bubble it was moved in the British Parliament that “the bankers should be thrown into bags with snakes and dunked into the Thames”

    Of course we cant do that today – the animal liberationists wouldn’t allow that.

    Seriously though I think deterrence has a place – I would propose identifying one group and one corporation ( as if it is an individual) and making a global citizens arrest (Kony 2012 fashion) .

    My nomination of a group would be auditors as the community entrusts auditors to ensure that businesses and corporations are run in a non criminal way.

    To give the arrest some focus I would go further and nominate Ernst & Young given that they were the auditors of the Lehman Brothers whose belly flop over the cliff triggered all the other lemmings. Sure the financial problems are systemic etc but the point being that if the auditors had done their job we would have had much earlier warning and not such a hard crash. If the we make an example of one ( KONY style) then that just may put the brakes on GFC mark 2..

  58. Sarah Newton June 11, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Hi Golem, hi everyone,

    First post here – I’m a long-term reader and lurker. Just wanted to offer my support for a new pan-European or even global / Western party movement. So many people I’m meeting are very aware things have gone wrong, but have no idea what they can do to fix it, so IMHO the time is right to start a clearly focussed movement to fix / restore our democracy and reverse the hollowing out of our social democracy which the banksters have been pushing these past 10-15 years, if not longer.

    Personally I’d focus immediately on a European party: articulated correctly, you’d get enormous support in almost all member countries. Try not to be left / right partisan: our problem is no longer one of left wing vs right wing, but pro-democracy vs authoritarian corporatism, and any movement should be couched in those terms, IMHO.

    Additionally, placing yourself at a European parliamentary level would allow national parties to offer support without the automatic presumption you’re in conflict with them. In countries where there are already political movements opposing the nascent corporatism this would be very valuable.

    Also, perhaps, make it clear that the movement is essentially a one-trick pony: its job is to reform / restore our social democracy, then either step down or morph into something less universal. That way you can unite traditionally left wing and right wing folks under a common banner to ‘get this sorted out’.

    Finally, money. You’ll need it, so go for crowdfunding. Provide staggered ‘rewards’ for contributions: memberships, e-bulletins, t-shirts, hell, masks! Set up a Facebook page for the movement, a Youtube channel, maybe even get celebs and musicians involved. Give people something that concretises the movement – this is about drawing together under a motivated umbrella the nascent European awareness that ‘something must be done’, and you want to generate a sense of belonging, IMHO.

    Anyway, just my two-penn’orth. You have my support, and that of many others. The established media will be your enemy – but thank god the alt-media are still there to be used.

    Keep up the good work, and thanks for the great blog!

    Best,

    Sarah

    • Golem XIV June 11, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

      Hello Sarah,

      I agree entirely about being non-left/right but emphasizing that this is a coming-together to do the desperately needed job of restoring/protecting democracy from what you quite rightly call authoritarian corporatism.

      I know there hgas been a pause but it is just that – a pause. I do not want anyone to feel rushed into it without time to think and respond.

      I think we will have to settle on a name shortly. From there we start to set up all the things you mention.

      Please stay in touch. You sound as if you have much to offer.

      • WorzelGummidge July 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

        Do you think we could add something about not glamourising Gypsies in the party manifesto?

        Outlaw any more “fat gypsy” whatever programmes? Surely this is the greatest evil perpetrated against our once proud nation? But are we bothered about the uninformed votes of the herding masses?

        This is the kind of debate that would really capture the imagination in this unsophisticated sceptered isle.

        OK i’m joking. Agree that a cunning hydra-headed campaing in Europe is the way to go though. Count me in. PS, can we close down all Facebook data centres on the basis that they both pullte environmentally and are an insult to humanity?

        • Roger July 26, 2012 at 7:45 am #

          Just checking in to re affirm my commitment to this Idea David. I see it as a powerful method of getting some informed un sponsored critique of the present hedgemony into the wider mainstream debate.
          Take the GDP news and un reporting of the same on the BBC. Mish Shedlock writes on it today and Steph Flanders is given the job of spinning the up side ( The figures will be revised?)

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18985077

          200.
          You
          Just now

          It seems Gideons Pasty pasting budget is not working.

          An old etonian Toff
          was often noted to scoff
          Whilst Brosiering His dame
          Economical Actualite IS the name of the game

          I’ll tax the upper Crust off your pasty
          now your all Fagging for me
          I always preferred Cheshire PorkY Pies
          In Cuisine and in Deed you see.

          http://www.positivemoney.org.uk

          Take back the money creation power into the Commons.

          http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2012/03/classic-one-i-was-going-to-write.html

          Mish on GDP.

          http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.se/2012/07/uk-gdp-disaster-far-worse-than-it-looks.html

          GDP is a very silly economic measure, by its metrics quantative easing really makes things look great of course expanding Bank reserves does nothing for the real economy unless the Banks choose to excercise their debt money creation powers.

          Will keep checking back, Greetings from a sunny Sweden.

          Rog

        • Ian Glendinning July 30, 2012 at 9:48 am #

          Joking as you say, but many a true word in jest and irony. Too much distributed public communication is not entirely a good thing.

  59. Ian Glendinning July 30, 2012 at 9:44 am #

    This paradoxical balance between local and international is Federalism. Despite being dubbed the F-word it is the right solution. The international (European) level needs enough power and governance to set the framework only – so that local constituencies can function with true local participation.

    If local becomes entirely insular, then each local constituency is in its own competitive battle, competing and defending and attacking, etc – with no power to influence the international scale natural monopoly resources of the ecosphere, and the international institutions beyond local governance.

    The trick is for the centre not to forget its role to regulate what need regulating, but not use its power to govern what it shouldn’t. Powerful minority is good at this level.

  60. Patrick Donnelly August 10, 2012 at 2:49 pm #

    TPTB will be fewer in number after the Depressive phase is over, in twenty years or so. The power of the money machine is far less than ever before. But it only serves as a conduit anyway and will be reassembled by the victors in due course.

    The best choice is to actually join them! The Greens are an arm of theirs anyway. Money, in the trillions, is very persuasive. No political party can withstand that amount? They will be reinvesting it at the very bottom and then slowly reinflating, as usual. It will therefore as heretofore, increase.

    Any other attempt to rein them in will use transparency as the main weapon. How can we get close to those who have that amount of money? How many and which countries do they now own and control?

  61. Roger Lewis May 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

    http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/05/a-way-forward-a-modest-proposal/

    Hi Vern, happy to comit to being on board with this initiative I am also committed to David Malones initiative linked. I have cross linked and maybe you two will consider comparing notes.

    http://lnkd.in/v-JWp7

    Hi David, This looks interesting.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A Modest Proposal to fix the Mess | - May 24, 2012

    […] article here. Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged Currency, Derivatives, Europe, mark to market, […]

Leave a Reply