Skip to main content

Am I a Feminist?

“There are three problems in this world…” Sekai Holland opened her speech “1. men, 2. men, and 3. men.” [1]

“Feminism” is an interesting word. In my ignorance it used to bring to mind images of men-hating women demanding to work, wear suits, and take off their bras. The idea of studying feminism or being a feminist was as foreign to me as studying astronomy and being an alien. Born in 1982 I missed the fight for women’s rights and, without giving it a moment of appreciation, I have reaped the benefits of it.

In time and with education, my understanding of the most successful movement of last century has evolved. I am now filled with gratitude to the courage of feminists: their fight for women’s respect, for women’s right to vote, and for women to have more say in the direction they want to take their lives.

One look at the political and corporate world we see the difference they have made – the scene has clearly changed since the days of Mad Men. Australia even has a female Prime Minister! That being said there’s still the long way left to go – women’s salaries are still far lower then mens, and the % of men to women in roles of governance and corporate rule are still not in a good way.

With these ideas running through my mind, I find myself wondering: am I a feminist?

Given I like men, hate suits, and appreciate a good bra, there’s a part of me that finds this a strange question to be thinking about.

Yet without a doubt when it comes to equality of wages and opportunities, protection from rape, power to choose divorce, abortion, playing sports, and bounds of research has found that the feminine approach to most matters is more peaceful than the masculine, it would seem that I am a feminist. Why then do I feel so weird about this word?

It is most likely inherited from a backlash against feminism via the media re-framing the movement after the war. Bell Hooks talks briefly about it here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQUuHFKP-9s[/youtube]

Sure I understand the argument for “traditional roles”: looking after the children, cleaning, cooking – these are important and rewarding tasks for humans. But I don’t think this need be specifically a woman’s roles. I’d be quite happy if my partner were a “stay-at-home-Dad” if it meant I could continue to research and write while he did the housework.

The big problem I have with feminism is that I don’t like polarising men. They’re not all bad 😉 And those that are, it’s not their fault. We have all been “thrown” into this “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” world. It’s not a fixed state, but is changing as I type, and as you read. In the past violence may have the best way to solve conflict, and to maintain peace within a society.

Now, survival of those fittest (as in “best-suited”) for our changing global environment, requires intuitive, long-term, non-violent means to end cycles of violence, get rid of nuclear weapons, and develop agricultural and economic structures that suit our holistic needs as a species. The yin, the feminine, needs to weave it’s way back into the spheres of society that have been too long dominated by yang, the masculine.

So, in answer to my question: am I a feminist? If I’m honest with myself, ignoring the stereotype and the fact that I might be categorised as a humanist, a panentheist, and many other “-ists” as well, I suppose I have to say yes – I am a feminist— I like living in a world where women are treated (almost) equally to men, and the more equal women and men are treated throughout the world, the better a world it will be.

References:
[1] My colleagues were in Zimbabwe announcing Senator Sekai Holland as the recipient-to-be of the 2012 Sydney Peace Prize.

 

 

“White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy”

The truth can hurt. It’s a harsh world, and a harsh critique: “White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy”. Unfortunately those four words capture a certain truth about our history and prevailing political and economical hierarchy of power.

These words come from American author, feminist, and social activist, Bell Hooks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ-XVTzBMvQ[/youtube]

Hooks uses the term “white supremacy” above “racism” as white supremacy ‘evokes a political world that we all frame ourselves in relation to.’

They say life is like a lottery: we don’t choose what year, culture or family that we will be born into. After being thrown into whatever world we are thrown, we engage in a dialectic between: (1) the “agency” we have, that is the choices we have power to make, and (2) the “structure” we are in, that is the external factors that limit those choices.

For Hooks, the violence that results from “White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy” ie racial discrimination, is an issue of institutions not individual relations.

Hooks argues that a proactive sense of agency requires a greater level of literacy

‘I think we cannot begin to talk about freedom and justice in any culture if we’re not talking about mass based literacy movements…. degrees of literacy determine so often how we see what we see… what it means for our lives.’

Hooks suggest that two dimensional conflicts can be transformed by asking: “how can we have a more complex reading?”  The four words put together “White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy” complicates the issues of freedom and justice.

According to Hooks the solution to combating the structural violence resulting from this structure, or the beginning of solutions, comes from learning to think critically and be critical vigilant of the representations that we come in contact with.

‘The issue isn’t freeing our selves from representations. It’s really about being enlightened witnesses when we watch representations. It’s about being critically vigilant about both what is being told to us and how we respond to what is being told.’

Extra reading:

On looking for a thumbnail (every blog entry needs a pic) I came across a blog entry with this diagram:

 

 

Key:

RS – Racial and Sexual Domination
Rs – Racial Domination
rS – Sexual Domination

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Charles W. Mills and Carole Pateman, Contract and Domination (2007)

Mills writes:

“… though gender [=sex] subordination predates racial subordination, once racial subordination has been established, it generally trumps gender… So the interaction of the two contracts does not produce a symmetry of race and gender subordination, but a pattern of internal asymmetries within the larger asymmetry of social domination. Whites as a group dominate nonwhites as a group, while within these racial groups me generally dominate women.” (pp.172-173)

Taken from blog: http://bandung2.blog.co.uk/2008/04/12/c-w-mills-on-racial-white-supremacist-pa-4033733/

Madrigal’s Magic Key to Spanish

I love it when Spanish words resemble their English equivalent. Madrigal’s Magic Key to Spanish, illustrated by Andy Warhol, is a cheat code for English speakers to learn Spanish. Carried out with a sense of humour too. See if you can guess these words: diferente; conveniente; elefante; producto;  intereste;  nación; universidad; usé... I’ve been recommending this book to so many people that I figure I should share it on here.

Some the cheat code:

Words that end in orare often identical in Spanish: actor; doctor; tractor; color; error; favor. All you have to do is slightly change your vowels and accents.

Words that end in alare also often identical in Spanish: animal; central; local; musical; legal; natural.

Words that end in ble often don’t change: horrible; possible; flexible; probable; visible; inevitable.

Words that end in ‘ent’ or ‘ant’, just add an e: presidente; ecelente; accidente; conveniente; inteligente; imporante; el elefante.

Words that end in ‘ist’ just add an a: artista; dentista; capitalista.

Words that start with ‘s’ prefix with an e’: especial (special), espiritual (spiritual).

Words that end in ‘ous’ change to ‘oso: delicioso (delicious); famoso (famous); curioso (curous); nervioso (nervous); misterioso (mysterious); fabuloso (faboulous).

Words that end in ‘ly’ change to mente: absolutemente (absolutely); automaticamente (automatically); naturalmente (naturally); personalmente (personally); realmente (really/actually).

Words with ‘ph’ change to f: filosofia (philosophy), elefante (elephant).

Words that end in ‘ty’ change to dad: espiritualidad; (spirituality); curiosidad (curiosity); electricidad (electricity); personalidad (personality); humanidad (humanity).

Words that end in ‘ry’ change to rio: necesario; aniversario; extraordinario; contrario; diccionario; imaginario; involuntario; itinerario;

Words that end in ‘sion’ change to sión: decisión; discusión; comisión; confusión; conclusion.

Some words that end in ‘cal’ end in ‘co’ in Spanish: tipico (typical), logico (logical); identico (identical); etico (ethical); clasico (classical); economico (economical); politico (political).

Words that end in ‘ic’, add an ‘o’: artistico; acadmeico; burocratico; cientifico (scientific); democratico; fotografico; historico; ironico; magico.

Words that end in ‘tion’ convert simply to ción: invitación; anticipación; civilización; cooperación; generación; admiración; generación.

Pronunciation key:

Some words to remember:

que = what; donde = where; quien = who; cuando = when; como = how; porque = why.

y = and; bonita = beautiful; linda = beautiful; amor = love.

cuánto = how much; costó = cost.

tu or usted = you; va = go; mañana = morning.

antes = before; después = after

la izqueirda = left; la direcha = right;

Verbs:

Examples of verbs
verb ends with: when applied to: that is: tener (have) poder (can) ser (be)
-o I yo tengo puedo soy
-es you tienes puedes eres
-en he/she él/ella/usted tiene puede es
-emos us nosotros tenemos podemos somos
-nen they ellos/ellas/ustedes tienen pueden son

Some prepositions to remember:

Use es to say ‘is’ when something is permanent eg el banco es grande (the bank is big).

Use esta to say ‘is’ when something is temporary, or when referring to a location eg el banco no esta limpo (the bank is not clean).

‘la’/’el’ = ‘the’ (masculine/feminine singular)

‘las’/’los’ = ‘the’ (masculine/feminine plural)

‘una’/’uno’ = ‘a’ or ‘an’ (masculine/feminine singular)

unas’/’unos’ = ‘a’ or ‘an’ (masculine/feminine plural)

Masculine & feminine:

Feminine = words that end in -d; -sion; -cion; -a

Masculine = words that end in -e; -o; -n; -l; -s; -z

Patterning the numbers:

0 cero 10 diez
1 uno 11 once 100 cien
2 dos 12 doce 20 veinte 200 doscientos
3 tres 13 trece 30 treinta 300 trescientos
4 cuatro 14 catorce 40 cuarenta 400 cuatrocientos
5 cinco 15 quince 50 cincuenta 500 quientos
6 seis 16 dieciseis 60 sesenta 600 seiscientos
7 siete 17 dieciseite 70 setenta etc…
8 ocho 18 dieciocho 80 ochenta 1000 un mil
9 nueve 19 diecinueve 90 noventa 1,000,000 un million

 

This is just a sample of this magical book. It not only takes you through a pile of nouns and verbs, but helps you learn how to change verbs to different tenses, including the irregular ones and exceptions, and using simple exercises it helps you apply it and start putting together your own sentences from the get go. Did I mention I highly recommend this book?

If it weren’t for PROCRASTINATION and DISTRACTIONS I’d be fluent by now 😉 The fact that paying for lessons means you actually study is a good reason to still do lessons, even if reading this book is more effective… I’m a pretty self-motivated person, and yet when my paid Spanish classes finished, so did my reading of Madrigal’s key. That being said, the time I’d have been studying Spanish was replaced with studying philosophy (and a bit of falling asleep by the pool)… hence why another change in travel plans, but more on that another day.

This key makes me wonder what else can be made more simple. Tim Ferris seems to do it with a lot of things, from languages to swimming to the tango:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPE2_iCCo0w[/youtube]

SIMPLICITY = cheat code to Spanish, and also maybe to life…

 

Social Construction of Wealth and Happiness

Wealth isn’t only socially constructed. Neither is poverty. Are wealth and poverty only about stuff? How about being wealthy or poor in time? Or in spirit? Pleasure? Love? Friendship? Does the pursuit of wealth in purely monetary terms cause us more problems than the benefits it brings?

George Carlin on Stuff to start it off:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac[/youtube]

There are many ways to view the world, each built up by a one’s social environment and upbringing. The social construction of childhood:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01xYdGsisf8[/youtube]

‘The world’s most primitive people have few possessions, but they are not poor. Poverty is not a certain, small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status.’ [2]

What do you think of this statement? Is poverty only relational, or are there some absolutes in an availability of resources sense?

The intro to The Gods Must Be Crazy demonstrates colossally different worldviews:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pTPWg_wUw[/youtube]

‘We are inclined to think of hunters and gatherers as poor because they don’t have anything; perhaps better to think of them for that reason as free.’[4]

Sidelining the danger of falling into “Noble Savage” idealizations/criticisms (ie recognizing that hunger & gatherer lifestyles have their problems too, and moving on), let us talk briefly about the contrast between common Western lifestyles (40-hour work weeks, sitting on computers) and a couple of alternative lifeways.

‘Hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and, rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society.’[4]

So… what is affluence/wealth?

According to Sahlins, an  ‘affluent society is one in which all the people’s material wants are easily satisfied.’

It is interesting to contrast our “Galbraithean” way of life (‘wants are great’ + ‘means are limited’) with the “Zen road to affluence” whereby people can enjoy an ‘unparalleled material plenty – with a low standard of living.’ [1]

Today’s growth/market/consumer-based economy is based on a ‘perpetual disparity’ with ‘unlimited wants’ and ‘insufficient means’. No matter how much “stuff” we accumulate, we always want more. Do you think even the most “wealthy” people in our world today are affluent? How many hours do they work? Are they happy?

In some cultures, value is about ‘freedom of movement.’ [3]

Social construction of wealth and happiness: does wealth make us happy?

This order of happiness ‘is not a result to be attained through action, but a fact to be realized through knowledge. The sphere of action is to express it, not to gain it.’ [5] More on happiness: https://julietbennett.com/2011/11/06/life-is-a-game-alan-watts-happiness/

I guess there are many different ways to be in the world, and different paths to wealth, health, love and happiness… kinda like there are many ways of interpreting the dots below…

[6]



 

[1] Marshall David Sahlins, ‘Chapter One: The Original Affluent Society’, Stone Age Economics (New York: Aldine, 1972). p, 2.

[2] Ibid. p. 35.

[3] Ibid. p. 12.

[4] Ibid. p. 14.

[5] Alan Watts, The Meaning of Happiness: The Quest for Freedom of the Spirit in Modern Psychology and the Wisdom of the East (London: Village Press, 1968). p. iv.

[6] Hiebert, Paul G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews : An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.

Evolution not Revolution

I’ve been thinking about the idea of a “revolution”, and wondering why exactly one would want to “revolve” to the beginning, completely start again? What would be the point of bring down The Pyramid, only to have to build one up again?

Revolution may not be a dirty word, but it does seem kinda stupid. Capitalism and democracy have done a lot of good for society, from technological advances that enhance the lives of many, to bringing women out of the house, and empowering citizens to have a right to vote. Of course our  versions of capitalism and democracy are no where near perfect. They are systems still in their teenage years. They need to grow up, reform some of their irresponsible laws, and evolve into mature systems that doesn’t ignore parts of the world suffering from poverty and environmental destruction at their hands. Sure our systems have their problems, but are they so broke that we have to throw them out completely?

It seems pyramids of power are a model that can function very well, but can also fail. The trick, it seems to me, it to maintain a pyramid of power/money/organization that works for both the parts, and the whole.

Let me use the Hobbesian analogy of a society and its leaders as a mind and body (if you look close the Leviathan’s body is made up of lots of little people):

Our minds have a certain degree of power over our body’s actions. So long as our mind and body acts in constant communication, our organism is a functioning system. If my leg wanted to be my brain, or if my brain ignored my leg, I would be in trouble. If my hands ignore our stomach and put too much, too little or the wrong type of foods in my mouth, my body gets fat, my energy decreases and my entire being suffers. A healthy “me” = a mind, body and spirit being respectful and connected with each other, and with its surroundings.

Similarly in society, good minds acting in leadership positions provides for a healthy system of people. The leader in constant communication with the people, each feeding back into each others decisions, each respecting the other. Yet if, like a  psychologically damaged mind, a leader that is a psychopath or that doesn’t listen to its people is no good for anyone.

I don’t think our system is completely broken – it just needs a few of its laws reformed, evolving the system to work for humanity rather than letting the destructive aspects of it that have emerged over time force humanity to work for it. I vote for an evolution, not a revolution.

“Shareholder Capitalism” VS “Socialised Capitalism”

Why did our political leaders bail out banks (who caused the GFC) rather than the public (who lost wealth and jobs as a result)? Why did governments spend trillions of dollars repairing a system that, in the well-known cycle of booms and busts, is destined to crash once again? Why are they bandaiding problems caught up in a powerbroker system that is visibly failing, rather than following the advice of economists like Joseph Stiglitz, who suggest seizing the opportunity for reform? Why do our political leaders seem to support “Shareholder Capitalism” rather than investigating the process of moving toward a “Socialised Capitalism” that might be more constructive?

As the Occupy Wall St movement spreads across the world, people are questioning a number of aspects of our system that they previously left unexamined. One of those is the assumption that Capitalism as we know it today is the only version of Capitalism that is possible. While economists recognize the varieties of Capitalism that exist throughout the world, the varieties can be less visible to the average human eye.

The thing is, the Global Capitalist model as we know it today, that emphasizes neo-liberal policy, provides little regulation to banks and financial industries, and disconnects shareholder profit and public loss, is by no means a fixed and final version of the Capitalist model. In fact, it is clear that such a form of Capitalism is destined for ongoing collapse. In short, it’s time for reform.

What does a shift from “shareholder capitalism” to “socialised capitalism” involve? The Australian School of Business article that inspired this blog entry suggests this shift would involve a move from short-term speculation to long-term investments, from huge corporations to family-owned companies. ‘The differentiating factor lies in the allocation of resources‘. [1]

“Make no mistake,” Andrew Kakabadse explains, “both ideas are market-driven… which is either in short-term deals driven by cash flow to cater to the few or in infrastructure and highly innovative family businesses that deliver long-term wealth to society as a whole. Nobody takes notice of this second model, which has by far the greatest wealth creation potential in the world, despite everything that is happening”.[1]

Hang on a second, which creates the most wealth? What’s more appealing then, shareholder capitalism or socialised capitalism??? Isn’t it in our favour to create more wealth, not less?

I don’t know the pragmatic details of how such a shift could be actualized. How could you stop short-term speculation (derivatives, hedge bets etc) deals going down? How could governments encourage a move from corporation to family-owned companies? How can resources be reallocated to promote a more people-friendly system? It is too late at night, and I’m too tired from recent adventures in Chicago, DC and car accidents (which I’ll blog about soon), for me to contemplate such answers. I will therefore conclude with my take-away message from this article, that some kind of “socialised capitalism” is an appealing direction to be heading… do you agree?

[1] “Off the Record: Spilling the Bilderberg Secrets” Published: October 11, 2011 in Knowledge@Australian School of Business. http://knowledge.asb.unsw.edu.au/article.cfm?articleId=1489

“Occupy Sydney”

If you’re not in Sydney (like me) or can’t make it to protest, you can still spread the word about this peaceful protest to change the rules of our global capitalist game.

Stop banks and corporations:
– reducing humans to commodities
– controlling media
– funding both sides of wars
– destroying the environment

SATURDAY 15 OCTOBER 2:30pm

Reserve Bank of Australia

Martin Place and Macquarie Street
Sydney, Australia

Occupy Sydney:
http://occupysydney.blogspot.com/

Occupy Together:
http://www.occupytogether.org/
http://www.facebook.com/OccupyTogether
http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyTogether

Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.occupywallst.org/

Occupy Australia:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Australia/120325891405931?sk=info

Occupy Sydney:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Sydney/153514104742550?sk=wall

Occupy Melbourne:
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=170501669699928
http://www.occupymelbourne.org/

Occupy Brisbane:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Brisbane/104200033022305?sk=info

Occupy Perth:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/OccupyPerth/119982941440960?sk=info

Occupy Adelaide:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=138387406259689Occupy Sydney acknowledges the Traditional Indigenous Eora peoples’ custodianship of the land upon which many Australian’s now live and work – the place the world knows as Sydney – and the genocide perpetrated against that people by the colonists from whose occupation the current governments claimed right to govern descends. Occupy Sydney also acknowledges that such #humanrights crimes of genocide continue to be committed against aboriginal peoples across Australia today- in particular the Northern Territory Intervention, a racist bilaterally supported denial of humanrights and cultural genocide which continues today.

“Occupy Wall St” – bringing down The Pyramid?

What is #OccupyWallSt? Who are the 1%? Why did it take the media so long to report on it? What do protestor’s want? Are they trying to bring down The Pyramid? Will they succeed?

I am teaching a class on the Philosophy of War and Peace in North Carolina, with a specific focus on the Arab Spring. Yet here in America I might be witnessing the greatest revolution of them all: the “OccupyWallSt” movement, and its children.

When I showed RapNews to students a few weeks ago, I had no idea that it would become prophetically true:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdAVl1LvQL0[/youtube]

People have been camping out in Zuccotti Park (formerly “Liberty Plaza Park”) for almost a month, and yet the media in America only started reporting on it just over a week ago. Why?

What is “OccupyWallSt”?

OccupyWallSt (and OccupyChicago, OccupySydney, OccupySeasameSt etc) are peaceful protests against the foothold that corporations have over the state of global affairs including economic injustices, environmental destruction, providing weapons to both sides of wars, controlling the media and making politicians their puppets.

Like the Arab Spring, the demonstrations don’t have a leader. It began with 1000 people walking down the street,and 100-200 sleeping in the park. The idea was originally proposed in an Adbusters (an advertisement-free, anti-consumerist Canadian magazine), who suggested protesting against the lack of holding Wall St responsible for their actions re the global financial crisis, global poverty and their pervasive influence on democracy.

Why did the media take so long to report?

Because the media is owned by corporations, of course.

What do protestor’s want?

I will be able to answer this question much better in a couple of week’s time, after I visit Chicago and Washington DC, and even more so after Thanksgiving when I visit NYC… but for now, this is what I can gauge:

Protestors are holding signs like:

“I am a human being, not a commodity”

“I will believe corporations are people when Georgia executes one of them”

“Money for jobs & housing NOT banks & war”

“We are the 99 percent”

Nobel prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Jeff Madrick (former economics columnist for the New York Times and author of Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America) recently spoke with Wall Street about what caused the global financial crisis. On Australia’s ABC, Peter Lloyd interviews Jeff Madrick click here. Despite the mainstream media’s attempts to make out the protest is “inefffective action”[4], Madrick says that “The fact is the gut feelings of these people or the informed feelings of some of them because there are a lot of educated people there, are essentially correct. They are correct that Wall Street was the principal cause of the great recession, that greed and outrageous pay was a principal cause and that Washington has not properly dealt with it…”[5]

There is talk of the protest being the left wing response to the “Tea Party”, with one big difference. Madrick notes “These people don’t march to one drummer like the disciplined Tea Party. These people think for themselves, have independent frustrations, have independent agendas.”[5]

Who are the 1%?

According to the Washington Post the top 1 percent are those American households who “had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.” [2] Their average wealth was $14 million in 2009 (down from a $19.2 million peak in 2007).[2]

Documentaries like Inside Job names and shames some of the 1% who were responsible for the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laDpH4vmBB0[/youtube]

Who are the 99%?

The rest of us! Anyone who makes less than $516,633 a year.The 99% are the ones who paid (and are still paying) for the GFC. The 99% want to work, and there’s lots of work to be done, but there’s no money for them to pay one another because the greedy 1% have sucked it out of the system and put it in their pockets.

Ezra Klein in the Washington Post breaks this down further: “the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum.” [2]

What influence does money have on politics?

For a simple explanation check out the “Story of Stuff”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM[/youtube]

and

“Story of Citizens United v. FEC”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY[/youtube]

The Pyramid: Laws, Population, Poverty & Ecology

My Master of Peace and Conflict Studies taught me that global politics, economics, military, society and psychology are intertwined and extremely complex. My attention has been drawn to the intersections of growing population, poverty and the ecological predicament they create: (1) For global population to stabilize we must help people at the base of the pyramid out of poverty; (2) We need six Earths to sustain 7 billion people living like Americans and Australians do; (3) Technology will only solve this problem if the people at the top invest in it.

In short, a sustainable habitat and lifestyle for humans requires the priorities of corporations need to change from the legalized goal of profit for shareholders, to the moral goal of improving the lives of people in the world today and in the future.

Let me recap a useful metaphor: The Pyramid. In Preserving The Pyramid: Why things are the way they are I proposed that things are the way they are because they have been designed this way: poverty, religion, education systems, health-related issues – all of our problems are (at least in part) designed to preserve “The Pyramid”.

Changing laws and priorities isn’t easy, particularly when The Pyramid has guardians around all its walls, protecting the wealth and power of the elites at the top.

Are protester’s trying to bring down The Pyramid?

I don’t think so. It seems to me these protesters are using non-violent conflict to demand a more mobile hierarchy of power, a global social and economic pyramid that doesn’t exploit the people it is supposed to protect. That makes them my heroes.

What can be done?

The power in The Global Pyramid today lies with the bankers and stockmarket – people with a license to print money or make  money from nothing – shuffling papers, or giving letting others shuffle papers for them.  If shareholders invest to make profit, then companies will continue to put profit before people and our planet. Even if shareholders personally care more about life than money, the system has become bigger than it’s parts.

Madrick gives some more specific suggestions: (1) “get over this obsession with austerity economics”; (2) “reinvest in this economy in significant ways”; (3) “we really need a different regulation scheme for Wall Street”. Unfortunately this latter suggestion, Madrick suggests, “will be very difficult to do given the power and money on Wall Street.”[5]

How can the rules that govern Wall St be updated to prioritize life and our ecosystems over monetary profit? Which laws need to be changed? How can the economy be stimulated without needing to fund both sides of wars? How can Wall Street be better regulated?

Will the #Occupy Movement succeed?

“Can I say this will end in complete victory?” Madrick asks, “No, you can never say that. But it may begin to change public opinion enough to give Congress people in Washington the courage of their own convictions. Many of them are disgusted by what’s happening and can’t get any traction for their own ideas and maybe they will begin to get the courage to come forward… The American establishment has the courage to ask one fundamental question: what is Wall Street for?  Do we need a Wall Street that takes 40 per cent of American profits? No way. Let’s rethink that. But the American establishment seems anyway afraid to ask that question and we have to start asking that.”[5]

The protesters give me hope. They are turning words into action, demanding their (and our) basic human rights, they are making peace a verb.

References:

[1] ^ What’s behind the scorn for the Wall Street protests?, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, September 29, 2011; accessed September 29, 2011

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-the-1-percenters/2011/10/06/gIQAn4JDQL_blog.html

[3] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/10/poll-half-the-country-has-heard-about-the-occupy-wall-street-protests/

[4] http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/wall-street-protests

[5] http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3332160.htm

Ten ways to change the world

Recently learning about the occupation of Wall Street, I thought it worthwhile to re-post my two cents on ten ways to change the world:

Legally:

1. Change corporation law – redefine “corporation” so that they are NOT treated as separate entities in their own right that can be declared bankrupt in and of themselves. Corporation law must be adjusted to hold shareholders responsible for monetary and non-monetary profits and loss.

2. Change finance / stock market laws – in implementing the above, the ST money market would probably have to go, as would trading Derivatives and Options. The stock exchange would slowdown and be based on long term investments.

3. Change banking laws for money/debt creation and collection – limit their ability to print money via debt, decrease bank’s profits, and maybe all debt cancels after 50 years, I’m not sure. Something needs to be done to regulate them though.

4. Change balance of power in the WB, WTO and IMF – give more votes to the poorer nations and create fairer trade policies

5. Create international tax laws – to crack down on tax havens.

Personally:

6. Philosophically, a self-examination of our values – what makes a life “good”? Two shifts: shift from valuing capital to valuing creativity; and shift from EGO to ECO.

7. Women might reconsider what they find attractive qualities in men – see the attraction of a creative and caring man over a rich and selfish man. Then maybe men will change in suit.

8. Write letters to corporations telling them you won’t buy their product until they stop slave trade and ridiculously low paying 80-hour weeks in sweatshops, and treat their workers in a way they would like to be treated.

9. Public shame of the ridiculously rich – unite in an attempt to decrease the obesity of the rich, and as a consequence decrease the hunger of the poor.

10. See what we might be able to do to campaign to change the laws above.

Essentially I’m talking about setting a limit to the lifestyle of those at the very bottom and very top to the pyramid.

There’s nothing wrong with inequality – we don’t have to earn the same amount, eat the same amount, live in the same way. But there needs to be limits, on both ends. No one in the world today should go hungry, just as greed bastards at the top shouldn’t avoid paying tax and conduct their business in unethical ways.

A smart friend told me: “if you wanna work smart and hard and eat lobster all the time, and if I wanna work little and eat noodles, then that’s cool. But we both should have food and shelter. It’s just a matter of cutting out the extremes and increasing social mobility between the classes.”

It’s about having the freedom to choose where you will be located within The Pyramid: how much power you want to have (ie how involved in politics, corporate world and media), how much and how hard you want to work, and the lifestyle that you want to live.

I will have more to say about the Wall Street situation soon…

If you are not yet familiar with “The Pyramid”, check out the post Preserving The Pyramid: Why things are the way they are. In short this blog proposes that things are the way they are because they have been designed this way: poverty, religion, education systems, health-related issues – all of our problems are (at least in part) designed to preserve power structure that I metaphorically refer to as “The Pyramid”. Click here to see full post