I definitely agree about using 'what we are calling for' or similar language, as I think it's more empowering rather than entreating, but OD has been having this discussion for a while and some people really like demands! Maybe we can use both, rather than using 'demands' all the time - best of all worlds? :)

We need to strike a balance, asking for what will resonate with ordinary people, while at the same time educating about different possibilities. For example, the Monarchy. If we demand it's abolition we are basically shooting ourselves in the foot as we've immediately alienated 4/5 of the population. Having said that there would be no harm in requesting an open debate about the role of the monarchy in 21st Century Britain, which would then give Republicans a chance to put their view and (possibly) change public opinion. I think similar strategy should be taken with things like Basic Income and the removal of all power from private banks, which are so extreme to most people as to be unthinkable.

Peter

Hi all, be great if people could put these comments on Loomio as we are trailing this forum as a place to hold debates. Cheers, Julie

This is loomio...

Ooh!! Didn't realise it sent emails ! Thought it looked slightly strange :/

Gail raises an important issue: "Are we going for what we feel is needed in the world (tbd) or for what we feel will be more widely adopted?" I think the answer lies in how we are thinking about taking these demands forwards and what they are for.

Personally I would like to focus on the democratic demands as I think they are of a higher order. The idea is that by reforming democracy so that it is less captured by the interests of corporations, banks and super-rich, we make the other demands (for people and planet) easier and more likely to be enacted.

I would therefore propose that we
1) focus on crafting a set of democratic demands that we are happy with (stand up to some scrutiny, and are sufficiently radical and robust to be effective)
2) promote these through a series of (escalating?) direct actions in front of Parliament
3) get sign on from civil society groups that represent millions of people

I think there is a value in continuing to evolve demands relating to people and planet in order to flesh out a vision of a popular positive programme to show that what many of us want is common sense (or backed up by an evidence base) but is nevertheless not being offered by the main neoliberal / pro-austerity parties and that the system is therefore not working and needs radical reform.

Phil, do you mean something along the lines of - if we had a truly representative functioning democracy that wasn't captured by corporatism and self-interest, then we wouldn't have fracking, we would have homes, spending would be on the NHS not Trident etc...?

If so, I think that's right, and it does lead to focusing back more particularly on the democratic 'demands'... while using the people and planet demands as examples of how wrong our 'democracy' is, and to illustrate what we could have if the system were sufficiently different.

By sufficiently different I don't mean just a different party in power. It could start with a different party in power, but that party would have to be prepared to make radical changes to the system itself...

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.

We are starting to gather possible demands relating to war, the arms trade and foreign policy to put forward at the next occupation on 24 January. Shall I post them here or start a new thread?

On those other demands that have been suggested via social media.

The direct democracy one seems to contain about four separate proposals in it. I wonder whether it might be better to include something in the preamble about our desire for more direct and participatory democracy?

Monetary reform came up at the last occupation as an unannounced proposal by Barnaby after a talk by Positive Money. Barnaby wants to raise the proposal again (probably in February now). This is not my area of expertise but the essence of it, as explained by David at a recent meeting, seems to make a lot of sense and it seems to have quite a lot of traction in the progressive policy world. Has anyone made a credible case against?

On abolishing the monarchy. This would seem to be something that the press would pick up on and brand us with. Would our movement even be branded treasonous? I have been wanting to push "abolish the Royal Prerogative" as a demand so would offer this as an alternative. This would mean that Parliament rather than the Executive would make decisions about going to war and negotiating international treaties. This argument is put forward in "Not in Our Name: Democracy & Foreign Policy in the UK" which was largely prompted by Iraq 2003.

I'm heading out the door now, but want to respond to the discussion about tax havens next time I check in.

The demand for nuclear disarmament should also be included. I think the demands are not an end in themselves but a means to building a movement for real democracy. They highlight the democratic deficit in concrete terms. For instance, the demand for the right of recall was first raised by the antiwar movement when 2 million demonstrated to stop Parliament from voting to support Blair's invasion of Iraq. How many MPs would have voted for the invasion if they knew they could be subject to recall?

That war be removed from the diplomatic toolset, as there is adequate evidence that it has not in the last century resulted in the stated objectives for which it was started. Moreover each successive war has resulted in a greater cost and risk than a return on investment, financial, moral or political.

Lastly diplomacy has evolved to an extent that choosing war over other means is not necessary and reflects a democratic deficit in some cases, in others a lazy and simplistic approach to conflict resolution.

That the Islamophobia industry be held accountable for its actions in creating instability in similar fashion as those who be accused of initiating an unpopular militaristic coup d'etat.

No war ever? My Dad was imprisoned as a conscientious objector in WW2, then, with Hitler, decided he was wrong & ended up in the paras. Glad we won. The Munich agreement was a bit of a flop.

Indeed Dave - I did think the previous comment was a tad naive.

@PeterDombi & @David WWII had its antecedents in WWI, The rise of Hitler was also in a time of turmoil and economic collapse created by greed and inequality.

It also took place in context of colonial brutality and inter-imperial rivalry. A solution could have been found that would not have taken the world to war by dealing with the root causes of the wars.

Today we are closer then ever to repeating the mistakes of the past. And we have a very short time to prevent ourselves from reaching the tipping point. I don't think I am naive, I believe I am realistic. Although we may not be able to prevent the trajectory or momentum of where things are heading, a vision of the future that allows for war is not something I would aspire to.

Obviously, all the structural changes in institutions and disarm-armament would also be needed to remove war from inter-state conflict resolution. Citizens would need to keep watch that rearmament did not take place, however as civilians are the recipients of most violence in war, it would be to their interests.

The problem with your argument is it doesn't solve the problem of what to do when mistakes have already been made. Hitler's rise may indeed have been rooted in WWI, but by the time he came to power it was all a bit too late. What do you think we should have done - watched the Holocaust from a distance while saying 'nothing to do with us, that's all rooted in colonialism!' We don't live in a perfect world, but a very imperfect one, where we're forever trying to fix the mistakes of the past.

This is a hard question to answer, and you are right it would seem criminal to respond by not going to war in a holocaust situation.

The question is when do we have opportunities to turn our back on war completely and say it is not in our vocabulary any more. We had an opportunity after the WWII and one at the end of the Cold War both lost to us.

This goal does depend on an awake and engaged civil society across the world, ensuring their governments do not renegade on the agreement.

Today however I think we are facing the same questions that we did prior to WWII, in the europe wide rise of neo-nazi and far right groups who are militarizing and engaged. This is being done on the back of Islamophobia, and is maybe more advanced in its manifestation then most white people have visibility of. The question is what do we do now, if we fail to change this trajectory, we may yet see terrible horror again.

Finally today we have a great deal of technology, and science that falls short from killing people that can be utilised to save people, including cyber-warfare.

We also have an advanced understanding of conflict resolution that can work directly in civil society. We also can establish the link between financial stability and the will to go to war and taking people out of their miserable condition does a lot for tolerance and peace.

Hi Saeeda, I think we can agree that educating and informing society at large as to the causes of war is an essential component in removing those causes and, ultimately, war itself. And that's what we in Occupy are here for... Regards, Peter

Hey, can you just correct the spelling of 'monitory' to 'monetary'?

Just a thought on demands.

I worry that people are thinking intellectually but not strategically.

To me, the reason to make demands at this stage is to mobilise people around things they perceive as winnable and imeadiately needed.

Therefore I think we should be looking to people such as Our West Hendon, E15 Mum's, DPAC and so on for our initial demands. These groups and others like them represent real grassroots concerns. Supporting their demands will give Occupy Democracy the credibility it needs to become relevant to people (and campaigns) so that they wish to support and maybe even join it.
Supporting genuine grassroots campaigns is also supporting democracy from below.
Ending tax havens or abolishing the royal family are certainly things I agree with. But I believe they are more distant aims that can serve to guide our efforts here and now.

Anyway tiz my thoughts

Hi Barnaby , excellent - love them , simple & succinct :) will put on the list and Loomio later .

On your other query - RDWg is not meeting and I read your blog on money but not the other stuff yet, but will !

I am somewhat concerned that we seem to be championing the cause of another group - it seems like co-option to me. I believe that we in Occupy Democracy should be coming up with our own proposals, even if those proposals end up being the same as things already being put forward by other groups

Hi Peter - I see one of occupy's unique roles as bringing together individual focused campaigns and putting them together into an overarching narrative to creat a credible alternative . Positive money is one such campaign .

Personally I was convinced of the need for debt free money after watching the BBC2 film on money and debt , and only later heard of Positive Moneys work ( which I admire ) I don't have any problem in wording it differently though - do you have a concrete suggestion ?

As to co-option - I don't think that is the case here as it usually it means to incorporate the symbol of something without the deeper meaning and I don't see that happening here. Instead I see this as building bridges , partnership and solidarity - which is part of creating alliances that we need to build a mass movement..

To be honest I would prefer it if Occupy worked through its own discussions on monetary reform in order to produce a demand, rather than picking up a pre-packaged option from another group. I feel very uneasy about it.

Is the monetary reform proposal to go to an OD assembly? If so, there'll be space to raise objections and suggestions...? I imagine a few people will have similar concerns to Peter - I do.

Em

Can somebody explain the objections to me. I don't understand them.

Are people saying that everything must be started from scratch and no previous work can be used by anybody else.

Would not people just put different ideas on the table, some new, some old and people choose between them.

I agree with Peter that although Positive Money have many good points there are significant difficulties with their proposals. I have spent hours watching their videos, read 'Modernising Money' & talked a little with Ben Dyson.

Basically they say that all money should be created by a sub-committee of the Bank of England, meeting monthly to decide how much. I accept the need for some centralised decision making but it shouldn't all be that way, and tight nodes of power are more easily corrupted..

Ben Dyson sometimes accepts the possibility of more localised (Local Authority level?) money creation to a degree.. that's better up to a point but still open to corruption & if the people deciding to create the money don't have 'skin in the game' (i.e. could personally get screwed up) as Nicholas Naseem Taleb says, they are prone to messing others up.

What Positive Money doesn't quite seem to get, to me, is an appreciation of how we all have a kind of capacity to create money..

Money is not really a concrete 'thing', it's a broadly held agreement - often rendered more plausible by transmutation into 'things' , like pretty bank notes & coins, impressive bank halls and debt enforcement laws (agreements?) which can be very coercive. But it's basically a matter of faith.

Graeber explains how money evolved from our sense of mutual responsibility to pay back help, favours, giving things into an accountancy system to keep track of our obligations when too many people got economically involved to keep track. - Then this got captured by the temples, the money lenders & the rulers.

We kind of make money ourselves (in a none monetarised or financialised way) when we convivially mutually support one another. LETs - local exchange currencies often fall into disuse as the participants get to know each other well enough to do/exchange useful stuff without out keeping track through a money or token or accountancy system.

I reckon the best functional system would build in awareness of the wide spectrum of potential money creation..

I've known people who had almost no money but who were very well provided for because of their human relationships & community links. What is the point of money anyway but to call upon other human labour or the fruits of their labour? Money is a kind of instantiation, reification, 'thingifying' of trust.

Also there are other solutions than Positive Money's which are imo under-recognised. Incentives for irresponsible money creation can be culled by novel forms of taxation on the banks or by forcing them to put up their own money ('equity' - Admati & Hellwig say 30%) for every loan - & maybe banning some forms of loan.

I'd better stop there. If it doesn't hurt your head thinking about it sometimes, maybe you're not having the vumf to engage with it adequately.

All the best,

Dave
I need to go & have two conversations with strangers :)

Interesting points but I think Barneby's proposal addresses most of your objections :

1. Take the power to create money away from the banks, and return it to a democratic transparent and accountable process

2. Create money free of debt

3. Put new money into the real economy rather than financial markets and property bubbles

The way the proposal is constructed means that Local Authorities ( or other democratic bodies ) could create money , it would not just need to be central government - which I agree would be problematic if they alone could create money as a central node . However both central government and local government would be well placed to decide on the creation on central and local projects of value ( money creation is akin to creation of value ) . They would have "skin the the game " because bad decisions would lead to a devaluation of national and local currency .

This proposal does not prevent banks ( if they are democratically owned - such as a mutual ) continuing to lend money if they use there own equity , and possibly creating money free of debt by making a charge to cover risk and admin . I agree a diversity of providers is a good things for a vibrant market and enterprise .

The third proposal is surely one you would support as you often refer to the inflation of assets that quantitative easing creates and you have supported Chris proposal to invest this money in housing instead ( which could be done through a combination of central & local government and democratically owned banks.

On the other point about social relations being a better alternative to money , yes absolutely , but our present growth based , profit dominated economic paradigm mitigates against this , and virtually all recent economic growth in the country has been in the service industry - what one economist characterised as paying to cut each others hair . Modern capitalisim seeks to expand the areas of social relationships mediated by money , not reduce , thus promoting atomisation rather than community . An example of this is the growth in the fast food and convenience food - whereby we buy food from Iceland / Waitrose and eat alone rather than cook together in social groups .

Which brings us back to the reason and urgency of this proposal - debt based money locks us into eternal growth , and we need an sustainable economic system as we are consuming about 2 and a half planets each year, and rising ! Our present political economy is not sustainable and threatens all life on earth .

@Peter and @Dave

If you have a better proposal this is the time to put it out there - we need alternatives not just critiques !

Please see:

Yes , this will go as a proposal to the next OD on 24 jan

As a supporter from 250 miles away, I was attracted to OD because it did bring together the several single issues that I was already working on (NHS, Public Services, Housing, Fracking and other UG exploitation, TTIP)and alerted me to few more vital ones eg Privatisation of Public Spaces. The one big hole I saw in the OD umbrella was anything to tackle the root monetary causes of debt and inequality and the pendulum of boom and bust, without which it's going to be hard for any government to build a stable economy that works for everyone. Positive Money has done/been part of a lot of high quality technical research on this - research which stands objectively on it's own two feet apart from the group tag 'positive money', and is paradigm changing information that we all need to have/get our heads round. All the systemic mechanisms that transfer wealth from the poor to the rich have to go - mechanisms in the money supply (private banks must not be allowed to retain the power to create new money) the banking system (eg the depositor must retain ownership of his deposits, and total control over when and what he allows the bank to invest his money in) the fiscal system (eg the question of land/asset tax rather than income tax?). Is OD Economic Study group looking at these issues, and can they come up with a wording that successfully and in clear language incorporates the broad changes that need to happen? I definitely vote for something that pushes these issues up on to the public horizon.

PS, looking again at Barnaby's numbered proposals, I think they can all stand without the specific Positive Money tag, and are pretty good for starters. Perhaps point 2 could be re-worded more along the lines of 'End the current practice of creating new money as debt' and a new point 4 for complementary currencies, something like 'Explore or maximise the potential of local and complementary currencies' ?

Yes , agree, and like the addition :

‘Explore or maximise the potential of local and complementary currencies’

There is actually the potential on Loomio to make a new proposal of modify an existing one I think ( if you want to ) . Not sure how though - my homework is to watch the online tutorials :)

Here is some research for point 4.
in 1932/3 local currency "tax anticipation notes" were successfully issued by local authorities, when national money dried up.

Now in Brighton, one way to help people understand what money is, a prerequisite to enable national reform, could be to launch a Brighton pound. The council has £17million council tax arrears, which could drive a tax anticipation note issue by the council, targeted to those in arrears: -

http://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/ijccr-2012-gatch-optimized.pdf
http://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/Tax-Anticipation-Scrips-optimized.pdf
http://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/Local-Money-in-the-United-States-optimized.pdf
http://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/Oklahoma-Emercency-Currency-optimized.pdf
http://www.uco.edu/la/political-science/files/gatch/this-is-not-US-currency-optimized.pdf

I'd be happy for Barnaby's to rewrite the proposal, as he knows how to do it? I also see that the 'sovereign money' question is billed for discussion on the program for the next Occupy session on 24 January - how do discussions and proposals from Loomio tie into this?

This is a pre - discussion for the sovereign money decision at the assembly at the next occupation on the 24 Jan . So Barneby's proposal - or a modified version will go there for decision .

Will there be enough people present who understand/can present the detailed issues? Anyway, I wish all the good people well in the w/e action, can only applaud from afar, regardless of the finer points!

See PDF below in relation to Sovereign Money and banking transparency regarding what sort of initiatives your bank lends to. For example, you may want to know if your bank profits from war and arms sales or not. http://www.positivemoney.org/our-proposals/debt-based-money-vs-sovereign-money-infographic/

A systemic solution that underpins virtually all other issues. I would like to see it happen internationally.

To me the sensible thing for Occupy Democracy to do would be to decide weather it "officially supports" Positive Money's proposed monetary reforms. And if so decide in what ways it wishes to express it's support. I.e positive money stall/tent at occupations, etc.

But I think occupy democracy's own demands should aim to build movement power. That means the demands have come from below. From people facing eviction, deportation, work capability assessments, state repression etc.

That is what will multiply occupy democracy's numbers and hence its power.

Mk

Mark. Are you suggesting that Positive Money's demands come from above? They were designed alongside other campaigns such as the New Economic Foundation amongst others. All tiny budget NGO's with ambitious systemic aims. What about any other campaign that has refined a justice policy over time? Would not recognising them build movement power by enlisting their grassroots supporters and cross pollinating and networking to tackle networked problems? We agreed at the last GA to go out and support front line campaigns for mutual strength. Although Positive Money is more abstract, due to the nature of money power, but are they not front-line? What I have proposed here is a policy. I have recognised the work that others have done to create this policy. I personally see no flaws in the policy. Do you? Does anyone else? That is why I have proposed it at Occupy. Because of all the reasons listed in the blog I wrote. http://www.positivemoney.org/2015/01/occupy-democratise-money/ http://www.positivemoney.org/2015/01/occupy-democratise-money/
I could amend the proposal as you suggest. Or we could just forget about Positive Money and keep the policy. But why would that help anyone? What do we want to ultimately achieve and how? Could we not also recognise those who created the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth etc?

I don't think we're profoundly disagreeing. I'm not saying scrap the proposal. I'm saying that proposal be to support Positive Money's aim. Not take their aim on as our own.

They can fight for it with our support (if that's what occupiers want). They can win it. They can take credit for it, with our support.

I personally don't think it's a demand coming from below I. E a felt need that grassroots communities fully understand and desire.

I don't think people like myself or most people I know in occupy are really able to fully grasp the ins and outs of monetary reform. So it makes more sense for me and people like me in occupy to say "we like what these Positive Money folks a saying. Let's get behind them until they either turn out to be wrong or they win."

This way we don't alienate people that their policy ideas don't resonate with, and we don't set our agenda too early before movement barely numbers more than 100.

Totally agree with Barnaby.. Please see my earlier comments about Positive Money's collaborative technical research over past 7 years. Also please note, I am a grass roots granny! I was following up questions re debt, housing, financial squeeze on my own families before Positive Money came into being. Positive Money is the youngest version of research and campaigning stream re money creation that has been going on for upwards of last 150 years. It took me five years to get my head round what they were saying about the current fractional reserve banking system, power, inequality etc. Their collaborative work has so far managed to shift the 'official' paradigm on this that they can now confidently present the issues in the info graphic Barnaby referenced in his earlier emails. I have done the work on money creation and banking issues, and I totally support the need for others to do the work on it themselves. However, I haven't done the work on eg Privatisation of Public Spaces and am grateful to those in OD who have. I have followed up what they said on this to the extent that, without detailed expert knowledge, I am ready to go along with what they say, learning a little at a time. A good question for collaborative grass roots democracy - how do we weave the detailed knowledge/trust base for such a non-single issue movement as OD?

To me it seems rather strange to urge people to support something they don't properly understand. I would have thought a better option would be to express it in terms they do understand, which they can then feel more comfortable supporting. To me that implies a more generalised proposal eg Introduce legislation to restrict the ability of banks to lend money excessively and create unsustainable levels of debt. There are many ways this can be done and Positive Money is just one of many possible solutions.

I agree, Peter.

I think if OD is going to work on lists of demands, they should be simple straightforward things that will resonate when people read them - not things that turn people off by being arcane or complex or seemingly irrelevant to individual's lives, hopes and fears.

I'm not saying that the Positive Money proposal is all of those things, but I do think it is too detailed to be a core demand. It's more like a way of addressing a core demand, that could be considered further along the process that OD seems to be working through.

I think EM and Peter have a point, that a more general high level bullet point is needed that encompasses what Positive Money is trying to achieve.

If you need only one high level bullet point at this time how about 'Work towards a fairer and more democratic money system, that will enable, rather than block, investment in the real economy, the environment, and public services.' However, on the programme sent out by OD, it's been billed as 'Take back the power to create money from the banks (aka Positive Money aka Democratising Money), which is short and to the point, so it would be good to see how the discussion runs round this in a General Assembly.

Peter D. "To me it seems rather strange to urge people to support something they don’t properly understand." At the last GA when I gave an on-the-hop unprepared overview of this proposal which I believe some people got but a few did not. I know where I went wrong. I immediately suggested people swat up before the next GA and we continue from there. I have posted links to the key points on FB including the clip " Could these 3 simple changes to banking fix the economy?". Also writing the blog was meant to nudge people to research further and swell our numbers at Occupy Democracy for mutual support. I for one would not want to want to urge anyone to support something they did not understand. In your opinion, who is doing that exactly, how, and if so, why?
Linda suggested "Take back the power to create money from the banks." I like this. I do however still prefer the original. It mentions debt free money which is vital. It mentions housing and debt bubbles which I think most people get, and is hugely topical. It mentions democracy which is also apposite (not used that word before). As is "Transparency". It is not a very simple policy its true. I found many aspects of school hard and didn't do that well. I am however, very curious. It was finding out 17 years ago that privately owned banks create the money we use, out of thin air and as interest bearing debt which immediately opened my eyes to global power base realities, but most optimistically, to what the very attainable solutions were. Now someone is doing well at bringing these to the fore, I feel much less lonely.

New Green Deal?
Oppose corporate secondment?
They may also need some research.

@Barnaby: I was responding to Mark's suggestion above: 'I don’t think people like myself or most people I know in occupy are really able to fully grasp the ins and outs of monetary reform. So it makes more sense for me and people like me in occupy to say “we like what these Positive Money folks a saying. Let’s get behind them until they either turn out to be wrong or they win.”
Which I interpreted as saying: 'even if most of us don't fully understand this proposal, we should support it anyway.'

I see. OK Peter, John, Mark, I will mull this over today. Although I am not expecting you to fully understand Positive Money's proposals, they are far, far more simple than the way the present economy works. I don't understand that completely but I know enough to know it consolidates power and that people are not very pro banks at the moment. Also, Positive Moneys proposals have been done before. (Just found this site- Don't know anything about them - http://greencredit.org.uk/2013/10/15/bradbury-pound-the-historic-precedent-for-public-or-green-credit/) There is a student movement around the world demanding they be taught how the economy really works. It was on radio 4 two weeks ago. I can find the link if you want but need to go now.

There has also been a little loomio opposition to mentioning Positive Money in the proposal with regard to co option. I will do my best at explaining it on Saturday and bring in the above suggestions you raised.

Hi there, this is Frank, I am a research assistant at Positive Money. Firstly, I would like to say if anyone has any technical questions about the reform, don't hesitate to ask :) I will give you the most neutral answer possible, (i.e. give you both sides of the story to the best of my ability).

I would like to offer a different way of maybe looking at this issue, it might be useful or might not.

You can never know enough about monetary economics. So it might better to see the the demand to stop banks from creating money as multi-layered. There are political aspects to it, and then there are economic, social ones etc. They are not mutually exclusive, but I would assume its the political (democratic) issues that would be the starting point for Occupy Democracy. So maybe its useful to start by understanding the political issues...

I would suggest starting by understanding 1) Banks hold the money supply hostage, if they merely slow down their rate of lending there is an acute possibility of a recession (for me personally, I find this unbelievably undemocratic) 2) Five banks are controlled by just 78 board members, they essentially decide how 85% of all money is used. 3) If I try and create money, I would go to jail. 4) When I deposit money at the bank, it is no longer legally mine.

There are more I dont want to write a book. The point that I want to make is that there are political aspects to this issue, that might be the best place to start from, given your underlying objective.

Thank you for having me and taking the time consider my points.

Re The above debate about Positive Money, I believe that the points being made seem to be on two sides, But they are not in fact contradictory.

a) It is very important that we reach out across movements, the right is much stronger than we fully comprehend. The left is fragmented to a level that is worrying. Endorsing movements is therefore is very important, when they fall on the same side of the barricades.

Therefore "OD supports Positive Money's campaign to democratise the functioning of banks and money creation" is a great idea and if we can identify other groups to support than that is great.

b) A high level point that encompasses Money reform allows people to respond and recognise this important issue. This also allows Positive Money and other groups that work in the same space to engage the grass-roots with their ideas. It does not shut they door to any of them.

c) Do we build on the work done by specialist movements whether we think they are grassroots or not.
I would say yes we do. However they need to be taken to the grassroots if they are not already in its domain of understanding.

i.e. 1) E.g in this case specialist group is Positive money, It break down each of its points in a easy to understand form, that can be taken wider. b) get feedback and concerns and respond to them from the wider grass-roots c) incorporate and vote on each part in a manner that can be voted yes or no. d) while this is taking place others working in the same space can propose alternatives in a manner that also engages the grass-roots.

I thought this closed later today?

Yes so did I x here's my position - fundamentally I strongly support removing the power to create new money from commercial banks, and strongly oppose creating new money as debt. I also strongly support removing the banks' right to treat depositors' money as their own and lend it out to unnamed enterprises without the depositors' full consent. If the National and global community doesn't get rid of these mechanisms, moving towards a programme to do away with the 1% - 99% dynamic will be like cycling uphill on the highest gear of your bike because you haven't read the manual. However I abstain from the decision on what is the best starting proposal forOccupy Democracy at this time, as this is the first on line conversation I have been part of with OD, and I live too far away for me to become a contributing member of GAs. I wish you all well this weekend and thank you for the brilliant work you are doing.