What an Occupation Looks Like

The Red Shirts in Bangkok 2010

Though not a Red Shirt myself, I very much sympathised with many of their issues including the plight of the rural poor, the need for universal healthcare and proper enfranchisement in the Northern states. It was while under curfew in Bangkok that I wrote most of  The Sirisuk Declaration.  (see www.sirisuk.org) 

There were many extraordinary aspects of the Red Shirt occupation; the numbers that turned out, the high level of funding and the expertise of the (largely) working class participants who, having provided the labour and skills to build modern Krung Thep (Bangkok) over the past 20 years, soon built a comprehensive infrastructure for the occupation including their own radio station, health-care system, recycling and waste collection, food kitchens and restaurants, water supply, transportation and so-on – at one time they were even issuing passports. It must be said that I thoroughly disapproved of the Red Shirt leadership – particularly their lavish millionaire lifestyles: when the people were on the barricades defending the occupation Taksin was in Paris shopping at Louis Vuitton. As we know, the Red shirts won and Taksin’s sister, Ying-luck, is now Prime Minister.  I’m not at all hopeful that the Red Shirt revolution will change much but one can certainly empathise with the reasons for it. 

Below is a short piece of film taken from the corner of my street (Sukhumvit 71) when the Red Shirts entered the city  from the South East, turning the coner and heading north on Thanon Sukhumvit. Similar parades entered from other directions.

 

Below are some stills of the same parade from below Phra Kanong Skytrain station as I walked south down Sukhumvit.

At Phra Kanong BTS looking south down Sukhumvit 2010Looking across the street from southbound Thanon Sukhumvit near Phra Kanong BTS 2010

Looking across the street from southbound Thanon Sukhumvit near Phra Kanong BTS 2010

Turning east into Sukhumvit 71, both carriageways are taken up by the occupation forces entering the city 2010

 Below, are some stills from outside the entrance to my apartment at Sirisuk on Sukhumvit 71. 

 

From Sirisuk Apartments looking east down Sukhumvit 71, 2010

 

From Sirisuk Apartments looking west down Sukhumvit 71, 2010

Typical pick up truck, one of several thousand that transported the occupation into the city, Sirisuk Apartments 2010

Below, I walked through this part of the camp every day on my way to AUA on Ratchadamri.

 

Entering the camp from Ratchadamri BTS looking south, 2010

This one section of the occupation, above, stretched continuously for about 3 kilometres from Central Plaza to Rama IV, including a huge camp at Lumphini park of about 1 kilometre square.

 

Below, at night the truck blockade at the end of  Ratchadamri on Rama IV looking north into the park. Some nights, when the curfew was lifted, we were required to be searched by police at a checkpoint of razor-wire and bollards to get up onto the walkway from the station over to Silom where almost all the bars were closed for the duration.  I’m pleased to say the Blues Bar ‘Nomads’ remained open pretty much throughout. 

 

From Sala Daeng station walkway looking north to the truck blockade and the Lumphini Park camp. 2010

 

 

Of course, the downside of any direct action is that there is often a confrontation between the protesters and the security forces. And though I do not condone any of the violence from either side, I was hugely impressed that both sides were amazingly restrained considering the pressures that were building up. Not that it’s any consolation to those killed and maimed in the fight that followed.

 

So while I support the occupations against the greed of the city and the cuts here in the UK, it’s important to know what it is one is hoping to change or achieve and the likely costs to peace, life and limb. Be careful what you wish for. I wish for reform – revolution is nearly always too high a price to pay for everyone.

 

http://www.sirisuk.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visiting Occupy London

 Cold Toes in Stockwell, Old Knees at St. Paul’s.

It was about 30 years ago in this wonderful yet always perplexing city that a small group of concerned citizens met over coffee in a small flat in Stockwell to discuss the upcoming economic summit.

Yet it was not a meeting of international Chancellors and bankers that concerned us but a fledgling organisation called TOES; The Other Economic Summit. Like today’s Occupation Movement, TOES sought to challenge the status quo; we were motivated by seeking antidotes to a global economic system that was not delivering subsistence, never mind prosperity, to a very large proportion of the world’s population. My part in that small gathering was very minor, Anthea Nakorn and I took a couple of boxes of print home to our £20-a-week flat in Gipsy Hill (in the days before mass ‘gentrification’ it was one of the cheapest areas in S. London) and, in a few hours, stuffed and licked what seemed liked thousands of envelopes but was probably only a few hundred.

With mouths tasting of glue probably derived from some cheap-labour animal rendering plant somewhere in what we then called the ‘Third World,’ we thought we had contributed something to alternative economics and perhaps we had. The writers of those pamphlets and the organisers of TOES, David Kemball-Cook and Paul Ekins, both later instrumental in setting up the New Economics Foundation (nef), would always say “…it all comes down to economics!” whenever well-intentioned Greens insisted that all we needed to do was hug a tree and chant ‘om’. And today, as then, it is still a battle to explain how economics and the power behind the control of money are at the crux of pretty much all human activities.

The London Occupation and the occupation movement in general are perhaps more overtly concerned with economics than the previous libertarian/left/green/agitprop movement ever was. Partly because the disparities between the rich and the poor of the world are more greatly publicised than ever and partly because the fluctuations of boom and bust that were expected to precede the inevitable collapse of the unsustainable money supply have, by and large, happened as predicted. The population as a whole, however, is still not much interested in economics even though the outcries over bankers’ bonuses and M.P.’s expenses do express a general disgust that the powerful among us shamelessly line their pockets while millions starve to death elsewhere.

The modest occupation at St. Paul's steps, London 2011

 

Another similarity that strikes me, between then and now, is the admixture of religion, morality and academia. David Kemball-Cook became a theologian, I became an environmental campaigner (I always was an atheist so no change there) while Paul Ekins became a most eminent Professor of economics. It is not surprising that those concerns should become intertwined but it is the intertwining of them that has, in part, led to the impenetrable nature of the field of economics as a whole.

Both Karl Marx and Adam Smith, usually quoted in disagreement, had a great deal in common; they agreed that the basis of value was the energy devoted to labour and capital and they agreed that the control of the means of production was key to the control of prosperity. They also agreed that welfare is paid for out of surplus. Their disagreements were to do with how power structures were maintained and how everyone (even the ‘backward’ races – yes racism was ever-present) might be fed and watered in a more or less dignified manner. And because they saw the world as a vast and inexhaustible store of materials that would, to all intents and purposes, last forever, their schemas were significantly more popular than they had any right to be; neither foresaw the limiting hand of exponential growth or the reaching of Malthusian limits.

But the modern environmental movement, rightly aware that simple mathematics dictates that limits to growth are inevitable, has yet to convince the wider electorate that the economic growth paradigm has now taken us to what Dr. Albert A. Bartlett, (professor, Department of Physics at the University of Boulder, Colorado in the United States) calls ‘one minute to midnight’: the time before the last doubling of the global economy exhausts available resources and markets. Bartlettpoints out that before the last doubling of any system it is, effectively, seen as being at half capacity.

The concepts of doubling time, exponential growth, compound interest and reaching limits of expansion are key to all conversations about everything; food, population, pollution, resources, war, famine, industry, power, money and therefore economics. And yet there are many highly paid people who should, and do, know better telling us that there are no practical limits to any activity. The other day, at a meeting inPlymouth, I met a writer called Daniel Ben-Ami whose book, ‘Ferraris for All’ purports to show how continued and unlimited economic growth is both feasible and desirable; his publishers blurb says “A defence of economic progress is a rejoinder to the growth sceptics.” All I can say is when did being able to add up make me a sceptic? It is, as if by magic, all simple mathematics has become foolish. Oh those silly numerate people! When will they realize that finite resources are infinite? When will they come to their senses and agree with the greedy bankers that all resources have been invented by the clever people in power and that there can be no limits to our prosperity? 

That an idea as astoundingly stupid as ‘Ferraris for All’ could be treated seriously is of course to do with the power structure that supports it rather than any intrinsic merit displayed by the fundamental premise. But I really wanted Daniel to be correct; I don’t want to have to worry about limits, poverty, inequality, suffering and death – all subject to thermodynamics, though Daniel denies it – when I could be thinking about becoming rich. And there’s the rub: the prospect of escaping the grim reaper that is the Law of Entropy is so beguiling to so many that consumerism has based an entire global culture on it. Only religion, that other great mystical tradition, comes close to such foolish hegemonic domination.

The irrational and mystical nature of consumerism, that New-Agers as well as advertisers use to fleece both the impressionable and the innumerate, is in no small way responsible for the acceptance of the unsustainable economic model currently leading society to the brink of collapse. For regardless of our morality, our ethics, our desires and our needs the simple mathematical truth that nothing lasts forever should be the defining principle around which the organisation of any human behavior is based. It is my contention that none of the rich and powerful actually believe that there are no limits to growth; it is simply in their interests to spin the lie for as long as possible so that, when the inevitable economic collapse happens, it is they who hold the guns, the power and, crucially, the land.

The Occupation Movement understands the value of land; who controls it and why it is significant. Many pamphlets and websites have been devoted to the symbolic nature of occupation; of taking the land back into the commons – even if only briefly before the Riot Police arrive – as a message of both defiance and simple pragmatism. Activists such as Robin Smith, camped out permanently atSt. Paul’s, have suggested (through organizations such as Real Reform) that land ownership might usefully be the basis of all taxation. The New Economics Foundation too are aware of how valuing and pricing our natural resources tends to change the ways in which populations relate to their means of subsistence; and we’re not just talking about the ‘third’ or ‘developing’ or ‘under-developed’ world; this effects us all. The devil is, of course, in the detail but we should not let detail differences get in the way of standing together to promote an economic system based on fact rather than mystic fiction. 

So it was with both excitement and nostalgia that I chatted with Occupiers and visitors and, with Jo Jones, posted my leaflets on the columns. The issues have not changed but the urgency of the problem has increased enormously. Towards the middle of the afternoon I looked in at the ‘Tent City University’ where a young nef researcher was finishing a talk on resource pricing. It occurred to me that he might not have been born when I first started campaigning and I sincerely hope that his generation has more success than ours. Later I had to leave a workshop on public speaking due to my aching knees – my apologies to Ms. Zenith.

But no amount of demonstrating will shift power from where it now lies to an active and ethical citizenry without the citizenry signing up to limiting individual wealth and power to levels well below those enjoyed by our multi-millionaire Ministerial Cabinet. If we want our future captains of industry, our politicians, our union leaders and the rest of the power-elite to take our stance seriously and if we want our bankers to be other than selfish opportunists we have to put our own money (or lack of it) where our mouths are. The Sirisuk Declaration is a mechanism for saying publicly that we want the next generation of politicians and active citizens to increase their ethical horizons by limiting their material ambitions. We might never be in the position to have to choose between public service and great wealth but we should all sign up to the principle of putting the former before the latter. If we can’t do that then we have no legitimate right to complain, let alone occupy.  

 

Nick Nakorn, 19^th November 2011,London.

www.sirisuk.org

Banking Reform Now

(Festive Banners: Don’t worry, you haven’t arrived at a different website, I’m just playing with some different banners for the festive season. They are free to use for non-commercial purposes if you want to borrow them but an acknowledgement would be nice if you are so inclined – e-mail me if you’d like one or all of them as jpg files)

Nation States Need To Get A Grip

Over the past decade we have been witnessed the results of a poorly regulated and corrupt global financial regime operating an unsustainable system of money supply in the form of fractional reserve banking. While the European crisis shows how many governments have borrowed recklessly, it is also clear that such behaviour has not, in itself, caused the problem but has simply brought an inevitable collapse closer.

That the fate of countries and, more importantly, their billions of inhabitants are now ruled by the whims of private credit agencies and faceless international lenders shows just how helpless have our national leaders become. The G20 meeting in Cannes demonstrated how utterly powerless are our elected representatives in the face of a system they do not control and barely understand.

What is to be done over the next 10 years.

Our leaders need to get a grip. I suggest a first stage in that process would be to call an emergency meeting of the United Nations this month to pass an international resolution that limits the interest rates payable by governments to each other and to private institutions to a maximum of 3% and a minimum of 2% – this would provide ample return for investors, a 1% adjustment window, a slow down of the collapse and allow indebted countries across the world more time to pay back their debts and lower repayments. The second stage in January would be for nation states to regain control of the money supply by nationalising their central banks. Stage three would involve creating new global banking regulations to drastically increase the fractional reserve to 2:1 by 2017. The end result of these changes would be a managed rather than catastrophic global recession leading to a stable banking system able to serve the needs of the real economy. Stage 4 would require banks to ditch the fractional reserve system completely by 2022 and to lend against real deposits and real assets.

Nick Nakorn

www.sirisuk.org

The Best Lecture About Growth.

The link below is to a Youtube version of a lecture by Dr. Albert A Bartlett, Department of Physics at the University of Boulder, Colorado in the United States.
It is perhaps the very best lecture on this subject I’ve found on the net and should be required viewing for every person everywhere; if only it was available in every language. It really is as good as that.

As with many YouTube films it is divided into 8 parts and finding the correct order is not always easy: hover the mouse/arrow over the link to each part and a caption comes up telling you which part it is – 1/8, 2/8 etc..

Please find time to watch it and spread the links through your social networks.

Why We Must Support The Occupations

The inequality created by high capitalism is reason enough to wish for a more equitable system but one must not forget that if ‘trickle-down’ worked the poor would eventually have more than sufficient. But, as we know, it doesn’t and it can’t.
The reason is that the banking system itself is designed to pay dividends to the already powerful via the exponential growth of the money supply. So while greed and mismangement have contributed greatly to the depression, it is about time that politicians accepted that the system is in effect a giant pyramid scheme that has reached its last tranch of lenders and borrowers – our crazy system of fractional reserve banking requires an infinite stream of debt and, like the office chain letter that runs out of offices, the system has reached the end of the road and no amount of tinkering can make it otherwise.
Months before the protests on Wall Street, in London and elsewhere a small number of people have signed The Sirisuk Declaration and the TOP200 signers are now published.
Comments from Noam Chomsky, Peter Tatchell, Ken Loach and others. Protest the inequality, support the occupations and sign the declaration. Lets add a Charter that means something to the protest. 200 people isn’t enough, 200 million is what we need.

to read and sign go to: http://www.sirisuk.org

Burning the High Street

Burning the High Street
An ultimate expression of consumer culture.

Making sense of the riots that have afflicted our cities over the past few days seems to have divided opinion unnecessarily. Many commentators seem to think that the criminality, burglary, arson and violence of the riots are somehow disconnected from problems such as poverty, unemployment and social disenfranchisement. In contrast, many on the left seem to think that the riots are understandable reactions to the Government’s attempts to cut social services; hitting the poor and allowing the super-rich to remain comparatively under-taxed. But these polar positions need not be mutually exclusive and what binds them together is the cult of consumerism. It has long been said that shopping malls are the new cathedrals. This I think is a comparison that has been superseded; instead we are witnessing an ultimate expression of consumer culture, in the same way that war is the ultimate expression of competition, where even the cathedrals themselves are subject to being consumed – if it can not be looted, it will be torched.

For many generations, since the end of the Second World War, the industrialised Western democracies have promoted a type of consumer-led capitalism that consistently advertises the importance of acquisition. Buy-now- pay-later schemes, cheap or free credit, cut price goods and the constant cajoling of expanding media advertising, in which virtually no surface goes unbranded, have all conspired to convince a generation of young people that having stuff is more important that almost anything else. But, in reaction to the riots, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, returns from his holiday in Tuscany to impress us with the Party Line. Cameron says that we are to be in no doubt the Government will do everything necessary; he condemns the “..sickening scenes..”. He says the riots are “criminality pure and simple to be confronted and defeated”, that we need to “Stand together to re-build communities.” that the Government is “…on the side of the law-abiding…” and “…we need more robust police action to confront the thugs…” He went on to say that he was “…determined that justice will be done and people will feel the full force of the law…if they are old enough to commit crime, they are old enough to suffer the consequences of their actions.”

On the face of it, not many would disagree with Cameron – indeed, I find myself having very similar thoughts as I watched the riots unfold on Television. I was thinking we need a curfew, we need water cannon and the army on the streets. But I was also acutely aware of the pure hypocrisy of such a high moral position. For several generations, the ‘Great and the Good’ have been exposed as crooks and charlatans: politicians on the take; prime ministers inventing dossiers and going to war; business people avoiding taxes; banks miss-selling, stealing and gambling billions; newspaper magnates stopping at nothing to gain information and major corporations such as British Aerospace have been allowed to bribe their way to success while the Attorney General closed down investigations in The Public Interest.

In short, the hierarchy is ruled by the most ruthless and aggressive individuals; Eton boys running wild while millions starve to death in the underdeveloped world. Now, this situation might not be new but it is instantly reported and discussed. And while the aggression and violence of others in never an excuse for becoming aggressive and violent oneself, it is hardly surprising that frustrated youth are not going to be told what not to do by a hierarchy that commits worse crimes on a daily basis. Setting fire to cars and buildings and looting shops is truly appalling but very minor in both scale and cost compared to the ‘Shock and Awe’ committed against civilians abroad – and people get medals for that. I’m not surprised by the riots, only thankful they are not more widespread, and until we have some ethical fibre displayed by those at the top, people at the bottom will feel immune to censure.

But the ethical fibre we need is lacking precisely because the power elite maintain their positions by their an emotional, intellectual and financial commitment to consumer capitalism, a system that has the destruction of property and the environment built into its fabric: products with built-in obsolescence and designed not to be able to be easily repaired; products that require constant feeds of energy and resources; products that rely on virtual slave-labour for their manufacture to keep costs down and the labour market powerless – even our money is created by government sponsored private ‘fiat’ via fractional reserve banking: effectively a pyramid scheme that needs constant expansion for its survival. The power elite has invested in this system of consumption so heavily that they can not foresee alternatives even as the financial system that runs along side it crashes and stumbles towards an inevitable demise. The riots we have experienced over the last few days are frightening and unacceptable but I also believe we might be in for a great deal more of the same. As an environmentalist I have, since 1977, been warning of the inherently unsustainable character of consumer capitalism and the limits to systems reliant on exponential growth and now, over 30 years later, we are witnessing the beginning of the end. I wish I was wrong, but fear I am not. Many of the rioters are part of an under educated under-class; they are under-employed and understandably pissed off. And while they display a sociopathic lack of sympathy for their victims, they share much in common with The Great and the Good, the most common trait being that they are prepared to take what they want without reference to the needs of the majority.

For more on these issues and suggestions for alternatives and reforms please see www.sirisuk.org

The Sirisuk Declaration – Why not sign?

Objections and Observations

I am well aware that the Sirisuk Declaration might be ignored. I am also aware that its optimistic and idealistic nature might annoy many critics and cynics for whom idealism is a waste of time. Yet I believe that its simplicity and its voluntary nature will eventually persuade many that having an ethical electorate, and an ethical political class, is both possible and desirable.

At the heart of the Declaration is the idea that controlling other people’s lives and their environment is a privilege rather than another reward given to those who already have more than enough. Having responsibility for others is undoubtedly stressful, but, equally, it can be rewarding in and of itself.

It is also a pragmatic document in that it specifies a very generous limit to the total income and capital that the signatory may earn and keep. This is not a charter asking politicians to live in poverty.

But its strength is that anyone, politician or not, can sign and therefore register the fact that they believe in certain standards of behaviour for themselves and for their politicians and public servants. It encourages our political class not to buy their way into public life and assume they are worthy of further privilege by virtue of their existing privilege; in other words it is a charter for everyone that sets the tone for whoever we elect to office or pay to run our country, nationally, locally or at the level of a village, school or small institution.

In the following paragraphs, I will outline some possible objections to the Sirisuk Declaration and will respond to them. I’ve divided the objections and answers into three income streams but, clearly, the questions and answers are of interest to all.

For public servants and workers on a low income:

Objection: I’m so poorly paid, I’ll never earn the kinds of sums you’re talking about, this is a joke.

Answer: Signing up will therefore not hurt your life at all, but it will show that you don’t want a load of rich privileged people running the country just because they have money.

Objection: Is this some sort of left-wing communist thing?

Answer: No, it’s voluntary. The state will not be involved at all, it’s not legally binding either.

Objection: If it’s not legally binding, what’s to stop the politicians cheating?

Answer: Nothing, but if they sign and then cheat, and everyone found out, would we trust them again?

Objection: The politicians won’t sign in a million years, it’s a fantasy

Answer: Perhaps not, but if we the public all sign it, how can they not sign? They’ll be admitting that money and power mean more to them than public duty.

Objection: but I might want to make a lot of money one day, supposing I wrote a hit record or won the lottery, what then?

Answer: then your worries will be over, keep the money. Just don’t expect to remain a public servant or become a politician if you have more than the formula allows.

For people who might earn nearly as much (or more) than the formula suggests but are not super-rich:

Objection: This is a ghastly idea, why should I not enjoy the fruits of my hard work and my contributions to the community?

Answer: If your high consumption of money and resources is more important to you than public duty, that’s fine – don’t sign and keep what you have.

Objection: But I’m on a lot of committees, I can’t give up my voluntary work – it’s not fair at all, you’re trying to shame me into giving up my wealth.

Answer: Not at all, you can continue as you are and not sign. But I am trying to shame you into not having a conflict of interest. If you can’t manage to live happily within the Sirisuk budget, how can you manage to make realistic decisions for your committees?

Objection: This is just super-tax in disguise; it’s a disgusting left wing plot.

Answer: it’s not taxation, it’s a way of voluntarily living within very generous but limited means and a way of raising huge amounts of money for charities – it’s left wing in that it is looking at fairness and distribution but it’s right wing and libertarian in that it is voluntary, independent of the state and of state control. It’s a simple choice, be rich or be useful. It used to be called ethics.

Objection: This is surely against the law? What gives you the right to put this propaganda before me?

Answer: It’s perfectly legal and I’m just a citizen who thinks that power and money go to people’s heads. I want the people in charge at every level to be honest brokers of ideas, not self-serving people looking to enhance their own personal wealth and power.

Objection: But surely you’re not saying that wealthy people can’t make good decisions? They must have done something right in order to make so much money and their businesses are the backbone of the country.

Answer: I agree with you, I’m very much in favour of encouraging entrepreneurs and people who can solve problems; they can either not sign and carry on as usual – though I don’t expect them to also take up public office – or they can sign up and limit their personal wealth as per the formulae. Most large companies are limited liability or public companies anyway; you don’t have to personally own a business outright to make it a success. If the liability is limited, so should the reward be limited if one’s involvement is limited. Anyway, if your attention is divided between running a a successful business and the duties of public office, one of those functions will not be receiving enough thought and attention.

For the super-rich and politicians:

Objection: Well it’s a quaint idea but it will never work, life isn’t like that.

Answer: True, life isn’t like it that: if it were I wouldn’t need to suggest it. But it will only work if people do it. Your objection is promoting a self fulfilling prophecy, if you rubbish the idea successfully, of course it won’t work. Why not give it a go?

Objection: Well it’s important to attract the very best individuals into politics and public office, and that means paying them well and rewarding them at the market rate. Otherwise they will take their expertise elsewhere.

Answer: If they can’t manage to live on the Sirisuk Formula, they don’t have the life-skills or management skills for public office, let them go elsewhere and make a mess of things.

Objection: this is the politics of envy, you don’t agree with wealth so you want to bring us all down to your level.

Answer: Not at all, I love wealth; but not at the expense of the most vulnerable people, the viability of the environment and the honesty of the democratic process.

Objection: We don’t want that kind of coercion in a free democracy. This smacks of fascism by the back door.

Answer: No, this is a voluntary scheme. No one has to sign anything and the campaign is purely to do with promoting ethics in our society.

Objection: I suppose you’re a perfect citizen yourself, isn’t this a publicity stunt to further some shady political interest?

Answer: I’m far from perfect and have many faults. One of which is that I would not trust myself with great power, excessive wealth and public office. No one is incorruptible.

Objection: So because you think you’re corruptible you think everyone else is too – we’re not all corrupt you know.

Answer: perhaps there’s some truth in that, but if you’re not corrupt, you won’t mind signing up – you seem like a competent person so you’ll manage on the Sirisuk Formula with no difficulty whatsoever.

For more infomation go to www.sirisuk.org

to Sign the Petition go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/sirisuk/