Lee Camp: Is This The Main Obstacle In The Way Of Change?

7 Comments on "Lee Camp: Is This The Main Obstacle In The Way Of Change?"

  1. thisbliss | Oct 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm |

    He’s right you know. I think we should just forget about the 1% and start again. I mean we have know how and the methods of communication. We’ll organise our own society with its own rules and just act like nothing has changed if mr big shot starts asking questions. We’ll have our own money so theirs wont be worth a feck anyway. We’re taking it all back. The 1% will be begging to get back with us.

    • oneironauticus | Oct 29, 2013 at 8:36 pm |

      Seems obvious, doesn’t it?

      The only problems would be the 1% who actually own real things, such as land and resources…at least everyone who has the majority of their money in banks, stocks and shiny rocks would be crying.

      Then again, it does remind me of that one scene in Monty Python and The Holy Grail, with the peasants toiling in the mud, even though there is no lord…

      • thisbliss | Oct 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm |

        Well I think the only thing stopping us from taking that land and returning it to the commons is these people have their own private armies. However everyone can be bought. With a righteous cause and a wad of our new money we can make them see the light 🙂

        • oneironauticus | Oct 30, 2013 at 7:49 pm |

          You’d have to have a lot more than “new money”…

          • thisbliss | Oct 31, 2013 at 12:32 pm |

            I’m half joking when I say new money but im also half serious because im curious about what new money done right could achieve. Im thinking here along the lines of Charles Eisenstein’s idea of new money. He believes that money is the root of our problems and I think he has a point. Money defies the laws of the universe – mainly that of entropy. Nothing grows indefinitely it is unnatural, that is why a decaying form of money which loses value is the answer to the 1% hoarders. It is in everyones interest to pass it around then – to ‘share the wealth’.
            An example he uses is a member of a tribe making a big kill. There’s more meat (basically commodity/wealth) than he can use before it goes off, so its in his and everyones interest to share it. The bonds that develop through these actions means that this tribe member can then avail of someone elses meat at another time when he has none.
            So its an intriguing concept – sort out the money and everything else sorts itself out. Also there’s the idea of having a resource based economy which would places value on the earth and preservation.

            Sometimes I think that money developed to bring humanity together. Money is a form of energy so it is like a constant interchanging or flow of energy between people, and in a way it is doing this. The only problem being people like the 1% who have taken money acquisition far too seriously and have basically missed the point. It will never ultimately make them as happy than the potential of a world where their wealth is evenly distributed.

    • its called a General Strike. The most effective action available for the “99%”(I personally hate that term). if only people would stop the bickering and organize to strike, for even a week, a day, or even a couple hours.

      • thisbliss | Oct 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm |

        And this is why I think lee camp hits the nail on the head with this one – its purely our present comfortable lifestyle that’s stopping it. I mean, how much do we want it? Do we really want it? By the looks of things no.
        reminds me of what RAW used to say tho…if we all refuse to pay our taxes are they gonna deport us all into the ocean…

Comments are closed.