Draft declaration for Occupy Melbourne

Good grief! A "feel good" declaration, something we can all agree to, which means that it is worthless.

You should word check this document, and provide an explanation of each word that you use.

For example, what is meant by just? What is meant by representative? What is meant by sustainable?

You need better answers. What does indigenous sovereignty mean? I'm not sure it means anything.

"We seek to create a just and equitable society in which political and economic power is not concentrated in the hands of a small minority." Well, how? Why say something that has no reality except as a feel good aspiration that does nothing to alleviate poverty, to redistribute wealth, to get a better political democracy?

"We seek broad social change and aspire to end all forms of exploitation, oppression and marginalisation." Fine, just tell me how we manage differences between people and groups. Are we to be Marxists, the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever that means, or are we after something else, and how are we going to achieve it?

"We envision an economic and financial system that is sustainable, democratic and just. We believe this requires fundamental changes to the current system and to structures of state and corporate power." Great, I'd love to see a sustainable, democratic and just society. Most people would. The question is again, how? How do we get there? What is just? What makes a good democracy? How do we know what is or is not sustainable? Is there any purpose to stating this vision if it has no capacity to guide us in our thinking? How much has it left out? How do we rise above ourselves? Does justice mean equality? Or a "more equal" approach? How do we change Indigenous Australia after we sign the treaty? How can Indigenous Australia have self determination in a White Australia?

"We believe that there is nothing more powerful than an engaged people inspired by the vision of a better future." How do you engage people? Engagement is powerful, but to say that there is "nothing" more powerful seems to be saying too much. Nature is more powerful. The oceans are more powerful. Education might be more powerful. Some people would argue that God is more powerful. Perhaps ignorance, the servant of the powerful, is more powerful.

"We are an open and evolving grassroots people’s movement. We welcome, support, and are comprised of all ethnicities, cultures, abilities, genders, ages, sexualities, and faiths. We embrace our differences and choose not to be affiliated with any political party or organisation." To me this suggests that we don't stand for anything. We don't call ourselves an organisation, and yet there is organisation happening. This document itself is about organisation. Ought we not to stand for things? You state that we have no affiliation, and yet we have alligned ourselves with the Union movement when it has suited us. it seems strange to stand in a political vacuum, to have no structure, no form, no association with anyone or anything, except ourselves, as a movement, when that movement has no actual guiding policies, nothing that stands for anything.

"We seek to understand and learn from one another and to open up spaces for discussion and dialogue. Our movement is leaderless and non-hierarchical." Good, then you won't mind this piece of dialogue, nor will you shy away from dissent, or from people who don't want to be part of your structures etc.

"We make decisions through an inclusive, participatory, and direct democratic process. We aspire to consensus-based decision-making in which all voices are heard and taken into account." I think you don't do well at putting this one into practice. A direct democracy, maybe, but as sure as hell it is an unrepresentative one. It is very difficult to adopt this form of democracy in any meaningful way the larger the group gets, how would you manage five thousand participants, or 500,000, let alone five million? The question you have to ask yourself is, is this a "sustainable" form of democracy. I fear that it is not, as I think we have already seen.

"We do not believe it is enough to demand change from the top down not wait for change to arrive. We strive to live our values to the best of our ability, by reflecting our commitments to inclusive democracy, justice, community and sustainability in all our actions and pursuits." Again you have to ask yourself if this is really sustainable? For instance, Al Gore flies a jet plane to get around. Well, Al Gore is not part of Occupy Melbourne, but it is important to practice the types of things you aspire towards. So don't set yourself apart. Don't lead. Maybe constructive policy would be better than feel good aspirational goals.

I would love to seem somewhere where these things could be discussed broadly outside the constraints of the inner sanctum of Occupy Melbourne and the general occupy movement. I feel like the occupy movement lacks the ability to guide itself, to formulate policy, to organise strategy. These are just observations. Again, I say, I would love a discussion board on the Occupy Melbourne website where we could thrash out a few of these things. it is pointless being simply against things, we need to be for some things. Elsewhere I have stated some of these. A more just taxation regime, which means taxing super profits, abolishing negative gearing, establishing death duties. Paul Keating described the Senate as "unrepresentative swill." Well he was half right. But the House of Representative sis no less "unrepresentative swill." We need proportional representation. That is a much fairer form of election of candidates. It would ensure one or two Indigenous member son the floor of parliament. It would ensure that OUR voice was heard within parliament. But it seems no-one wants to hear this stuff.

Of course there are very many policies we could have. One has already been adopted, a Treaty with Indigenous Australia. The dole should be liveable. It should be increased by 20% immediately, or made the same as the pension, so that people can actually afford to live. There needs to be a massive increase in public housing. This is a travesty of the past twenty years, that people simply cannot get public housing. There is a 20 year wait in Frankston, for example. We should be asking for an immediate injection of funds to reduce all waiting lists to under ten years, at the minimum.

Wages are taxed at a marginal rate, the more you earn the higher your rate of taxation. The same should apply to corporations. This would be an alternative to a super profits tax, or in tandum with it.

There is so much that we should be adopting as policy, such as death duties, so that people like James Packer and Lachlan Murdoch cannot simply inherit their forefather's wealth without at least some of it coming back to the public sphere. Nothing that I have suggested is extraordinary. But some of it would be, if it were implemented.

Noel you end with some great ideas and begin with valid critique, although it seems to me like you're actually on the same side as Occupy Melbourne. We need your voice down there getting involved. That's the beauty of it - anyone can go down and speak.

The idea of stating our position is so that we can find a common ground to begin from. Only when we acknowledge the problems can we hope to find solutions. This will not be an easy process, but with the support of intelligent citizens like yourself, it is possible.

Action and policy will follow, give it time for discussion, collaboration. This is a movement that spans the globe, it should not be surprising if decisions take time.

Regards,
Sean

Well I tried being involved and was pushed away by the "politburo" as I call them, the people in charge. I'm better off, anyway, writing on my laptop than getting bogged down amongst a bunch of people who want to talk too much and do too little.

I tried being involved and was pushed away by the "politburo" as I call them, the people in charge. Not all of us have the same skills. I'm better off working alone, but it doesn't mean these things ought to be ignored. That's why I write them here, maybe someone will listen and something will get done.

i think statements are fine, but trying to get something as diverse and large as 'om' to agree to them is a bad idea. Change the statement to one in your own name or pseudonmyn, circulate it widely for discussion and a point for argueing your ideas or engaging with others.

Encourage others to publish similiar statements, ideas, political tracts and run discussions.

This is how politics will change and deepen in the movement not by trying to get everyone to sign up to a single statement...

discussion from below, not trying to place everyone together as we are not. there are those against the state in this movement, those who want to reform it. this will not be dealt with via a statement or declaration.

we should not fall into mass media games of 'what are you for? ' we are for self-organisation, we are not going to fall into a demands based divide and conquer game. we dont have to be legitimate by there standards

I've asked where I can be of assistance and no reply, although can think of plenty ways I can assist and want to!. Think OM needs to set up office and advertise contact details everywhere, so those of us (including an older gen) who prefer to work behind the scenes and have something to offer this new democratic system _away from the camp onsite_ which just is not going to suit everyone (families, working, arthritis lol ) can help where relevant to background! be that creative input of artists, photographers, filmmakers, journalists, or organising entertainment groups, assisting with events, input on strategy, legal advisors. etc.

How about...

WE DEMAND OUR FREEDOM BACK NOW.
WE DEMAND AN END TO BANKERS PRINTING MONEY EVERY TIME THEY 'LOAN' IT.
WE DEMAND THIS WILL IS DONE TO FREE HUMANITY FROM DEBT SLAVERY.

Simple, can't be fucked with, will have more effect than anything else we may seek to implement, will rally widespread support, easily understood - if not, easily explained, rips the rug from the 1% as this is the mechanism they use to create all the distortions we experience and are protesting... Why beat around the bush!?!? Heck - it even fits on a T-SHIRT!!!

The declaration for occupy Wall Street mentioned the plight of animals in their declaration and how the corporations have hidden the mass cruelty (of factory farms for example) from public sight. It would be great if this could be added into the declaration.

I'm reposting a post from the 15th here because the suggested changes are most relevant here.

Re the Draft Declaration.

"across the globe" would be better "around the global". Across is just opposite point on a globe, around is all the way around the globe.

"In the name of freedom" etc would be better "Affirming freedom" etc.

In Our Vision

"We believe this requires fundamental" etc may read better as "We acknowledge this requires fundamental" etc

Re "We believe that there is nothing more powerful than engaged people .. etc"

I disagree with this wording. The Big Bang that created the universe would be "more powerful" and so would a solar flare or a rogue comet that could destroy all life on earth. The sentence is just badly formed.

Re Our Group

The word "all" should be replaced with the word "many" in the second sentence.

We DO NOT really "welcome, support and are comprised of all(sic) ethnicities, .. and faiths" do we? Eg. We currently have no eskimos or many other ethnicities in Occupy Melbourne and I doubt we'd welcome or support such faiths as "satanism" or the followers and worship of the god Kali which requires human sacrifice. The thuggee from which the modern word thug derives would not be welcome at Occupy Melbourne I suspect. And flat earthers might not have fullsome support either.

This language "all" is too inclusive.

Our Process

Similar problem with the word "all" being too inclusive and sweeping in second last sentence.

"We strive to live our values to the best of our ability, by reflecting our commitments to inclusive democracy, justice, community in *all* (sic) our actions and pursuits".

Better to just leave the word "all" out of the sentence. I am not committed to community for instance when I am simply going to the toilet. Some actions are legitimately solitary ones.

Further how possible is "inclusive democracy"? What of the catatonic? The seriously mentally disabled?

Until I understand what "inclusive democracy" is specificially, in practice as well as in theory, it seems a tad premature for me to just commit to it.

Final sentence. I prefer "stanch" to "unshakeable" in front of the word "conviction". An unshakeable conviction has connotations of close mindedness and a lack of openness to me that reaches beyond firm or staunch resolution.

"Unshakeable conviction" and "humbly" sit poorly together when separated only by a colon.

In conclusion - this is a decent draft guys but it is not yet ready in my opinion, in its current form, to get the endorsement of the General Assembly.