The Delphi Technique and #Occupy

[justdrew]

Harpers, Feb 2012 - "Some Assembly Required: Witnessing the Birth of Occupy Wall Street" by Nathan Schneider -- it's behind a paywall and I've got a physical copy in front of me, but: recommended, highly. Really illustrates how chaotic and multi-factional the genesis was. If any quotes leap off the page, I'll type 'em out. Definitely worth hitting a library for, though.

attached...

[Allegro]

Harpers, Feb 2012 - "Some Assembly Required: Witnessing the Birth of Occupy Wall Street" by Nathan Schneider...

attached...

Got it, justdrew!
Thank You .

[Elvis]

Prosecute the perpetrators of the securities frauds that caused the financial crash of 2007-2008. Liquidate the TBTFs and the ratings agencies who are responsible for the crash. Restore banking regulation and accounting standards to at least the Glass-Steagal level. Create a truly independent and powerful SEC run by regulators, not banking factotums, and put someone like William Black in charge of it. Establish state banking, like in North Dakota, and invest all public funds in those. Open up government credit lines for credit unions and community currencies, not for investment banks. Establish a real central bank under the control of the elected legislature, rather than Wall Street, and invest and open credit to the necessary ecological conversion of infrastructure and economy (that is how "jobs for all" should be created). Create money for infrastructure and conversion projects directly, rather than allowing private banks to create it through instruments on which the people must pay interest. Stop foreclosures. Bring genuine debt relief for the people. Double the tax on the 1 percent.

All good, with benefits for credit unions, which I like. Why not go for one step further and convert shareholder-owned, for-profit banking to a cooperative credit union model, including the central bank (where everyone is a member)?

I'm asking partly because I'm not sure how or if it would work. Is that "outside the system"?

I know there would be very serious opposition to such a scheme, I mean, there'd be powerful people saying "uh, we don't think so." So maybe not worth the effort at this time.

My "niche" Occupy phrase is Boycott Banks---Join Credit Unions!


(On edit)
Terry, thanks for posting here on this forum, I don't get out much lately.

[bks]

TerryBain write:

47 minutes - Hedges identifies the Occupy Opponent as "Corporate Capitolism" - Quigley and I would dissagree. Monopoly Capitolism is the problem and the difference is, once again, crucial. More on that later - just saying....

Can you expand on what you think the crucial difference is? What Hedges means precisely isn't clear, but "corporate capitalism" as an entity has dominated US society for 100 years. It emerges out of the "anti-trust" period beginning in the 1890's when it was a real question whether corporations would continue to exist in their then-present form. The legal history from that time is fascinating and much more multifaceted than I had been led to believe before I started reading about it. Specifically, the debate about Progressivism was intimately connected to the 25-year-long debate (1889-1914) about the degree to which corporations should be permitted to exist and the degree to which they should be regulated. The Harlan majority on the Supreme Court really did threaten the existence of corporations as we know them now.

Martin Sklar, in The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916, argues that the debate was ultimately decided in favor of the idea that society should have "supremacy over the state". A TON is happening, including the redefinition of property rights btwn 1890-1916. You have people like Charles Conant, who has the ear of the most powerful people in the country, writing books about the necessity of imperialism in order to find outlets for all the surplus capital accumulating in the US. It's a critically important time for understanding the "corporate capitalist" century that followed.

I have some reservations about Sklar's conclusions, to be clear, but he makes the rather astounding argument that "corporate capitalism" was not simply imposed, nor was it the "necessary" outgrowth of advancements in technology or the growing power of market forces. It was the product of cross-class, broad-based a social movement of the early 20th century Progressive Era one which included many left social formations. He can't simply be dismissed; the book is extremely well researched. Have a pdf of it if anyone is interested.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IKSJVe ... &q&f=false

The brand of corporate capitalism that emerged from that period was monopolistic. So what do you think the crucial difference is btwn "corporate capitalism" and "monopolistic capitalism"?

[JackRiddler]

bks, thank you for opening a whole new historical vista on a period I barely know anything about. I'm a postwar kind of guy, you know?

[bks]

It's my distinct pleasure, Jack. As much as I and other have learned from your incredible capacity for synthesizing that era, it's the very least I can do. Hope to do more as I do a deeper dive.

[TerryBain]

Drew - got the download. Looking forward to reading it. Elvis, thanks for the welcome. I support your "niche." I moved by banking to a small, locally owned bank.

bks, I would love to borrow your pdf of the book. I can't afford to buy it, right now. Let me go through my Tragedy and Hope notes to try to put together a response on . Again, Historian Caroll Quigley's download (http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf) When you download the book from that site, pages 60-62, regretably, are missing. I think this is the text of those two pages - haven't found a hard-copy of the book, for confirmation. One reference to Monopoly capitalism is in these pages. Text follows:

pp. 60-62

"The Governor of the Bank of England must be the autocrat who dictates the terms upon
which alone the Government can obtain borrowed money."
Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan Dominate the Financial World
In addition to their power over government based on government financing and
personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by
other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought
advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the
last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers,
like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was
often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally. Such advice
could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates,
and even levels of business activity. Thus Morgan dominated Cleveland's second
administration by gold withdrawals, and in 1936-1938 French foreign exchange
manipulators paralyzed the Popular Front governments. As we shall see, the powers of
these international bankers reached their peak in the last decade of their supremacy,
1919-1931, when Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan dominated not only the financial
world but international relations and other matters as well. On November I l, 1927, the
Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman "the currency dictator of Europe." This was
admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the Court of the Bank on March Zl, 1930, and
before the Macmillan Committee of the House of Commons five days later. On one
occasion, just before international financial capitalism ran, at full speed, on the rocks
which sank it, Mr. Norman is reported to have said, "I hold the hegemony of the world."
At the time, some Englishmen spoke of "the second Norman Conquest of England" in
reference to the fact that Norman's brother was head of the British Broadcasting
Corporation. It might be added that Governor Norman rarely acted in major world
problems without consulting with J. P. Morgan's representatives, and as a consequence he
was one of the most widely traveled men of his day.
The Development of Monopoly Capitalism
This conflict of interests between bankers and industrialists has resulted in most
European countries in the subordination of the former either to the latter or to the
government (after 1931). This subordination was accomplished by the adoption of
"unorthodox financial policies"—that is, financial policies not in accordance with the
short-run interests of bankers. This shift by which bankers were made subordinate
reflected a fundamental development in modern economic history—a development which
can be described as the growth from financial capitalism to monopoly capitalism. This
took place in Germany earlier than in any other country and was well under way by 1926.
It came in Britain only after 1931 and in Italy only in 1934. It did not occur in France to a
comparable extent at all, and this explains the economic weakness of France in 1938-
1940 to a considerable degree.
International Financial Practices
The financial principals which apply to the relationships between different countries
are an expansion of those which apply within a single country. When goods are
exchanged between countries, they must be paid for by commodities or gold. They
cannot be paid for by the notes, certificates, and checks of the purchaser's country, since
these are of value only in the country of issue. To avoid shipment of gold with every
purchase, bills of exchange are used. These are claims against a person in another country
which are sold to a person in the same country. The latter will buy such a claim if he
wants to satisfy a claim against himself held by a person in the other country. He can
satisfy such a claim by sending to his creditor in the other country the claim which he has
bought against another person in that other country, and let his creditor use that claim to
satisfy his own claim. Thus, instead of importers in one country sending money to
exporters in another country, importers in one country pay their debts to exporters in their
own country, and their creditors in the other country receive payment for the goods they
have exported from importers in their own country. Thus, payment for goods in an
international trade is made by merging single transactions involving two persons into
double transactions involving four persons. In many cases, payment is made by involving
a multitude of transactions, frequently in several different countries. These transactions
were carried on in the so-called foreign-exchange market. An exporter of goods sold bills
of exchange into that market and thus drew out of it money in his own country's units. An
importer bought such bills of exchange to send to his creditor, and thus he put his own
country's monetary units into the market. Since the bills available in any market were
drawn in the monetary units of many different foreign countries, there arose exchange
relationships between the amounts of money available in the country's own units (put
there by importers) and the variety of bills drawn in foreign moneys and put into the
market by exporters. The supply and demand for bills (or money) of any country in terms
of the supply and demand of the country's own money available in the foreign-exchange
market determined the value of the other countries' moneys in relation to domestic
money. These values could fluctuate—widely for countries not on the gold standard, but
only narrowly (as we shall see) for those on gold.
The Foreign Exchange Market Acted as Regulator of International Trade
Under normal conditions a foreign-exchange market served to pay for goods and
services of foreigners without any international shipment of money (gold). It also acted as
a regulator of international trade. If the imports of any country steadily exceeded exports
to another country, more importers would be in the market offering domestic money for
bills of exchange drawn in the money of their foreign creditor

[Wombaticus Rex]

Interesting, I was just reading John Taylor Gatto's claim today that Tragedy & Hope had "many key passages" excised and changed in subsequent editions, which would not surprise me in the least, but it's depressing to contemplate. A pity the professor is passed.

[justdrew]

speaking of historical vistas...



marat/sade is available on netflix, and in parts on youtube.

[TerryBain]

Historian Caroll Quigley's Evolution of Monopoly Capitalism(http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf) can be found on PDF pp. 43-44

Following the fall of the Roman Empire (early Middle Ages), Western Civilization's economic system was almost entirely agricultural, (self-sufficient
manors, almost no commerce or industry.) After about 1050, increased trade in luxury goods for profits began what Quigley called commercial capitalism, with two periods of expansion - 1050-1270, and 1440-1690. Commercial capitalism was typically organized in trading companies in the first period, and chartered trading companies, like the (Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, or the various East India companies, ) in the later period.

Industrial capitalism, (about 1770) was characterized by owner management through the single-proprietorship or the partnership .

Financial capitalism (about 1850), according to Quigley, "...reached its peak about 1914, and ended about 1932. Its typical forms of economic organization were the limited-liability corporation and the holding company. It was a period of financial or banker management rather than one of owner management as in the earlier period of industrial capitalism."

Monopoly capitalism characterized by cartels and trade associations, began to appear about 1890, according to Quigley, and "...took over control of the economic system from the bankers about 1932, and is distinguished as a period of managerial dominance in contrast with the owner management and the financial management of the two periods immediately preceding it."

[General Patton]

Historian Caroll Quigley's Evolution of Monopoly Capitalism(http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf) can be found on PDF pp. 43-44

Following the fall of the Roman Empire (early Middle Ages), Western Civilization's economic system was almost entirely agricultural, (self-sufficient
manors, almost no commerce or industry.) After about 1050, increased trade in luxury goods for profits began what Quigley called commercial capitalism, with two periods of expansion - 1050-1270, and 1440-1690. Commercial capitalism was typically organized in trading companies in the first period, and chartered trading companies, like the (Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, or the various East India companies, ) in the later period.

Industrial capitalism, (about 1770) was characterized by owner management through the single-proprietorship or the partnership .

Financial capitalism (about 1850), according to Quigley, "...reached its peak about 1914, and ended about 1932. Its typical forms of economic organization were the limited-liability corporation and the holding company. It was a period of financial or banker management rather than one of owner management as in the earlier period of industrial capitalism."

Monopoly capitalism characterized by cartels and trade associations, began to appear about 1890, according to Quigley, and "...took over control of the economic system from the bankers about 1932, and is distinguished as a period of managerial dominance in contrast with the owner management and the financial management of the two periods immediately preceding it."

New innovations in currency and energy assisted this process. I.E. the move from coins to paper money (printing press), the move off the gold standard, the transition from wind to coal to oil. You can't have a monopoly without factoring in the means of exchange and the energy source. No one has created an alternative model to oil and paper money, both of which inherently empower national governments. If the alternatives and the technologies that they are based off of provide incentives towards de-centralization then you have a workable counter attack. Local currency, digital currency, self sustainability, ect...

[DrVolin]

Reports of the death of financial capitalism are greatly exaggerated.

[TerryBain]

An interesting article discussing key concepts in Tragedy and Hope is available here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/tra ... ey_history

More detailed exerpts are here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/qui ... ey_history

EDIT: excerpts is the word I was trying to type - really need to wear my glasses, sorry.

[TerryBain]

Same Subject - current events

"The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere (see photo). But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... world.html

[Wombaticus Rex]

Having re-thunk this, I think it would have been better to just side-step Delphi and reject the infiltration premise. Here's my basic line of thunk:

The question of how to keep #Occupy from being infiltrated is a strange loop that dooms us to paranoia. If enemy agents are behaviorally indistinguishable from active & earnest participants, then there’s no rational reason to try to design a Cylon detector.

If the point is direct Democracy for a massively open demographic consisting of 99% of America’s population -- over 300 million people by definition -- we can’t be concerned that People We Disagree With could get involved. Know that for a fact: they already did.

That’s happening. In fact, happening every day, thousands of simultaneous infiltration plots everywhere, all of which involve groups of like-minded people operating in synch at General Assemblies. No big deal.

Non-heirarchy means you’ll find yourself standing next to some strange comrades. If that’s a real concern, plan differently. Put your energy somewhere more comfortable and productive for you.

Especially if you think you’ve got a clear sense of what needs to be done. Don’t wait for validation, start working backwards and building a roadmap. Determine target audiences and begin testing your messaging. Set goals and measure results. Once you get your bearings, you will find yourself completely through the looking glass: now you’re the Change Agent.

Treat #Occupy meetings as recruitment opportunities and don’t waste time (yours, theirs) trying to hammer the nuts and bolts of your master plan through the meat grinder of Consensus. For this same reason, most of the actual agents in the ranks aren’t disrupting your meetings or even registering on your radar. Intelligence work, fundamentally, is ongoing.

Chasing ghosts is a dangerous line of work. From fresh recruits to veteran grandmasters, the most common mistake in the spy trade has always been hubris, the vanity to assume that you and you alone are the cleverest monkey in the jungle. With that in mind, here’s an open secret: the most effective counterintelligence work is the kind you don’t do.