Non-violent Actions for Social Change

bubbleheadchief

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
1,517
Liked Posts:
1
Location:
Middle of nowhere AL
That is what I was initially getting to about what business drove that US action. I get the who strategic screw with the commies thing



With my time there (early on in the campaign), we had little if any contractors we worked with. Most of it was multi-national and cleaning up bodies from my perspective.

I was there too...for a rather large portion of it.....multi-national , multi-service. About all i will say about it. Other then there are few things I get nightmares about...that was one of them. Went back afterwards, after it was 7/8 over to Dubrovnik.......has to be one of the most beautiful citys I have seen....until you got 4 miles outside the city...the devastation, and sporadic gunfire, was awful.
 

jaxhawksfan

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
2,490
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Back in Jax
Croatia gave us the Springfield XD, and for that I am thankful. I love my XD's.
 

BiscuitintheBasket

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,802
Liked Posts:
0
I was there too...for a rather large portion of it.....multi-national , multi-service. About all i will say about it. Other then there are few things I get nightmares about...that was one of them. Went back afterwards, after it was 7/8 over to Dubrovnik.......has to be one of the most beautiful citys I have seen....until you got 4 miles outside the city...the devastation, and sporadic gunfire, was awful.





Yea, I am not trying to drag any info from you. I know what some of my missions were other than the "clean up" that made movies look normal. On a side note, I have been back to some of those areas recently. Things are still temped, but not even close to what it was early on. You are correct about the beautiful cities. It was good to be in some of those areas just to look around, and I do recomend the popular tourist locations that have popped up (primarily costal, but the hills are doing good as well).
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
This is definitely not one of my areas of expertise (not that I have any real "expertise" in anything) but I feel like I remember reading something about the US supporting a coup in a Central American country to protect... the price of bananas.



I'm kinda with Pete here in that Variable is bringing up some interesting things to think about - just not sure he's approaching it from the best angle considering all the folks we have on here that were/are members of the armed forces.



Well then I don't know what angle to approach it from. Multiple times, I've said I'm not attacking or criticizing their personal involvement, that's not my intention, I apologize if that's what it seems like and if that's how Chief or Pete or whomever have been taking it, but it's not what I am aiming to do. I know, believe me, I know it's not them saying or thinking "Well I'm doing this for Corporation X, so they can make more money" or whatever.



I know it sounds bad saying soldiers aren't fighting for our rights, but that's what it becomes in our system. It's a lot deeper than just the military, that's just one aspect that was pointed out. When I say "our system" I don't mean only America, I mean world wide. Human rights and our well being are second to profit. If you want to boil it down to the barest of the bare bones of it, that's it. That's how the monetary system operates. That's the ramifications of having that kind of guiding force throughout. Everything is shaped around and from that guideline, molded and attuned for success in that system, which, honestly, is only logical. We have to, there is no other option.



It sets up an "us against them" duality mentality, for within the monetary system there has to be a buyer-seller; a worker-employer; a client-owner; a have and have-not. An employer wants to maximize labor to reduce hourly wages paid, while the employee seeks to maximize time spent in order to gain more income. Given this reality, each party is forced to enable conditions that are most profitable for themselves, therefore strategic edges are always sought and a constant battle is always raging. We are constantly at war with each other in order to live. This battle only creates so much in the way of sustainable human progress, we can only go so far. And the sick, polluted, distorted world you see around you is the result of it and we really shouldn't be surprised.



In the end, our values are based on what works and helps us create easier, better lives. If we live in a system that rewards competition, unenlightened self-interest,corruption, vanity and arrogance, then these are the values that will constantly be perpetuated in society. While many people and politicians give lip service to "honesty, caring for others and humility", it is easy to see why these qualities do not prevail, for the system of survival in society today does not support or reinforce them. They are, in fact, negative attributes under it. People cannot be fair to each other, it would ruin us. We can't afford it. Again, it's all we've ever known for generations.



We are conditioned in that way. Collectively, from living under outdated self preserving institutions for so long, we assume a static identity and "understanding" of "that's just the way things are." We are not open to new information, especially if it threatens our beliefs and hence, our identities. Any attempt to challenge it usually results in insult and apprehension, like what just happened a page ago in this thread. We're not really sheep, as is the cliche thing to say. There is no sheep dog, we control each other. We've become self appointed guardians of the status quo.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
Yea, I am not trying to drag any info from you. I know what some of my missions were other than the "clean up" that made movies look normal. On a side note, I have been back to some of those areas recently. Things are still temped, but not even close to what it was early on. You are correct about the beautiful cities. It was good to be in some of those areas just to look around, and I do recomend the popular tourist locations that have popped up (primarily costal, but the hills are doing good as well).

Kosovo was the same way. I was there for KFOR 3A in the second half of 2001. I was only there for a short tour to augment our augmentees in the imagery analysis section of the intel cell. You can imagine what 'images' I saw (I saw things in person too). We helped the 75th and the SEALs keep a lookout for smugglers and helped make sure tensions didn't boil over. They will never be at peace there so long as five major differing opinions exist.



To bring us back to the topic...the way of doing business in the Balkans would NOT be a model of non-violent actions for social change.
<
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
So Variable, are you for or against a socialist way of running the country? It sounds like you are anti greed, anti opulence, and pro good of the group over good of the individual.



Is that accurate?



There is a company, I believe out west, that was featured on one of the food channels recently. The company is owned in name by a family, but the workers all 'own' the company and share in the profits equally. That includes the actual owners and execs that run the business. They all make around $65 grand a year or whatever. This model has worked for them because at times they have made more based on yearly profits. When they have made less it was incentive to do a better job and make more money.



This is totally foreign to our current model of how to make money and run a business. So most people totally shun and reject it.



Establishing more of these companies and proving their success over time may be a good way to change the system. As you said, profit (greed) is the root of evil when it comes to how our country is mis-managed.
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
So Variable, are you for or against a socialist way of running the country? It sounds like you are anti greed, anti opulence, and pro good of the group over good of the individual.



Is that accurate?



That's actually putting it lightly and a little out of place. I wouldn't know what to label it, but I guess you can say it shares similarities with it. And before I go on, I know that a lot of the things I'm proposing aren't remotely possible now. That there is just no way to fully implement it now, maybe there can be a start somewhere, but how and where or with who, I have no idea. Not in any of our lifetimes, if at all. But that's what this thread is for.



The problem with Communism/Socialism is that it still exists within the confines of the monetary system. That is: scarcity (whether real or created) being a beneficial status for industry, the use of fiat currency where money is made out of debt and thin air, technological limitations due to the first two factors, education being shit, the list goes on. We face all these problems. You would have to eliminate them first. Which would mean a total re-design of our social structure, getting rid of the monetary system, the root cause of all the problems, the need for profit. I can't stress enough what the ramifications of having that guiding mindset in society has done to us, and the chain reaction it's caused in all aspects of our lives in not allowing to progress past it and evolve. And it wouldn't just have to be us, this country, that got rid of it, it would have to be everyone. So you see the apparent futility of such a proposition. A world without money?



But just as futile, if not more, is what's pushed on us on a daily basis, of fixing things within the system as it is. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail. Truly fixing it would mean a total system collapse. So, we know that's never going to happen willingly. Because of that, we need war, we need people to fail, we need people to be constantly in debt, we need third world countries to continue to be third world countries, that's how the system continues to operate. It's a vicious circle.



It's not what makes our life better, it's not what continues to move us forward as far as we've come. So what is it that does? What is it that is responsible for, well, everything? Is it money? If anything, that holds us back, every dollar you and I have are owed to someone by someone. If everyone were able to somehow pay all their debts, including the government, there would not be a single dollar left in circulation and the loss of life would be incredible. The more money there is, the more debt there is. The more debt there is, the more money there is. This mind numbing paradox is largely ignored, and the consequences are immeasurable.



Is it politicians? Our so called leaders in government that establish budgets, pass laws and declare wars under the guidelines of this monetary system that approaches our true problems first with the question of "How much does it cost?" Of course not, even if they were all sincere, they would be fighting against the very grain of what it means to be successful under this system. They're just as trapped as everyone else.



It's technology. The true gift we have that has improved our lives from the very beginning. Everything from a pencil to a chair, bicycles, contact lens, stoves,cars,etc. Applied technology itself is an extension of human attributes, devised from human ingenuity. That's what frees us and improves our life. When we understand that, the most important focus to have is on the management of the earth's resources and the continued development of technology (especially concerning energy) as much as possible, for that's where we gain the materials and knowledge to continue to progress as a species. But as it is, the true potential of technology is held back by the monetary system because anything that threatens to become highly efficient, sustainable and abundant also become enemies of profit as they are negative factors to it. It's a prison without bars.
 

MassHavoc

Moderator
Staff member
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
17,843
Liked Posts:
2,550
Why do we always have to label things and put them in boxes. I think a lot of that is the problem that got us here. You can't be one thing without something being dragged along with it. I don't think there are any political terms that come with negative connotations so the minute you because close to any of them, you are the devil.
 

roshinaya

fnord
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,533
Liked Posts:
440
Why do we always have to label things and put them in boxes. I think a lot of that is the problem that got us here. You can't be one thing without something being dragged along with it. I don't think there are any political terms that come with negative connotations so the minute you because close to any of them, you are the devil.



That's just how the human brain is hardwired. We like to put stuff in little boxes and differentiate between "us" and "them".
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
I would say conditioned, not hardwired. To me, hardwired means that no matter what, that's the way it is and will always be. But that's not true. It's human behavior that is shaped from the collective experiences that have occurred continually within our society over generations of time. It's not human nature, not something you are born with no matter what.
 

Pez68

Fire Waldron
Joined:
Oct 31, 2014
Posts:
5,020
Liked Posts:
838
I would say conditioned, not hardwired. To me, hardwired means that no matter what, that's the way it is and will always be. But that's not true. It's human behavior that is shaped from the collective experiences that have occurred continually within our society over generations of time. It's not human nature, not something you are born with no matter what.



Your utopian dreamworld doesn't exist and likely never will... While it might be more beneficial to our "species" if we all worked together, shared everything equally, only took what we needed, conserved resources, never fought with one another, and never competed with one another over anything, it would NEVER work. I would vehemently disagree with your claim that our behavior is "conditioned" and not "hardwired". Can you name a species on this planet that doesn't fight and compete over SOMETHING? Food, shelter, territory, offspring, dominance? What happens when there are too many people on the planet, and not enough resources to support those people? What would you do if your family was starving and you found just enough food to sustain your family? Would you share it with everyone even though there is clearly not enough, or make sure you and your family were taken care of and survived? If someone tried to take that food away from your starving family, would you just let them? If the technological advancements developed by this utopian society allowed us to travel to another planet for resources, would we share them nicely with the inhabitants there? Likely not. When it comes down to it, we are driven by the same instincts that the animals that live in the wild are. We're just a slightly more intelligent species. As long as there are a limited number of resources, there will be competition over them.



"Money" has always been around in one form or another... In ancient times, "money" was just a specific quantity of barley, precious metal, etc. Currency has advanced as society and the goods we consume have advanced. In the end, "money" can always be measured by the resources we consume to live.
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
I've said before, I believe the possibility of what I am suggesting to come to pass is zero in any of our lifetimes. No chance. The amount of education alone for people who have absolutely no idea about any of this would be staggering. But that doesn't mean that somewhere down the line, we don't move in that direction. The emergent reality of all systems eventually comes to pass. Again, it might sound crazy today, but so would have "tweeting" and airplanes had been hundreds of years ago/ancient times. Really, that's all it is, a matter of time. This system we have is not sustainable. It never was. The profit system, the expansion of money, it's a pyramid scheme. Eventually it WILL end. It will stop. It's been going on for 100+ years now, it cannot go on endlessly like this. It served it's purpose, I'm not saying that it was always wrong, that it was never right for us, but things change.



You either have to transcend the current system and change as well, or you pay the price for not evolving. I'm not saying it would be perfect, nothing ever will be, but it would be better. If we let technology advance to it's highest potential, the possibilities are almost limitless. But that's not going to happen in our current system because, as crazy as it sounds, the advancement of technology actually works against us in it.
 

bubbleheadchief

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
1,517
Liked Posts:
1
Location:
Middle of nowhere AL
I've said before, I believe the possibility of what I am suggesting to come to pass is zero in any of our lifetimes. No chance. The amount of education alone for people who have absolutely no idea about any of this would be staggering. But that doesn't mean that somewhere down the line, we don't move in that direction. The emergent reality of all systems eventually comes to pass. Again, it might sound crazy today, but so would have "tweeting" and airplanes had been hundreds of years ago/ancient times. Really, that's all it is, a matter of time. This system we have is not sustainable. It never was. The profit system, the expansion of money, it's a pyramid scheme. Eventually it WILL end. It will stop. It's been going on for 100+ years now, it cannot go on endlessly like this. It served it's purpose, I'm not saying that it was always wrong, that it was never right for us, but things change.



You either have to transcend the current system and change as well, or you pay the price for not evolving. I'm not saying it would be perfect, nothing ever will be, but it would be better. If we let technology advance to it's highest potential, the possibilities are almost limitless. But that's not going to happen in our current system because, as crazy as it sounds, the advancement of technology actually works against us in it.

You keep talking that the "system" needs to evolve and we need to let technology advance to its highest potential, but you arent putting forth how it should evolve or what you mean by highest potential. The only things you have said beyond "evolve" sound seriously like the same schpiel that hippies talked in the 60s.
 

BigPete

New member
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
5,010
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Belleville, IL
I would like to be able to cultivate any psychic or teleconectic powers I may have. Wouldn't it be great if we could communicate without having to be in the same room or even open our mouths/use sign language?



That would lead to a collective being working towards the good of the community and not the good of the individual.



Sounds like sci-fi, but it COULD happen. Anything COULD happen ya know.
 

Pez68

Fire Waldron
Joined:
Oct 31, 2014
Posts:
5,020
Liked Posts:
838
Our species will either evolve, or cease to exist. It's been that way on this planet as far back as anyone knows. Maybe we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. One day we're here, living our lives, doing our thing, and the next day we're gone off the face of the planet forever. None of it really matters, because, in the end, we more than likely have no say in the matter... We're all inconsequential in the grand scope of things. Especially when you look at how large the universe supposedly is. All we can do is live life, love, reproduce, take care of our family, enjoy our time here, and eventually die. In the process, hopefully some of us will leave a positive lasting impression on the planet. That's all I'm really concerned with. I think it's rather pointless to concern yourself with anything more than that.
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
Our species will either evolve, or cease to exist. It's been that way on this planet as far back as anyone knows. Maybe we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. One day we're here, living our lives, doing our thing, and the next day we're gone off the face of the planet forever. None of it really matters, because, in the end, we more than likely have no say in the matter... We're all inconsequential in the grand scope of things. Especially when you look at how large the universe supposedly is. All we can do is live life, love, reproduce, take care of our family, enjoy our time here, and eventually die. In the process, hopefully some of us will leave a positive lasting impression on the planet. That's all I'm really concerned with. I think it's rather pointless to concern yourself with anything more than that.



It's not like I'm on a life long mission to achieve any of what I'm saying. But that's not going to stop me from discussing what would need to happen if we truly did want to change things. And that's what this thread is for, ideas for what it would take to do that. Maybe the discussion just isn't up your alley, I don't know. I don't mean any offense, you can do what you want, but if this is all pointless to you, and everything is "the way it is" and we have no say in it, maybe just don't participate in the discussion then.



You keep talking that the "system" needs to evolve and we need to let technology advance to its highest potential, but you arent putting forth how it should evolve or what you mean by highest potential. The only things you have said beyond "evolve" sound seriously like the same schpiel that hippies talked in the 60s.



I always liked this quote from George Gallup (inventor of the Gallup Poll):



”At every point in history, man has assumed that civilization has reached it's zenith. He has smugly refused to place himself on the scale of time that reaches thousands and millions of years into the future as well as into the past. Looked at from the vantage point of 8,000 years hence - approximately the period of recorded history - man’s progress up to the present time may appear far less impressive than it does today."



What we think is unfathomable right now, can be commonplace a couple generations later or even as much as a thousand years from now, both a mere drop in the endless ocean of time. Just keep that in mind.



What do I mean by "evolve"? What do I mean by allowing technology to achieve it's highest possible potential? I mean re-designing our entire culture to the point where the modern day blights of war, poverty, endless debt, starvation, and overall unnecessary human suffering don't just become something we tolerate and attribute as to "Well that's just the way things are, it's unavoidable" but rather as completely unacceptable. If our feelings deviate from that, then we haven't really changed.



Technology's main purpose is to free us from labor. The highest possible potential of technology would mean the outright elimination of the majority of jobs, close to all of them. If we ever get to that point, that means that resources have gotten to a degree of such high abundance, quality and efficiency that there would be no need to sell them. It would be like trying to sell the air you breath every second of the day. Pointless.



The current system does the exact opposite. It is built on factors like planned obsolescence and multiplicity, where the massive, massive wasting of resources to build materials that don't last should be seen as horrifying. And that's where you have to start, you have to survey our resources, what we have, what we need most and what are possible alternates to those, not with the mindset of making a profit, but of optimization. The majority of the products produced today would not even exist if industry focused on what would best serve the needs of society and not what would make them more cost effective.



Because there's going to come a point where technology is going to continue to replace humans in the work force to where the lack of consumer purchasing power will destroy the monetary based economy, for it won’t matter how cost effective the production companies become, people will simply not have the kind of money needed to buy the items with, thus ending the mechanism of "cyclical consumption". And when that happens, that's where I believe there is a small chance of getting a start on the re-design of our culture and of our values because, like everything else, they become outdated.
 

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,207
Your utopian dreamworld doesn't exist and likely never will... While it might be more beneficial to our "species" if we all worked together, shared everything equally, only took what we needed, conserved resources, never fought with one another, and never competed with one another over anything, it would NEVER work. I would vehemently disagree with your claim that our behavior is "conditioned" and not "hardwired". Can you name a species on this planet that doesn't fight and compete over SOMETHING? Food, shelter, territory, offspring, dominance? What happens when there are too many people on the planet, and not enough resources to support those people? What would you do if your family was starving and you found just enough food to sustain your family? Would you share it with everyone even though there is clearly not enough, or make sure you and your family were taken care of and survived? If someone tried to take that food away from your starving family, would you just let them? If the technological advancements developed by this utopian society allowed us to travel to another planet for resources, would we share them nicely with the inhabitants there? Likely not. When it comes down to it, we are driven by the same instincts that the animals that live in the wild are. We're just a slightly more intelligent species. As long as there are a limited number of resources, there will be competition over them.



"Money" has always been around in one form or another... In ancient times, "money" was just a specific quantity of barley, precious metal, etc. Currency has advanced as society and the goods we consume have advanced. In the end, "money" can always be measured by the resources we consume to live.



I'd like to hear your answers to these questions Variable, you glossed by them.
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
Like I said, the first thing that would have to be done would be to survey the Earth's resources by priority using the scientific method. That is not done today. Today it's prioritized by what makes profit the fastest, and that in effect means wasting through resources like a wild fire by creating a lot of things we don't need and also expounding that problem is the need for all those products to not be efficient or long lasting by creating them with the cheapest materials possible and thus going through more and more resources to continue to create them just to keep the economy going. Everything produced is designed to break down to increase profit margins. It is a massive waste.



We have the resources today, right now, to feed everyone. Money is what holds us back. There's no money in feeding everyone. That's counterproductive in the monetary system where if you can't make a substantial amount of money/profit off of solving a problem, that problem will not be solved. Which, in our case, is counterproductive to survival. Don't you see how insane that is? Preserving an outdated social structure to the point of mass death?



The monetary system was created thousands of years ago during periods of great scarcity. Its initial purpose was contrived as a method of distributing goods and services based on labor contributions. It is not at all related to our true capacity to produce goods and services on this planet.
 

Pez68

Fire Waldron
Joined:
Oct 31, 2014
Posts:
5,020
Liked Posts:
838
The advancement of technology is why resources are consumed... Before automobiles were invented, no one worried about depleting our petroleum stores. The more technology advances, the more resources we will consume as a species. That is, until we develop some efficient renewable resources... or efficient means to reproduce them. You talk about advancements in technology being a huge focus moving forward, and in the same breath, talk about wasting through resources to create things we don't need? Ummm, ok?
<
All we "need" as human beings is food, water, air, shelter, and to reproduce. Everything else is unnecessary. Do you have a television? An automobile? You obviously have a computer... All these things are "unnecessary" and a waste of resources. They are only intended to improve our quality of living... nothing more.



The monetary system was actually created because human beings needed a more efficient means of trade. When you wanted something that you could only get from a specific region, you had to have something they wanted, or find somewhere else to get it. This just became impractical, so commodity money was invented. Again, just another step in our advancement as a species.



I don't understand you. You talk about wanting to advance technology and our species, but at the same time, it sounds like you want to go back to the way things were thousands of years ago. You know, where everyone lived in tribes, nothing was traded/sold, and the only form of economy was gift-economics...
<
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
Like I said, the first thing that would have to be done would be to survey the Earth's resources by priority using the scientific method. That is not done today. Today it's prioritized by what makes profit the fastest, and that in effect means wasting through resources like a wild fire by creating a lot of things we don't need and also expounding that problem is the need for all those products to not be efficient or long lasting by creating them with the cheapest materials possible and thus going through more and more resources to continue to create them just to keep the economy going. Everything produced is designed to break down to increase profit margins. It is a massive waste.



We have the resources today, right now, to feed everyone. Money is what holds us back. There's no money in feeding everyone. That's counterproductive in the monetary system where if you can't make a substantial amount of money/profit off of solving a problem, that problem will not be solved. Which, in our case, is counterproductive to survival. Don't you see how insane that is? Preserving an outdated social structure to the point of mass death?



The monetary system was created thousands of years ago during periods of great scarcity. Its initial purpose was contrived as a method of distributing goods and services based on labor contributions. It is not at all related to our true capacity to produce goods and services on this planet.



Money has nothing to do with it. People have everything to do with it. We are too individualistic. Expecting everyone to just go with some communal betterment of mankind program is completely unrealistic. If it isn't money its something else. Whatever someone can gain that gives them more hapiness and more security or precieved security, if doing something thats hard or they dont want to do, does not give them what they precieve as a fair trade for that effort, they wont do it. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but when you are dealing with humanity as a whole we are selfish and thats simply nature.
 

Top