What is Assange's Goal?

[MineralMan]

To me, it appears to be a purely anti-corporate thing. It appears that he sees the United States as the ultimate corporate state and wan't to bring the United States down completely. Now, I realize that many here on DU are anti-corporatists as well. I have the same question for all who are anti-corporatists, and I've asked this question before:

Can you describe a way that moves the United States away from a corporate economy that doesn't completely destroy the economy and cause lengthy and immeasurable harm to ordinary people?

The attempts to answer this question generally involve words like "revolution," "uprising," and the like. Each is a completely inadequate answer to the question. The 300+ million people living in this country are almost completely dependent on the current economic system to employ them and to supply their daily needs. Destroying that in a single-phase way would reduce that population to poverty, and even would result in worse ends for many. There are far too many people living in urban areas to be able to rely on local production of food and other necessities. In cold winter areas, the current system even creates the ability to live in those areas at all. There are many more interdependent systems that could be easily named.

I know of only a few small enclaves of people who are free of dependence on the corporate economy. The Amish, a few cooperative rural groups, and almost no others. Even those crying out for the destruction of the "corporate" economy are, themselves, dependent on that economy for their day to day survival, even though they'd hate to admit it.

Assange has made his goal abundantly clear. He wants to destroy the corporation and is more than happy to see countries like the U.S. collapse to reach that goal. Some others agree with him, including some here on DU. They're cheering his every effort, and hope for more.

Now, I wish that socialism was the long-established economic and political system in the United States. I'm a socialist. However, it's not the the system in use here. We have an established system that does rely on business to provide the economic base. We simply cannot just throw that system out, or we'd face complete economic collapse. Any change will necessarily have to be incremental. Without a reasoned transitional plan, such a thing cannot happen without enormous hardship and worse for much of our population.

If non-citizens of the United States, like Assange, succeed in their goal, the losers will be all of those Americans who are dependent on the continued viability of the economic system we currently have. We can change that system, perhaps, if we can elect legislators who support that change. So far, we've been unable to do that. I don't see collapse of our economic and political system as a means for that change. I see it as a means for pain and suffering by the very people the anti-corporatists say they support.

This is why I can't support Assange and his goal of bringing down the corporations by bringing down the U.S. government. I can't support that at all. I still don't know what the fallout of this latest release of information will be. We simply haven't seen enough of it, and the effects will be slow in being revealed. But, I can't support Assange's goal or methods. He has no irons in this fire. He appears to have enough means to survive the effects of what he is doing. I question his goals and I question his methods.

Most of all, though, I question the lack of concern for the effects his goals will have on average people, especially in this country - a country to which he has no ties at all. I question the support he is getting here in the U.S. and on DU.

Please see my signature line.

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. To embarrass and humiliate. That's pretty much it. nt

[Winterblues]

10. He doesn't embarrass anyone, He just lets people's actions and words

become public so they embarrass themselves..It certainly is not his fault our government does such embarrassing things..Maybe if they understand their behavior might become public they will be a little wiser in what they say and do..

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Perhaps if we were not doing embarrassing and humiliating things

this would not be a problem.

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. So, every single solitary bit of information stolen and made public is incriminating?

Um, no.

People who support this wholesale act of treason need to learn the distinction between publishing incriminating evidence, and publishing confidential diplomatic communications between countries.

Assange is too fucking stupid and fame-hungry to draw that distinction. Maybe someone else can, but I doubt it.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. who are you arguing with?

Certainly not me.

"People who support this wholesale act of treason need" - ?
"Assange is too fucking stupid and fame-hungry " - ??

So, about this embarrassment and humiliation thing, which was claimed by somebody posing as you to be the motivation for wikileaks, if our government were not doing embarrassing and humiliating things, then there would be nothing to embarrass and humiliate our government about.

[leftstreet]

2. Interesting. Aren't you jumping the gun?

"To me, it appears to be a purely anti-corporate thing"

Not yet, but let's hope so!

So far it's been a mild exposition of appointed and elected officials and leadership diplomacy.

Do you have an inside track or something?

[EFerrari]

3. Ordinary people are already suffering lengthy and immeasurable harm

due to the economic policies of our government dating back to that old felon, Reagan.

[Kali]

23. ...

:thumbsup:

[leftstreet]

26. +1

[Arctic Dave]

4. I see more as a leveling of the playing field through transparency.

I am completely ok with that. Our system has been corroded by corruption and plain old theft.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Great minds....at the same second.

[DearAbby]

20. +1

:thumbsup:

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Government transparency?...as was promised?

[Stevenmarc]

7. His goal, to generate more threads on DU than Palin or the TSA

[Kali]

24. !

:rofl:

[Mimosa]

8. Truth itself is a worthy goal.

The US has been waging wars on the rest of the world while our own citizens have been manipulated into becoming serfs and warriors because of outsourcing of jobs.

Assange is merely shining light into some very dark areas.

[EFerrari]

11. "Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public."

Yep.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Yes he wants our children to be Chinese factory slaves & our women to be raped by Arab men.

That is so clear now. He means to destroy us all. Thank you for EXPOSING this pernicious evil man for what he is.

[Scruffy1]

97. It's so obvious.

But in the meantime I think his goal is to stay alive and out of prison.

[Warpy]

12. I don't care if his personal motivation is notoriety, suicide by cop,

or he's looking for bribes to go away, or whatever. I want the rocks turned over and the nasty crawling things underneath them exposed.

I suppose I want the vindication since I've long suspected they were there simply because of the way major institutions, commercial and government, have been acting for too many years.

He's not just embarrassing the US, you know. I've posted an interactive map of his activities on another thread similar to this one and he's an equal opportunity shit stirrer. Wherever he can find someone who is disgusted enough to supply him with embarrassing documents, that's where he publishes the leaks.

He's even exposed a few things from "closed" countries like North Korea.

In the short term, effects are likely to be deleterious as people everywhere are oppressed to frighten them into compliance. In the long term, he's probably doing us a great service by exposing the maggoty underside of things. Remember, knowledge is power and knowledge that has been hidden from you has stripped you of that power.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

29. I don't love corporations. I'm a socialist.

I also don't love catastrophic change. You have no idea what my goals are. I've posted some of them in another reply on this thread. You might read that. Your insinuation that I'm really a Republican is insulting.

[Edweird]

30. Right. A socialist that attacks those with anti-corporate sentiment. LOL.

[Igel]

76. Liking that lichen?

In other words, do you really like using litmus to test people like that?

So binary yet one dimensional. You can be socialist and very anti-corporatist and *still* be against anti-corporatist individuals because of how they go about doing that they do. The end goal can be different; the means can be different.

"No large corporations" can be achieved in a number of ways. A plague that wipes out 99.999% of humanity would do it. Having an armed revolution in which everybody working for a corporation is killed, with roving bands thugs to kill anybody who would start a corporation would do it. Revising the legal code to regulate them into submission would do it. Revising the legal code to require that nobody's income or wealth deviates by more than 1% from the average and can have more than 3 employees (2, if they're in the same family) would do it; imposing this by a governmental structure specially created to enforce this rule, a deep-rooted informant system with anonymous reports and Black Marias, or merely using the tax code are all three very different kinds of things. But just because each of these would destroy corporations doesn't mean I'm in favor of all or even any of them. I mean, "corporation" is so much more than the capitalist creations that so many love to hate, now isn't it? MoveOn is a corporation; so is the Democratic Party; Harvard is one, too.

[Edweird]

96. Except OP isn't talking about 'Harvard'. He's specifically talking about our 'corporate economy'.

Split hairs all you want. I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

[bvar22]

79. You're a Socialist?

OK

....and I'm Sheena, Warrior Princess from the Lost Continent.
Please to meet ya!
:hi:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MineralMan]

98. What's a Mav?

I have no idea what you're talking about. How odd. What does your post have to do with Assange? That's the topic.

[YOY]

99. Oh MM! You and that ol' black magic!

n/t

[Kaleko]

101. MineralMan, read this if you want to understand Assange's goals:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657585

[jaxx]

35. What are you saying?

[Edweird]

37. I said it.

[jwirr]

14. I am going to turn the question you ask back at you. What would

you suggest we do about the corporate abuses and control of our world? How far do we let corporatism go? What other weapon do we have? The vote? They are now super people in the eyes of the law. They are hurting not only our nation but the rest of the world with their policies.

I personally think that we need to counter corporatism by building our local economies back to scale. Once again becoming as self-sufficient in production as we once were. I grew up in the 40s when extended families still lived in one area and most of what we needed was produced near by. That was another world but it was safer in my opinion than having a corporation decide what I need and how much it is going to cost me to get it. I am afraid of the power of the corporation.

Corporatism in Germany and in Italy, as well a recent USSR, were destroyed and all those nations rebuilt. I believe we can also.

[MineralMan]

27. No problem. Thanks.

What I would do is put all my efforts into electing a strong majority of democrats who want to make changes. Then, through congressional action and presidential signature, I'd break up the largest corporations into smaller, more manageable, and less powerful entities. Citigroup and all other banks that currently operate nationally, for example, would be broken up into banking corporations that could only operate in a single state. Similar breakups would occur for other current super-corporations, limiting their size to operations in a single state. Cooperations between the smaller corporations would be strictly regulated and limited by law.

For corporations like the big automakers, I'd end ties with banks and other lending establishments and limit corporate-owned dealerships to the state in which the company is incorporated.

Oil companies and other multi-national corporations would be split as well, and business between the split companies would be highly-regulated to prevent action as a single unit.

Across the board, mega-corporations would be split into manageable, smaller units. I'd suggest ending the practice of holding corporations which buy up smaller corporations and operate them under a single unit.

I'd separate banking from Wall street investment firms altogether.

I'd establish laws that favored unionization of workers by using punitive contract rules for all government contracts. If a corporation were not unionized, they'd start off bidding for contracts with heavy surcharges. I'd end privatization of government operations entirely. No private contracts for work done by any government organization like the military or other government operations.

There's much more, but it's all along those lines. Breaking up corporate organizations into highly regulated smaller corporations, with limited ability to join together to fix prices or anything else.

Naturally, I'd immediately implement single-payer healthcare using the Medicare model. I'd institute a highly-progressive tax structure to remove incentives for astronomical corporate management salaries. I'd tax capital gains over about $1 million at a confiscatory rate. Remove the temptations and restore some sense of public decency.

I could go on and on, but I won't. You get the idea.

[jwirr]

38. Anti-trust suits here we come. That would work. Take the corporations

down to manageable size.

[MineralMan]

42. Before any of that can happen, we need to hold an unbreakable

majority in the legislature and have a President who supports these measures. We do not have the first, and that means that the President cannot do anything at all. We have a weak Presidency in this country, by design, so we must elect legislators. We will not do that by fragmenting. That path leads to defeat.

[leftstreet]

45. So in terms of corporation busting, you think nothing will come of these leaks?

[MineralMan]

51. Nope. I don't believe a single thing will come of these leaks

with regard to corporations. I see a lot of things that may come from them on the international diplomacy front. What they will be is still unknown, since we haven't seen but a tiny fraction of the material. Time will tell.

The only way we will get a handle on corporate issues is to have a legislature and Presidency that has the will to change it. I don't see any other approach that can work. And I see no route to that without some sort of unity within the Democratic party. That is missing, and will cost us the very thing we're trying to attain.

That's not an acceptable thing for me.

[leftstreet]

57. Oh. Your OP was really sounding the anti-socialism alarm !!1111

Maybe this thread has given you time to revise your thinking

[MineralMan]

59. Maybe, instead, you failed to understand what I wrote.

That's also a possibility. I asked a question at the beginning of that OP. I'm still waiting for an answer that makes some sense. Do you have one?

[leftstreet]

61. No I got it. You worred these leaks would destroy capitalism

But later you went on to say that wasn't possible

Sounds like you're working out your own fears

[MineralMan]

64. Oh, dear. You really didn't understand, did you?

I worry that those leaks will destroy government. I don't see that as a valid path toward any goal. As I thought, you miss the point entirely.

Assange is not concerned with what he calls "collateral damage" from his activities. It's of no interest to him. He has said as much. He is an anti-corporatist, probably with the usual anarchist leanings.

I am not in any way an anarchist. I want to see change happen in a way that is reasonably orderly, and that causes the least harm to individuals who have no control whatsoever over the process. Do I want the corporations gone? In an ideal world, yes. We do not live in that world. The population is too large for socialism to operate in its essential form. Only a mixed form can work.

Destroying governments is not the path. If that happened in this country, I can guarantee that control will come from the right, not from the left. The left has too much conscience.

Assenge believes, it seems, that destroying governments is the path to destroying the corporation. I believe he is woefully incorrect, and doesn't really give a good goddamn what happens anyhow. He's enjoying what he's doing. I get what he's doing. I just don't like it at all, and think it is a destructive method. I'm not into destruction.

You've already decided who I am and what I believe. You're wrong on both counts. But, that's your prerogative, isn't it. I have an opinion. You have an opinion. Our opinions differ. So it goes.

[leftstreet]

66. LOL So now Assange is an anarchist?

"...probably with the usual anarchist leanings"

:rofl:

FAIL

[MineralMan]

70. You know Assenge?

Really? I've been reading his writings. Yes, I believe that anarchy is part of his political makeup. I also believe he's a prankster, who is enjoying the uproar he's causing. He's been doing pranks for a very long time. I recognize it, because I'm also a prankster. I've just directed my pranking to harmless things.

I will take your "fail" message for precisely what I think it's worth. Thanks for playing.

[Mimosa]

50. Our current president and most of Congress is opposed to you, M.M.

Do you realise the president and the majority of elected officials are opposed to 'breaking up corporations'? They get their money to ride the gravy train from the corporations. And many who run for public office merely want a ticket for the ride of comfy security for themselves and their families. That's called human nature.

You are defending their interests.

[MineralMan]

52. I did not say it was otherwise. We have to correct that.

How we do that should be the topic of our discussions, I believe. We will not do it, however, by splitting Democrats into smaller groups. Of that I'm certain.

We will not do that if our system collapses, either. The result of that would end up being control by the right, I believe. We have few options.

I will probably not live to see the end game, which I believe will not begin for another twenty years. In the meantime, the incremental steps we take will determine what actually happens. I'm not encouraged at all.

What I'm defending is the essence of how this nation is supposed to operate. We have the framework. We have to flesh that framework out. We do not have time to create a new framework. So, it's up to us, really.

You do not know anything, really, about my goals or beliefs. That is clearly apparent.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. You are a socialist who is afraid of socialism. You are not a socialist.

'fess up.

[MineralMan]

62. You are not competent to tell me what I am or am not.

Thanks for your reply.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Sure I am.

And you are most welcome, comrade.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

17. Those darned trees!

They're keeping you from seeing the forest.

It's all ever so much simpler. Assange's "motive," if we must call it that, I would speculate (as all of this is) is nothing more than to gather information and make that information available. With the information available, one would hope that people can actually reach informed decisions. Granted, that's much more likely in other parts of the world than here in the United States of Dancing With the Stars, but it could happen.

On a broader note, I don't agree with your assessment that people necessarily want the U.S. economy de-corporatized. Many of us simply want those corporations adequately, fully and fairly regulated. There are things that large institutions can do that individuals and small businesses cannot. I want corporations to be able to do those things. I do not, however, think it necessary that corporations have a super vote in able to do them. Neither do they need near-blanket immunity from taxation.

It seems to me you've set up a false dichotomy between Total Corporate Rule and No Corporations At All. There is middle ground you don't seem to acknowledge.

[xchrom]

18. unrec -

[Kali]

19. well moving away from corporate economy isn't the same thing as

moving away from corporate control of the government/politics nor is it even the same thing as more restrictions/regulations on what corporations can do/pay in taxes or for fuck's sake removing some of the actual human/individual citizens rights (or even the PREFERENTIAL rights) they seem to have been given.


doesn't mean they can't be "part of the economy" at all, just means we actual citizens have more standing than a large, mostly only concerned with profit, business entity. So does that still mean "complete destruction"? I don't think so, your question is loaded.


I have no idea what Assange's personal motivations are, but in general I favor transparency over secrecy, no matter how the light gets there.

[Mimosa]

43. Kali, some people are just born to do a task for the common good

Just as some people seem to be born to do no good, it seems others have a vocation to do what they must do. In this case I think Assange is pulling back the dank curtains and shining a light upon the ugly secrets. How did the West decline from noble purposes and the quest for justice for all into a sneaky corrupt plutocracy?

We need information. Without information what is there other than ignorant servitude?

[Xithras]

22. Assange has no particular interest in the United States. He's done this to many countries.

Wikileaks most common target is actually Australia, and not the U.S. For example, WL revealed that the Great Aussie Firewall, a national internet filter that was emplaced to filter out things like kiddie porn, was also being used to filter out political dissidents and other content that was disagreeable but not illegal. Wikileaks has also traditionally been an information hub for Chinese and Burmese dissidents, and has dumped information related to a number of European governments. WL also famously dumped those emails last year, revealing that some British climate change researchers may have been less than honest in their findings.

WL is neither anti-American, nor anti-Capitalist. They dump pretty much anything and everything they can find, on whoever they can find it on.

Many longtime WL supporters are actually a bit annoyed by the current dumps, because they've caused WL to pull a lot of the information they usually have on their website to deal with the high traffic levels. You can't even FIND information on their website related to their earlier leaks anymore. It's all been pulled, and the website has been simplified to push this one subject. Those Burmese dissidents are SOL is they wanted to post anything this week.

[xchrom]

25. it's been pointed out before -- the op and others aren't going to believe it. nt

[Igel]

77. One doesn't preclude the other.

But then, that's fairly obvious.

WikiLeaks makes public what it gets. But it really hypes what hurts those Assange despises. Look for China, Australia, the US, a few other countries to get the hype, sometimes just because they're big, sometimes because they're the object of trendy or long-entrenched animosity, sometimes because they're close to home for him. Minor transgressions committed by Zambia and Suriname falling into none of these categories probably will get scant attention--even if lots of hot, juicy stuff like that is forcefully wedged into Assange's inbox he'll barely notice.

A self-proclaimed cop might hate all criminals, but the serial rapist and the guy who burgles the cop's house are going to get a lot more attention than the guy who steals extra ketchup every Sunday when he eats lunch at Burger King.

[northernlights]

28. you could try actually reading his words instead of second-guessing

and imposing your interpretations on his actions.

His goals and intentions are very clear.

[MineralMan]

31. I have done just that. Here's a quote from the

wikileaks.org site:

Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens.

It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.

Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.

Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:

1. The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
2. All power issues from a central committee.
3. There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
4. Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
5. There is no freedom of speech.
6. There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden without approval.
7. The economy is centrally planned.
8. There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
9. The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
10. There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
11. Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.

(end quote) - from Wikileaks.org"

[Warren Stupidity]

34. So wikileaks would like to reveal corporate corruption and malfeasance

and you are opposed to that because, er, kittens will die, or something?

[leftstreet]

36. Don't you remember after Enron? The US went socialist

Try to keep up

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

56. ... and we lost all of our goodies.

If only no one had exposed Enron.

Oh, right, it exposed itself by crashing.

Well, if only there had been a bailout plan so that the taxpayers could pay the damage and Skilling and Lay could get billion-dollar bonuses on schedule the next year!

Why did it take another seven years to figure that one out?!

[jaxx]

33. His goal appears to be purely political.

In his dumping process he is orchestrating the timing and content of each section of the dump to be dribbled out to the unwashed masses. Putting the shock and awe into categories, to get the most bang for his efforts. I'm glad Australia is looking into what laws he may have broken in his knowingly taking stolen information and using that information to further his whacked out ideals.

Julian Assange is no hero. This goes beyond embarrassment, it moves right into undermining the world's countries with no thought other than pushing his own agenda.

[EFerrari]

39. "Political" is not of itself a pejorative, right?

It's also not the sole domain of rich people or your government or of any government.

[jaxx]

40. Why do you bring rich people into this?

Political is political. We all know what it implies.

[EFerrari]

41. What does it imply to you?

[jaxx]

44. That his methods for putting the leaked material out to the public

are of a political nature. He could have dumped them all at once like he did the others, but he chose not to do so.

[EFerrari]

55. Right. What does "of a political nature" mean to you?

You seem to believe there is something wrong with Assange engaging in politics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. So? Isn't what he's exposing "political"? Isn't the attempt to silence him "political"?

[BurtWorm]

46. I think your argument is way the fuck off the mark

This is not about killing the corporate economy at all. It's about nourishing transparency and accountability in foreign policy.

OR:

Do you think the economy relies on the war machine that benefits from secrecy and duplicity? Is that what you're getting at? If Iran and China are able to read our intentions more clearly, is that going to make job creation more difficult than it already is?

[BzaDem]

48. When you say you are a socialist, do you mean socialist in the sense of ending corporations?

Or socialist in the sense of a mixed economy with both public and private portions (such as various countries in Europe)?

Just curious.

[MineralMan]

58. Realistically, the European model is more likely to

be successful. If the population were much smaller, it might be possible to create a pure socialistic state. It is not smaller, and I don't believe it is even close to possible to do that. So, some other model is probably the best way to proceed. Oddly enough, our Constitution says nothing about economic models. It's only a framework for government. That means that a system that embraces the best of both socialism and private enterprise is possible within the framework of the Constitution. All that's needed is to convince the voting population that it's a good idea. That's more troublesome, as we've seen.

What will never work is to change in a catastrophic way. I'm almost completely certain that would lead to control by the right, and a replacement of the framework of our government in a way that would end any hope of progressive change.

Education and acceptance of the fact that incremental change is the only way to do this is the key, I believe. You may believe otherwise. That's why my signature line reads as it does.

Time is short to accomplish this. If we misstep, the results will not be good. Since I'll be gone by that time (I'm 65), I'm really thinking about what things will look like at a time when I'll be unable to see them. I would like to see some progress, though. The next 20 years will tell the story, so perhaps I'll know where it's going by then.

[Mimosa]

60. "our Constitution says nothing about economic models. It's only a framework for government."

When you're right, you're right MineralMan. Please don't think those who question your posts are opposed to you. *hug*

[MineralMan]

65. Yeah. Well, some aren't paying attention to what I'm saying

at all. They've already decided who I am and what I believe. Never mind. I write anyhow. And I'll keep doing so.

Thanks for the cheer-up.

[BzaDem]

63. Ah, I understand.

I completely agree with you that the catastrophic way is not a way to achieve progressive change.

In my view, there are some that simply assume that there is always some method of making what they want happen (in every instance). They assume this without thinking it through, and out comes the whole "revolution" argument. They never stop to consider that the "catastrophic way" might create an even less progressive government/governmental system.

The "revolution" argument considered on its merits is of course laughable. But to someone who assumes on faith that there always IS a way to get what they want, but can't find any other way, the "revolution" argument is made.

[MineralMan]

67. There you go. That's why I keep asking the same question.

There is a path towards a just society. It's just that that path requires a helluva lot of work and dealing with the inevitable setbacks from time to time. The "revolution" model is, as you say, the argument of those who cannot think of a way to reach their goals. And that's assuming that those goals are actually well-defined in the first place. From what I've seen, they're rarely even partly defined.

Frustration is not a political tool. It's just frustration.

[Mimosa]

71. The right probably can't win against truth.

MineralMan, one reason I like democratic underground is that we all can learn from each other.

Frustration, despair and even collapse have been utilised as means towards political ends. In the US history I cite the attacks upon the Colonial government which led to our nation. Then the abolitionists challenged the Southern U.S. states system including slavery. A million lives were lost. many suffered economic agony and the horrors of war to make that system collapse. Some believed war was too drastic a solution.

I'm sure you can think of a few more instances in history where 'frustrations' were exploited to achieve an end. (I first thought of Lenin and the Bolsheviks having used the Russian lower classes frustration against the Czarist war against Germany in order to foment a revolution.) I do not not know what motivates Assange appart from what he has stated.

Yet,I want to know what is going on behind the curtains, in the dark sheds, et cetera.

[KamaAina]

49. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

Spain offers an outstanding example of how We the People can compete directly with the corporatists on their own turf.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

The MONDRAGON Corporation is a federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain. Founded in the town of Mondragón in 1956, its origin is linked to the activity of a modest technical college and a small workshop producing paraffin heaters. Currently it is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2009 it was providing employment for 85,066 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. The MONDRAGON Co-operatives operate in accordance with a business model based on People and the Sovereignty of Labour, which has made it possible to develop highly participative companies rooted in solidarity, with a strong social dimension but without neglecting business excellence. The Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote.

:thumbsup:

[Uncle Joe]

53. He's trying to kill the "Invisible government."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9656361

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

69. Thanks for your comment.

We have the means for change. We just don't seem to be able to motivate enough of the population to implement it. If we fail in that, we fail overall. If we fail, the right wins, by default. That's unacceptable.

The framework is there. We just have to use it. We have not done so. Education is the answer, not some ill-conceived "revolution."

[Uncle Joe]

74. That brings us back to the forces, powers and vested interests that control not only education, but

mass propaganda as well.

By education; I don't mean just what we obtain in the classroom but lifetime continuing education via information streams as well, simply put the corporate media either to a lesser or greater extent view their parent organization and commercial buying corporations as their primary clients.

To the corporate media, the American People or citizens are primarily consumers aka; customers; to be sold a product, candidate or down the river.

Those are the primary reasons that "motivating the population for implementing change" becomes so illusory, if you're either under the belief that problems don't exist or are misdirected as to the source of those problems, then finding solutions become impossible.

This is about representative agency and how the increasing denial or distortion of information to the populace; reduces or eliminates their ability to self-govern in a competent manner, by dumbing them down.

If the frame work is built on a corrupted foundation you can't build a lasting house, you have to start with and maintain a solid foundation and our true foundation is "We the People," not "We the Corporation."

[MineralMan]

78. We have new tools now. We're using them poorly.

Of course the corporate media is selling stuff. That's their business model, isn't it? Why would you expect anything different.

We have some new media available. We're not using it well. We spend most of our time bickering about details and never in communicating with the people whose minds need changing. It's not the people here on DU who need to have their minds changed, quite frankly. We're not numerous enough to do a damned thing.

I wrote a number of times during the campaigns of this year about my efforts in my own precinct. For that I was poo-pooed several times by people that said none of that mattered. And yet, my precinct had a turnout of over 60% of the registered voters and a 60% majority for all the Democratic candidates on the ballot. That's exactly equal to the turnout of that same precinct in 2008. Pretty good for a mid-term election, and every one of the Democratic candidates won.

That's education, too. And yet, when I tried to promote that kind of grassroots activity, the response was tepid, at best. Posting on DU is not activism. It's mutual masturbation or worse. Sometimes, especially lately, it's a matter of name-calling and disputing. Not helpful at all.

Our constitutional framework is perfectly fine. It just requires a citizenry who knows what they want, and a majority to move in whatever direction it wants to move. We can do almost anything within that framework, if we're willing to do the work to convince people.

I know one thing for sure. Calling the electorate "sheeple" or other names doesn't help. I'm an incrementalist when it comes to change. I've not seen any other method work effectively. Because of that, I get called all sorts of names. But, by myself, I got a 60% turnout and a 60% Democratic majority in my own precinct. I did that by talking to almost everyone in the precinct over a two-month period. It was easy. It was fun.

Unless we're ready to do that in every precinct in the country, we're going to get beaten by those who are communicating daily with the same people. We have the ability to win, but not the will, it seems. We feel fulfilled by posting on this and other forums where we're not convincing anyone who needs to be convinced of anything.

We can do it, if we will do it. If we will not, we cannot.

[Uncle Joe]

85. The corporate media's problem is two fold.

Their mass voice is one way, top down, no dissenting criticism against their point of view is portrayed to the people, unless the corporate media allows it and even then so within the general parameters of their business model and the confines of their editing; ie: who gets the last word?

Secondly their business model of "selling stuff" has almost totally bled over to and subsequently corrupted their "news." For the people; not having grown up, adept at or able to use the Internet, the corporate media is their primary source of information, this creates their reality.

Expecting the corporate media to behave one way is one thing but learning about a viable or superior alternative; is an entirely different matter if your trusted and or sole news source doesn't clue you in.

I believe anybody can be brainwashed regardless of intelligence and if nothing else, television; has hypnotic traits.

We do have some new media available and I believe that's what Assange used to good effect, the Internet is becoming the new Fourth Estate because the corporate media's "business model" and the best interests of the people have drastically diverged on a number of critical issues.

I commend you on your activism and I see no reason to poo poo that, but activism only goes so far if enough people are misled by their trusted news sources to not know better.

I do disagree with you in regards to posting on D.U. as not being a form of activism, it most certainly is, whether it reinforces what you believe or gives you new insight to debate people one on one in the "real world."

You had a thread a while back about how you lurked here before joining, no doubt D.U. posts influenced your decision and then you went on to your activism in the "real world." To mangle a line from "It's A Wonderful Life," perhaps if D.U. hadn't been there to save or influence you, you wouldn't have been there to save or influence those by your activism, ripples in the pond and all that.

To be honest in some ways, I'm an incrementalist as well but when your house is on fire, incremental-ism may not get you out of danger fast enough, if at all. Of course in the long view of history, Assange's disclosures may just be overdue incremental-ism, the damn is cracking, the damn is cracking, the damn is cracking, the damn is cracking and finally the damn incrementally breaks.

[MineralMan]

86. Actually, I did not lurk here before joining. You must have me

confused with someone else. I've been politically active since the mid-60s, and have done precinct work since that time, first in California, and now in Minnesota. I also engaged in a lot of street activism during the Vietnam war and in the civil rights movement.

I was aware of DU but first read here in 2008. I joined at that time, and have been quite active here.

One of the new things in this country is the fact that more and more people are not following the corporate media at all. Newspaper subscriptions are down, as is television news viewing. A number of the people I talked to were only vaguely aware of the candidates and issues involved in the 2010 election.

[Uncle Joe]

88. My bad, I misinterpreted these sentences as having lurked.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MineralMan/110

After a short stay at an anti-FR forum, I stayed away from political forums for quite a while, most of the time. Finally, in 2008, in the period leading up to the election, I joined DU and got back into participating in a political forum. This time, though, I had found one that discussed issues from a perspective I actually held. No longer was I trying to convince people of something they could not be convinced of. I still have disputes with individuals here over some things, and that's just fine. It wouldn't be politics without disputes.

Regarding the corporate media's declining viewership, I agree part of this due to their own corruption and part of it due to the Internet, although I believe the general ignorance of candidates and issues seems to me to be a long standing, chronic problem.

The people generally live in a bubble and unless some issue blatantly and directly affects them, they're less likely to pay attention.

[JackRiddler]

54. Stop Omnipotent Assange Before He Takes Away All Of Your Goodies.

There. Boiled it down for you.

[Tsiyu]

68. It doesn't have to be either/or

And you must understand that our corporations aren't just sinking our ship; they have been spreading their disease of environmental/economic/social devastation all over this planet. To say Assange has no irons in the fire is to ignore the damage our nation's corporations have done everywhere there is a resource and people to exploit.

If things continue as they are going, more and more people in America will be economically destroyed as well. At what point do we stop it? When 25% of us are starving? 50%? Already, 20% of us are on Food Stamps!


The corporations must play by the rules - just as we Little People are required to do in every teeny aspect of our lives, from patdowns to inane laws. Corporations will always be greedy and power-hungry, but with fair taxes levied on them for their ability to make $$$$ here, regulations that don't allow them to exploit those in other nations, economic and environmental regulation that has TEETH and REAL punishment for violators, a living wage mandated, single payer health insurance for anyone who needs it, etc., etc., etc./ corporations would be forced to play fair and would not be able to destroy America as we once knew it. That is the answer.


It's up to our leaders to apply these checks and balances on Corporations, but they are too afraid and too greedy themselves to care.

So what is the answer? Accept that many, many people will suffer under the current system and be fine with that (I can't be)? Or accept that our leaders and corporate CEOs are in bed together and destroy them both? Either way, we all lose.

But when your fellow countrymen and women get hungry, sick and weary enough none of us will be able to stop the backlash. I may not want complete destruction of things, but I don't fear it, either. Here in Appalachia, we are used to nothing, used to being ignored by America at large. It just won't shock anyone here.

Our ancestors made it without these mega-corporations, else we wouldn't be here. We can do it as well.

[Mimosa]

72. K&R your post above, Tsiyu n/t

[Tsiyu]

73. Thanks, Mimosa

I don't get this "things will get dire if we change our system" thingy.

Things are already pretty GD dire!

[laughingliberal]

75. Julian has not only pulled some covers that needed pulling but he has provided endless entertainment

watching the authoritarian heads explode.

Anyone who is dependent on the current corruption in the system continuing might want to rethink things.

[BeFree]

80. You question?

What is your problem? Do you have a real problem or are you making it up just to be controversial?

[MineralMan]

81. I'm sorry. That makes no sense at all.

Yes, I do question. Or did you mean "Your question?" What is my problem? I don't have a problem. What am I making up?

If you want an answer, put your question in an understandable form, and I'll answer.

[BeFree]

82. What is your question?

I could suppose that your question is:

"Why don't you get the fuck in line, STFU and leave the government to take care of business, even though it is proven to fuck up and is killing people around the world while making millions of poor people suffer."

But surely you aren't saying that, are you?
Yes, the wilikleaks are further proof of the government screwin' the pooch.
So, what exactly is your problem?

[MineralMan]

83. Ah, the post asked what my question was.

OK. Look at the OP. My question is there, in boldface type. You're welcome to answer it. Here it is, again:

Can you describe a way that moves the United States away from a corporate economy that doesn't completely destroy the economy and cause lengthy and immeasurable harm to ordinary people?

What you suppose my question is is incorrect. I have never asked such a question, and never would. I asked my question, and have been asking it for some time. So far, nobody has given any sort of answer. Will you?

Again, I have no problem. Just a question.

[BeFree]

84. Well

Can you?

Can you describe a way that moves the United States away from a corporate economy that doesn't completely destroy the economy and cause lengthy and immeasurable harm to ordinary people?

Whatever it is will be incremental. The wikileaks is an increment.
Do you really have a problem with exposing of the lies and deceit?
Do you think the corporate world can be exposed without exposing the lies and deceit?

And do you really think wikileaks is going to take down the US? That would be dumb, eh?

[Pale Blue Dot]

89. I think you, and most of the rest of America, is missing the point.

The corporate economy is already completely destroying the economy and causing lengthy and immeasurable harm to ordinary people. There is no stopping the harm, unfortunately. The people who should have listened to the warnings didn't, and now it's too late.

The truth is that the only real question is, "what kind of system do we want after the collapse is complete?"

Our economic system is not viable anymore no matter what Assange or anyone else does. Your argument is, intentionally or not, a straw man.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

90. Assange's goal does not matter ...

The collapse is on. All he is doing is shedding light on the subject(s), not for all, some don't care or don't have the time to see.

How will we move to a non-corporate state? We are already. The movement is slow, ponderously slow, but gaining momentum.
Worker-owned and operated business' are gaining notice and those already established are becoming a template for others.
Buying local, supporting local small business all are gaining. Little bits, small battles won, awareness, great service and exceptional
products, the general public is slowly coming around.

Problem is most American's don't know or care what's going on. I call them the blissfully ignorant. Politically aware people are the exception,
not the rule. Either side, it really matters not. It's not apathy, it's survival.

We are living in a finite world with finite resources but acting like everything is infinite and everything is dandy, just more expensive.
The end is not really upon us just the perception, ahh but that perception. Collapse is not a dirty word. Collapse may mean change, especially in thinking.
This could truly lead to a better, more just world.

You mention the Amish as a corporate free society, you forget yourself(?) and others that support business, not corporations.
The Amish have business, they trade, they buy, they sell, they prosper. There are those among us that are at the same level, albeit in our world,
of the same freedom from corporations. We don't deny business, but we do deny corporations. That is the start, that is the message we need to carry.

There are going to be some real hard times in the future, we must prepare now. Communities will be the safety net for many, leaning on each other for
support. Faith-based organizations may have to lead, this I will support, although I am am avowed atheist, I see the need for these groups. Help is help.



I am also a Socialist, what liberal is not? What Christian is not? Only those that see the label as wrong or demeaning.
Socialism is hard. It requires work in the community. It requires you to be aware, aware of the others needs, it requires compassion, empathy.

The current Administration, along with the Republicans are pushing the majority towards Socialism. They just don't realize it.

MM, great post. I just wish more could answer your questions instead of arguing about little points.
The real point seems to be lost here. I only wish I was more fluent in writing and composing my thoughts.

[YOY]

92. It would appear to be well beyond the recconing of some folks!

n.t.

[Whisp]

93. Perhaps he just wants to see the bigger criminals in the corporate world pay

for their sins.

I don't know him, but I doubt he wants to 'bring down America'. I am curious who this bank is that he will release data on early next year. If he can humiliate and possibly bring charges against some of the robber barons, I can't think him too bad a guy.

Not all corporations are evil. Elizabeth Warren said she had a lot of bankers glad that there were some rules to be put down and that a good service and product is what should make a competitive company succeed, not nefarious sleazy crook stuff.

Assange surely has a lot of people sweating about now, around the world and in many posh dwellings and places of governing.

I almost look forward to more of the story.

[L0oniX]

94. This country doesn't punish war criminals but goes after leakers.

It's always about punishing the messenger and never for the crimes. Asshole US government!

[Fool Count]

95. Oh,yeah, sure. The "We cannot abolish slavery, because our economy and

well being depends on it too much" argument again. Why didn't they abolish it "incrementally"? Wrong on all counts. Firstly,
the alleged "efficiency" of the current system is just an ideological meme dreamed up by the self-serving high priests of the system.
Secondly, even if it were truly efficient, it would by no means justify its enslaving soul-destroying nature. In reality, of course,
there is no contradiction between the two. In fact, that's exactly the enslaving soul-destroying nature of the current system
which makes it inefficient in making human existence most fulfilling, and efficient in alienating and ultimately destroying it.

[TheWebHead]

100. to feed his own ego

fundamentally, you have to ask yourself why do we even know what he looks like? If the idea was transparency, it could have been accomplished more effectively had he simply released the documents and kept a low profile. Given his alleged criminal history, it would be strategically wise for him to stay away from the media and not make himself into the pinata he's become. The only reason you'd work against wikileaks' own interest, jump in front of cameras and call for people to resign is if your desire for publicity and notoriety eclipses any other goal you might have.