I conditionally second that. But better have an economic program already working (i.e., maintaining you) ''out of the box'' (of capitalism, i.e., not being dependent on employment, money purchases, tax payments) if you are serious and want to survive the reaction of the capitalist overlords. Only a viable alternative economic system can do that. We must first develop a viable alternative economic system so we develop the power out of which our politics can be effective.

I don't mean to start from zero. But if we really make the jump to an other weltanschauung, things will come into place, including maintaining for a while some aspects of capitalism. The idea of direct democracy and not representative is for example a very important one. We have to take control TOGETHER with the 0.4% of the 1% that would change their ways.

My point is that economic power is the basis of all power. Politics is the wielding of that power. We cannot dictate to power when we do not have an economic basis for it (i.e., we do not own in massive amounts). The only way to dictate within this system is to become one of them - good luck to anyone who thinks and tries! The only other way to dictate is to be part of an alternative economic system (currently non-existent, but most of the ingredients in place) that would compete and eventually displace the current capitalist one. We can wield power (i.e., effective politics) only if we have it. People (including some of the very rich) will abandon the ''titanic'' eventually when they will be forced to by the survival imperative. The question is how much suffering and destruction before all that happens. Considering the catastrophic threats to the health of the planet and its population and biosphere there is much urgency. We need a viable plan and goal and cannot afford to be impulsive and adventurous. You can view some more of my discussion on this subject at
http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/599/strategy-know-your-political-economy-to-avoid-co-option-by-global-capitalism#Item_2
You will see that I happen to agree with direct democracy (i.e., against representational politics) because it is reflective of the alternative more sustainable economic system (based on common shared ownership and consequently equitable political power). The PARADIGM SHIFT will necessarily require establishment of this alternative economic system first (at least in its infancy). People must be able to live outside capitalism under different economic realities (i.e., the alternative economic system) for this PARADIGM SHIFT to take hold.

I think the 'paradigm shift' will happen gradually as technological innovation will bring us from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and alternative economic systems will be tried and evolved in parallel. This will weaken the basis for the current economy (scarcity) and prepare the said alternatives to slowly take over. But this cannot be done by abruptly abandoning capitalism as it has been a driver for much of the innovation itself. Of course the current (large) portion of capitalism which is feeding its elite, corrupting politics and thus slowing the path to abundance is what ows is mainly trying to fight. To me it does seem possible that radical political reform driven by the masses could be the answer. I like the idea of getting corrupting campaign money out of the political system as a start:

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

In addition to that, there should be more sophisticated tools for voters to inform themselves, such as smartvote (switzerland), where a questionaire directly connects voters with the standpoint of representatives up for election, thus eliminating the need for the destructive disinformation of tv campaign adds.

http://www.smartvote.ch/?lang=en_GB

Is there such a thing like smartvote for the us?

of course, these tools could also evolve and facilitate more direct democracy... it's all a process..

I completely agree that making 'demands' is NOT what we need to do. This was suggested by the media... it did not originate from this movement.

I believe we can discover a shared vision, mission, goals, steps etc. that allow us to move forward empowered. 'Shared' vision means it will not co-opt anyone... it is the natural intersection of a desired outcome... a broad picture of the future we would like to see.

I believe this movement can awaken the majority of Americans to reclaim their political power and restore some form of democracy.

From there the majority can be engaged in how we might reform our banking system, health care, education, etc.

I believe first and foremost if this movement were to help put the power in a real way back into the hands of the majority THAT would be HUGE.

There are already existing movements to amend the constitution we can support such as GetMoneyOut.com and MoveToAmend that would help to that end.

Start developing shell communities committed to the transition to sustainability. As they become a success, and the global financial system collapses, it will surge into the new paradigm.

I agree with all of this.
Good lord guys, is this what consensus looks like? I could get used to this!

Capitalism is in an evolutionary path of self-destruction. It is an entity that has a beginning and an end just like any other creature, process, or phenomenon. We need to study the history of economic systems (i.e., from hunters-gatherer societies, to classic slavery, to feudalism, and lastly capitalism) to appreciate this. Capitalism is unreformable at this stage of its existence because it has run out of room to grow and is collapsing caught in a vicious cycle (global markets fully conquered and privatized, markets now actually shrinking due to increased use of technology displacing labor/employment i.e., the consumers, causing further use of technology and so on). The banking system, healthcare, education, other institutions are part and parcel of this capitalism and depend on profits for their operations, profits that are increasingly more costly to eek out of the population making reform that much less likely.

If we refer to the history of development of new economic systems (e.g., feudalism, capitalism) we will notice that they all went through a transitional stage where they grew in parallel with the decay and weakening of the older economic system - the new one benefiting from the weakness of the dying one. For example, as feudalism was based on living off the land as the population grew the land had to be parcelled into smaller and smaller lots eventually unable to feed the parcel's owner despite modest advances in technology getting more out of the land. This created the conditions for wage-laborer (i.e., the working class) now moving to towns or being employed by other land owners where the new emphasis was on improved and increased production instead of self-subsistence and payment of feudal duties. On the other hand the need for this increased production also increased the need for money and funding giving rise to proto-capitalists becoming bankers, merchants, manufacturers, industrial farmers developing primarily from the old village or town guild artisans and traders. This was the beginnings of capitalism. It existed in dynamic interaction/equilibrium with the old feudal system (i.e., some moving from feudalism to capitalism mode of existence and vice versa). However, as feudalism was caught in its inherent contradictions with increasing population/limited growth in tech unable to keep up with production demand/increasing expenditures of feudal lords / king / church, capitalism grew based on the economic survival advantage it provided to the majority population. The growing economic power of the capitalists eventually led to implementation of their political demands and ambitions in the name of humanity and "age of reason" eventually displacing the feudal lords by seizing their properties and redistributing them or incorporating them into their power structure. They could do this only because they had already established a superior economic system gaining ground and empowering their political agenda. History of capitalist political revolutions (violent or not) illustrate this. Furthermore, feudalism did not abruptly disappear as soon as capitalism appeared. The transition was somewhat protracted especially on the economic level followed by a significantly shorter political transition.

Similarly, we need to look for establishment of a new global economic system displacing global capitalism as the basis of effective political change. We should look at what change is necessary and possible (with reference to our species, not to our subjective individual want or situation). Capitalism was good in improving and increasing production (albeit at great cost). The big problem our species faces economically is not in the rate of production rather its distribution. This is a problem rooted in ownership of the means of production. The capitalist can produce a lot (in fact more than ever before) but won't / can't sell without a profit. So the alternative economic system must not be based on profit. Profit is a derivative of private ownership without which nothing could be claimed privately and profited from. So the new system must be based on non-private / social or communal ownership. This provides for cooperative production and equitable distribution and exchange which is also consistent with the politics such as of humanitarianism / peace.

Capitalism will fall because of its internal contradictions proving its incompetence and illegitimacy but also only when there is an alternative economic system taking over its role providing superior survival potential. We cannot and must not wait for capitalism to fall before attempting to establish the new economic system.

It's very common to confuse capitalism with material/financial development, with production, progress, and all about techne. As if abandoning capitalism is getting out of any possibility of realizing any sort of enterprise, organize resources or even being left without them, like a lose of power, a loss of practical possibilities.

What constitutes capitalism as the class of system it is, is not what I mention above but: relationships where gain is more important than humanness, where limitless growth is fostered as symbolic victory over terror of death and lack, where appropriation and exclusion are seen as virtue, where relationships of domination and obedience are lived as desired and even necessary, where all kinds of corruption are valid ways to accumulate as long as others don't see it, where divisions of rulers and ruled are seen and fostered as the only possibility, where war and domination are lived as heroic and virtuous, etc.

Abandoning capitalism from one day to the other doesn't mean abandoning a production/innovation/organization apparatus. It doesn't mean we are left naked in the jungle. Oh yes, but as long as we are hijacked by the belief of Entropy as ultimate reality, we will be compelled to repeat those schemes out of necessity.
It's time for the miracle that would awake our sight and our faith to Infinite Possibility.

@Dran - I think you may have swayed me on this for now. If we don't make demands then we need an internal plan of what we are taking back then. Also we should serious figure out a fair way to make some leadership and involve the group in the process of making the plan. The leadership wouldn't be leaders per-say but they would be responsible for gathering and sifting all the requests to put it to the people for a vote on the items that fit the direction of the movement.

Thoughts?

A single organization might have a goal which, if achieved, might mean that the organization had no more reason to exist. In the past a large-scale movement has usually been perceived as consisting of various organizations with related (but different) goals. Today, a large-scale movement consisting largely of individuals seeking a total overthrow of the power structure is not about to agree on a few goals which, if achieved, will mean they'll agree to roll over and disappear.

A century ago we were Wobblies, working-class, Socialists, Anarchists & muckrakers. Shot down by the 1%, we grew strong. In time, by allowing the graduated tax and social safety nets of Progressives & the New Deal, they convinced some of us we’d won. We grew weak, but had a bit more to spend as consumers, which also profited the 1%. Their economy grew. But now, unable to accept their victory, they undo reforms, hurting us & the economy. As 99%ers, we’ve learned: Reforms are fine, but don’t trust the 1% to say when we’ve won.

http://sites.google.com/site/reinventstuff/home/history2rs.pdf