BOSTON NEIGHBORHOOD EMAILS ON COMMUNITY LIST-SERVES
These emails to neighborhood email lists are about egalitarian revolution
(April 2020 During the Covid-19 Pandemic)
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com>, cleveland-circle-community <cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com>, norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 25, 2020 at 10:10 PM
Subject: [Cleveland-Circle] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents" covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
The moral basis for the demand to cancel the rents is the egalitarian principle: "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need."
Extending this egalitarian principle to all parts of our society would solve our biggest problems.
Bravo! to these "cancel the rent" protesters.
John Spritzler
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 4:08 AM David S* < dave@*.com> wrote:
Well JOHN you know I’d be happy to cancel the rent in my 2 family house if my mortgage and real estate tax payments were canceled
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 26, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ali Iaria <ajo*@gmail.com> wrote:
It’s not about canceling or not canceling. It is about talking to people and being decent and neighborly. Tenants and landlords should be having conversations right now so that individual folks can compromise and reduce anxiety/fear for themselves and others. I am lucky enough that my work translates to working from home, so I am able to continue to pay my rent in full and on time. I was upfront and told this too my landlord. I even offered to mail him the rent check because he usually picks it up onsite. I have volunteered to do small repairs on my own and only have him come over if I need assistance.
However, I am also renting an office that I can’t access. And again, while my income hasn’t changed, so I have been paying rent, I’m going to ask if we can work out some type of a deal since I don’t want to lose the space. Maybe he wont be willing to do anything, but it’s worth communicating about.
All of the pressure that owners feel in paying the bank, renters feel in paying the landlord, so we all should be in this situation as teammates and not competitors.
There is so much black and white going on with this conversation, and if I’m honest, with this group in general. All attitudes are so thick in the air and there is so little understanding and communication that happens. What is for sure, is it doesn’t look like we will get anywhere as a community if we all don’t start to listen a little more and wait to talk a a little less.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 26, 2020, at 10:17 AM, David S* < dave@*.com> wrote:
Yes but unless the government gets involved and starts giving breaks on real estate taxes and banks get involved and start giving brakes on mortgages landlords will lose their buildings. That has to be part of the conversation. Not all landlords are rich believe me
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 26, 2020, at 10:35 AM, Angela T* < a*@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again David. When the tenants can’t pay rents under this very difficulty situation, the landlords can’t just charge 14% interest daily until the rent is paid. Believe me, the owners WILL be charged 14% interest daily until the real estate tax is paid. This is the reality and the fact. We hope that the tenants also understand the landlords’ painful situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Cc: cleveland-circle-community <cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com>, norichnopoor@googlegroups.com,
Date: April 26, 2020 at 12:11 PM
Subject: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents" covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
David S* is absolutely right!
This is why we should a) support the "cancel the rents" protesters AND b) pressure the government and banks to cancel the property tax and mortgage payments at least until everyone is able to work and earn a sufficient income to purchase what they need or reasonably desire or have equal status with others to receive scarce things equitably rationed according to need.
To use the wrong policies of the government and banks as an excuse for opposing the "cancel the rents" protesters is to be on the morally wrong side of the fundamental conflict in our society between the upper class and ordinary people whom it treats like dirt. Instead of regarding the wrong policies of the government and banks as set in stone, we need to regard them as things we aim to change. Otherwise we are abjectly endorsing--implicitly if not explicitly--the horrible unjust status quo.
Angela (and others reading this): It's your call. Whose side are you on?
John Spritzler
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Angela T* <a*@gmail.com>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Cc: cleveland-circle-community <cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com>, norichnopoor@googlegroups.com,
Date: April 26, 2020 at 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents" covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
Thanks John. I agree with you: pressure the government and banks to cancel the rents, the property tax and mortgage payments at least until everyone is able to work 👍🏼 Can’t just cancel the rents, it does not work only one way though. 🙏🏿
-----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: EVA W. is the Anti-Egalitarian-In-Chief for my neighborhood.
From: Eva W <evaw*@comcast.net>
To: "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Circle-Community@googlegroups.com>, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 26, 2020 at 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 4:08 AM David Strati < dave@uniformsforamerica.com> wrote:
Well JOHN you know I’d be happy to cancel the rent in my 2 family house if my mortgage and real estate tax payments were canceled
On 4/26/20, 5:49 AM, "John Spritzler" < cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com on behalf of john.spritzler@gmail.com> wrote:
People are calling for such mortgage payments to be cancelled too, which is in keeping with the egalitarian principle.
John, what you call "the egalitarian principle” is straight from la-la land – and just because you repeat it a thousand times doesn’t make it any more sane.
No rents and no mortgage payments means properties lose their values, cannot be maintained, and cannot generate tax revenue to the municipality. That means that essential services such as schools, police, fire protection, green space, water and sewer, youth programs, libraries, local jails, and all kinds of initiatives helping people in need (incl. housing), cannot be funded.
The loss/eradication of rents and mortgage payments also eliminates taxable incomes to property owners and lending institutions, and therefore destroys an important source of tax revenue to the states and the federal government – meaning that the innumerable things that state and federal taxes fund, all kinds of things that make us a civilized country, would be impacted as well.
The “egalitarian principle” is a run-away train that is heading straight to a place called Dystopia — where modern society ceases to exist, daily existence reverts to subsistence levels, and where darwinism rules the day anyway (something that your “egalitarian principle” seeks to prevent).
I don’t know what kind of mental mechanism allows some people to have irrational beliefs and still feel good about themselves. Everyone else thinks they're nuts, but are too polite to say it.
The price of that silence is that we’re constantly being exposed to expressions of those irrational beliefs, and asked to accept them. It’s obnoxious.
From: Eva W <evaw*@comcast.net>
To: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Circle-Community@googlegroups.com>
norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 26, 2020 at 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
John - I doubt you suffer from amnesia, so you must realize that you have made all your arguments, the same ones (everyone is “equal"; we should get rid of the rich; we don’t need money; it worked in Spain for 3 years in the 1930s) MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE times on A–B's neighborhood google groups.
Everyone has a right to voice their opinions – but you have been abusing that right by stating the same arguments over and over and over. Cluttering people’s mailboxes with posts that are relentlessly repetitive and bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion, strikes me as childish, stubborn, self-serving, and therefore it undermines the groups. I think it’s also a mild form of terrorism - because if anyone calls you on this, you’re prone to crying censorship and discrimination.
I don’t control AB2006, but I’m responsible for the CCC group. It’s not my intention at this point to remove you ('cause the group sometimes disseminates information that is important to neighborhood residents) — but as someone who’s been mis–using your posting privileges, I don’t think you deserve to have an unmoderated status. Sorry. You were warned about this before, and you chose to ignore it.
Eva
From: Eva W* <evaw*@comcast.net>
To: "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Circle-Community@googlegroups.com>, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Cc: norichnopoor@googlegroups.com,
Date: April 26, 2020 at 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
On 4/26/20, 12:18 PM, "Angela Tang" < cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com on behalf of atang035@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks John. I agree with you: pressure the government and banks to cancel the rents, the property tax and mortgage payments at least until everyone is able to work 👍🏼 Can’t just cancel the rents, it does not work only one way though. 🙏🏿
It’s anticiapted that the US we will have at least 12% unemployment when the Covid-related restrictions are lifted – in some areas most likely higher than that. So no – not everyone who is willing will be able to work.
If all taxes are cancelled, how can the City continue to pay the teachers, policemen, fire, other essential workers, etc.? A city that collects no taxes cannot easily borrow money, if at all. And when it does borrow, it has to be repaid.
The bottom line is that you cannot cancel taxes or mortgage payments – you can only defer them. Otherwise, the people who continue paying taxes and mortgages would be wronged – their money would be taken from them, while others who stopped paying (some because of true, undeniable hardship, and others just to preserve their funds) would be effectively receiving subsideis on the backs of others.
If taxes are not paid, liens should be assessed (as is the normal procedure in such cases) — and liens can be paid off when good economy comes back, or the property is sold (however, there shoud be no other penalties for not paying real estate taxes if the owner can demonstrate true hardship).
As for rents – it’s totally obvious, and goes without saying, that unemployed or severely under-employed tenants (or businesses left with no income) will have to enter into conversations with landlords to renegotiate their agreements. As a result what has been happening due to Covid, rents will be coming down significantly — and that has to somehow result in lower rents across the board — because there is no way that some tenants will continue paying, let’s say, $3,000 a month for a 1-bedroom apartment, while others will be paying $500 or nothing.
I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues lately. I have also spent a lot of time lately doing genealogical research and studying the history of several generations of my family – many of whom were affected by all kinds of historic calamities and disasters.
People were survivig (those who did) for one reasons only – strong family ties, and in most cases living in homes that could accommodate families (not just single persons or couples). When a relative or a family fell on hard times, there was always a home (unless the area got bombed) that would take them in. There were no homless shelters – people understood their obligations to their kin. And young people were eager to get married, because their knew that together, they were stronger than each being on their own.
That is one of the reasons I have been displeased with alll the new development projects in Brighton that were/are comprised of small apartments (and with no real kitchens) designed for just one, or barely two people. Those are not real homes – just worker dormitories that you’re supposed to vacate when your employment in the area ends.
Any young worker in Boston who is now unemployed, but has parents, siblings, or any other close relatives living in a home that has more than one bedroom, should not find themselves of the street – hopefully. And landlords are landlords – no one should be expecting them to substitute for somebody's family.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Cc: norichnopoor@googlegroups.com,
Date: April 26, 2020 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
Eva,
Here is the answer to your question: "If all taxes are cancelled, how can the City continue to pay the teachers, policemen, fire, other essential workers, etc.?"
In an egalitarian society (which is not based on money) the way that teachers, policemen, fire, other essential workers, etc. are "paid" is by being granted (by the Local Assembly of Egalitarians) membership in good standing of the sharing economy by virtue of the fact that they are contributing to it reasonably according to ability. People who are members in good standing of the sharing economy can take FOR FREE (no money involved!) what they need or reasonably desire from the economy or have equal status regarding scarce things that are equitably rationed (in a manner determined by the Local Assembly of Egalitarians) according to need.
In a society based on money, Eva, money is indeed (as you insist) necessary. In a society based on the egalitarian principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need" INSTEAD OF BEING BASED ON MONEY, however, money is not necessary (and hence taxes are not necessary.)
It is not necessary to keep doing things the way it is done in the status quo. To use the "logic" of the status quo as an argument for why we need to keep doing things the way they're done in the status quo is not very smart.
John Spritzler
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Eva W* <evaw*@comcast.net>
To: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Circle-Community@googlegroups.com>
norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 26, 2020 at 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
John - I doubt you suffer from amnesia, so you must realize that you have made all your arguments, the same ones (everyone is “equal"; we should get rid of the rich; we don’t need money; it worked in Spain for 3 years in the 1930s) MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE times on A–B's neighborhood google groups.
Everyone has a right to voice their opinions – but you have been abusing that right by stating the same arguments over and over and over. Cluttering people’s mailboxes with posts that are relentlessly repetitive and bring absolutely nothing new to the discussion, strikes me as childish, stubborn, self-serving, and therefore it undermines the groups. I think it’s also a mild form of terrorism - because if anyone calls you on this, you’re prone to crying censorship and discrimination.
I don’t control AB2006, but I’m responsible for the CCC group. It’s not my intention at this point to remove you ('cause the group sometimes disseminates information that is important to neighborhood residents) — but as someone who’s been mis–using your posting privileges, I don’t think you deserve to have an unmoderated status. Sorry. You were warned about this before, and you chose to ignore it.
Eva
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 4/26/20, 2:14 PM, "JOHN SPRITZLER" < spritzler@comcast.net> wrote:
Eva,
You can deny it all you want, but egalitarianism worked BETTER than capitalism in about half of Spain 1936-9 ( i.e., NOT "La La land"), as others, if not you, may wish to read about here.
John Spritzler
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Eva W* <evaw*@comcast.net>
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com>, "cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com" <Cleveland-Circle-Community@googlegroups.com>
norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 26, 2020 at 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Re: [AB2006] Bravo! This 'Cancel the Rents"covid-19 protest is what we need, and it's implicitly egalitarian.
"You only reply to my argument by complaining that I've said it before (and never responding to the examples and points I make.)"
Sorry - I know you don’t care if I waste my time, but I do. The truth of the matter is that there are countless better ways of spending one's time than to engage in discussing your articles. Nothing is gained from responding to your arguments if one feels that your philosophy is based on wrong assumptions, unrealistic goals, and juvenile refusal to recognize and accept the essence of human nature.
That’s why no one argues with you (except me, occasionally, against my better judgement). Telling you what I think about your egalitarian mantra is like telling a deeply religious person there is no God. You have a right to your delusions — they apparently give you some psychic income - but you don’t have a right to preach them endlessly to those who have heard it many times before, and are tired of hearing it. And absolutely no one has an obligation to read your stuff just because you want them to.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On 4/26/20, 6:09 PM, "JOHN SPRITZLER" < allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com on behalf of spritzler@comcast.net> wrote:
Eva,
You keep making the same arguments all the time too. The difference is that I show why your argument is wrong (yes, repeatedly). You only reply to my argument by complaining that I've said it before (and never responding to the examples and points I make.)
John
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <AllstonBrighton2006@googlegroups.com>, cleveland-circle-community <cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com>, norichnopoor@googlegroups.com
Date: April 28, 2020 at 3:18 PM
Subject: Representative Ayanna Pressley: Cancel rent and mortgage payments
Canceling rent and mortgage payments during the covid-19 pandemic is such a widely-supported idea (because it is based on the egalitarian principle* that is embraced implicitly if not explicitly by most people) that our Congressional Representative is advocating it.
This idea is NOT, as a very anti-egalitarian person told me, "from LA LA Land." The individuals who have expressed opposition to this idea are part of a very small, and very morally wrong, minority.
Let's work to make the egalitarian principle shape all of society.
* From each according to reasonable desire, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need.
John Spritzler
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "AyannaPressley.com" <info@ayannapressley.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: April 28, 2020 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Cancel rent and mortgage payments
John,
These are unprecedented times, and we need unprecedented solutions to address the impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
We need housing justice, and we need a housing guarantee. Now, more than ever, no one should be worried about losing safe, stable housing. That’s why I am proud to co-sponsor Representative Ilhan Omar’s legislation to cancel rent and mortgage payments for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As businesses have shuttered and unemployment has skyrocketed, COVID-19 has pushed thousands of American families even further towards the edge — forcing them to make impossible choices between making rent, putting food on the table, or paying for critical medical care. We need bold legislation to ensure that people can remain in their homes.
Thank you for taking action,
The A-Team
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
*****************************************************************************************
(Nov.-Dec. 2018)
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Cc: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Date: November 18, 2018 at 5:41 PM
Subject: [AB2006] Strengthening our resistance to gentrification
Here are thoughts about how to make our resistance to gentrification stronger.
Gentrification is the inevitable consequence of our having class inequality (i.e., having some rich and some poor.) Wealthier people will pay more to live in a nicer place than poorer people can afford to pay, and this sets in motion the free market dynamic that leads to wealthier people living in the nicer places and poorer people having to live in the less nice places.
The reason good people don't like gentrification is because they don't like class inequality.
When people resist gentrification they are resisting class inequality, even if--as is typical--they don't say so explicitly.
When people resist gentrification without saying explicitly that they are opposed to class inequality, the result is that the resistance obtains LESS support from the general public and elicits LESS enthusiasm from even those in the resistance effort, compared to if the resistance explicitly declared its opposition to class inequality and ALL of the terrible things it imposes on most people. To see that this is so, please watch this video of random persons on the streets of Boston (in many neighborhoods including Brighton) answering the question, "Would you support a reform organization more, or less, if it advocated removing the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor?"
Our resistance to gentrification would be far stronger and gain far more support from the general public and elicit far more enthusiasm if we declared that we are also against class inequality and aim to abolish it.
--John
----------------------------------
From: 'Barbara' via AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com>
To: AllstonBrighton2006 <allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com>
Date: November 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM
Subject: [AB2006] Re: Strengthening our resistance to gentrification
I have to agree with John and disagree with Sarah. I just applied for elder housing in Allston-Brighton and was told to expect a 5 year wait unless I become disabled.
I would prefer to stay in my current apartment but at $2125/month with annual increases this is an unrealistic expectation.
Although I am still working and earn an above average salary I cannot continue to rent this apartment after this year.
We need to build affordable housing for Allston/Brighton residents--not 1.25 million dollar condos for temporary residents!
I am also appalled at the lack of a comprehensive, long term plan especially public buildings, green space, parks and other quality of life spaces.
Every time Allston needs to build or expand public buildings (for the public good) we're asked to sacrifice another piece of our beloved Ringer Park.
I think its time for us to stop looking to our politicians, etc. for a fair solution and start working on solutions on our own as citizen advocates.
How can we purchase apartment buildings and green space, and protect them from political exploitation?
There must be a way. How did the Commonwealth/Glennville Association do it?
------------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Date: December 2, 2018 at 12:27 PM
Subject: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
When Big Money developers come into our neighborhood with the Mayor typically backing them up, with plans to build something we rightfully oppose, we are always on the defensive in two ways.
One way we're on the defensive is, of course, that we lack the power to veto a development we oppose; we are reduced to merely complaining about this or that aspect in hearings that are held to give an appearance of democracy.
The second way we're on the defensive is ideologically. We don't articulate a vision of how we think things OUGHT to be, and this reduces us to implicitly accepting without challenge the fundamental wrongness of the anti-democratic system in which we are forced to participate. How OUGHT things to be?
It ought to be the case that there is GENUINE DEMOCRACY; this would mean that the highest governmental body in Allston Brighton would be what I call the Local Assembly, a body that a) all people in Allston Brighton who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid (which is the vast majority!) and only they have the right to participate in as equals democratically; and b) is the ONLY governmental body that can make laws that people in Allston Brighton are required to obey.
In such a genuine democracy, the people who attend the Local Assembly of Allston Brighton represent themselves and are not represented (supposedly!) by some politician, and the Local Assembly of Allston Brighton--not any politician--decides what can be built or not in Allston Brighton.
Although Local Assemblies are the highest law-making bodies, order on a large scale (national or even global) is achieved by voluntary federation of the Local Assemblies using mutual agreements (similar to how the international postal system does it, by the way, and it works quite well in delivering packages to any of the 192 nations that are part of it as you can read about here.)
With a vision of how things OUGHT to be, we will be far more confident and assertive, and able to use this vision to enlist the support of far more people. We can go on the offensive, and be much stronger because of that.
John Spritzler
---------------------------------------
From: John M <john***@gmail.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
hello john,
the problem is we don’t have a local assembly of allston-brighton. so we’re at the mercy of the city of boston and big money developers.
john
----------------------------------------
From: Linda <***@rcn.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Thank you for sharing these emails!
Linda
-------------------------------------
From: Farah <farah***@gmail.com>
To: bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Cc: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Date: December 2, 2018 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Dear John,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the nature of Capitalism and challenges to creating a more equitable society. I could not agree with you more. However, I need to think about your thoughts on solutions. Lets be in touch.
---------------------------------------
From: John M <john***@gmail.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Well, I’d certainly sign up!
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 2, 2018, at 1:12 PM, John Spritzler < spritzler@comcast.net> wrote:
Hi John,
Yes, that is the problem!
We could form a Local Assembly, however, and even though we would not have the power we ought to have, we can be what the British call a "shadow government" that says what we would do if we did have the power, and thereby help spread an inspiring vision of what OUGHT to be with which to build a very large movement (nationally) to win that power for real. I discuss how this can happen in my article, "How We CAN Remove the Rich from Power" here. What do you think?
--John
---------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: John M <john***@gmail.com>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Hi John,
The most practical concrete thing that people can do at this time to "sign up" is this: wear the PDR button and talk to people about what it says, as I discuss here. Would you like me to mail you a button (or hand deliver one over a cup of coffee?) Farah also wants to get together to talk about this, by the way.
John
----------------------------------
From: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Date: December 2, 2018 at 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
"It ought to be the case that there is GENUINE DEMOCRACY; this would mean that the highest> governmental body in Allston Brighton would be what I call the Local Assembly, a body that a) all people > in Allston Brighton who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid (which is the vast majority!)> and only they have the _right_ to participate in as equals democratically ..."
I'm confused. Who would draw the line between those who "value no-rich-and-no- poor equality" and therefore would be allowed to "participate as equals," and those who would not? How would this be done? With interviews? Maybe a group interview before the neighborhood, who would then take a vote on who would be allowed to participate? Or a test? And then what happen to those who fail the test, and therefore have no "right to participate as equals". What is their status?
-- Fred
-----------------------------------------
From: David <dave@***.com>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Date: December 2, 2018 at 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
I agree with Fred. Would certainly be good to have more say for the neighborhood but it would have to be people that would be allowed to have their own opinions in the group
--------------------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Fred,
Good question ("Who would draw the line...?").
I will try to answer it.
The people who want no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid to be the values by which society is shaped (a.k.a. egalitarians, who are the vast majority in most communities as this video of me talking to random people on the streets of Boston--including Brighton Center--illustrates) should understand that it is right and proper for them to do what they think is necessary to prevent people who oppose equality and mutual aid from having power in society.
This would mean that if somebody at a Local Assembly meeting advocated unambiguously (in the judgment of a majority of the egalitarians) for policies and decisions that aimed to make some people rich and privileged at the expense of others being poor and less privileged (i.e., advocated for some rich and some poor, a.k.a. class inequality) then the egalitarian people in that Local Assembly should understand that it is morally right for them to tell that anti-egalitarian person they must leave the Assembly meeting.
The idea is that the Local Assembly is an organization with a goal--to shape society by egalitarian values. No organization with a goal invites people to join it and participate in its decision-making if that person clearly opposes the goal of the organization; it would be stupid and counter-productive to do so. (Should the Allies in WWII have invited German Nazis to participate in their decision-making?)
The fact that the Local Assembly is a law-making body does not change anything; it remains an organization with a goal. One of its goals is to ensure that laws should only be made by people who want to shape society by no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid, and not by those with the contrary values of class inequality with domination of manh have-nots by a few haves as is the case today.
The laws are going to be made by people with egalitarian values or (as today) by people with anti-egalitarian values; we should aim to make it be the former. There is no middle ground because egalitarian values and anti-egalitarian values are contradictory, just as pro-slavery and anti-slavery values were contradictory in 1860--which is why that issue could not be settled by a formal vote of what purported then to be a "democracy of all the [white] people." Whenever a government purports to be a democracy of "all the people" it actually is and must logically be, in reality, either a democracy of the pro-egalitarians or (as today virtually everywhere) the anti-egalitarians, despite what it claims to be officially. What I have said here about democracy is simply an understanding of how the world actually works, and I hope to make it so that most people understand it (which is unfortunately not the case today.)
Once this understanding about democracy is widely shared among egalitarians, then the egalitarians in any specific Local Assembly will use their brains to figure out what, if anything, needs to be done if an individual or individuals attend their meeting and unambiguously advocate anti-egalitarian goals. I cannot guarantee that the egalitarians will make wise decisions, but I do believe that they will most of the time. If the egalitarians allow anti-egalitarians to take over the Local Assembly, then that would be bad news, and they'd have to learn from their mistake and try to regain power.
There is never a simple answer to the "Who will decide?" question in the context of genuine democracy. The only people who have a simple answer to the "Who will decide?" question are those who advocate something fundamentally anti-democratic, in which case their simple answer is "the king" or "the high priest" or "the Communist Party" or "the Supreme Court" (that they are confident will consist of judges who are on the side of the rich and powerful), etc.
I hope I have been responsive at least in part to your question. I wonder what your answer to it is?
--John
----------------------------------
From: Farah <farah***@gmail.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 9:07 PM
Subject: Getting together
Hi John,
Great. We can get together to talk about your or my thoughts on how to bring a change to class structure and take control of what is going on with us people living in the USA.
Let me think about the time. This is a tight week. Next one is less hectic. But, I prefer coffee time. Maybe Donkin or some place else. Is that not hard for you to come to Oak Sq. from Cleveland Circle?
I will get back to you.
Solidarity not Polish style.
Farah
-------------------------------------
From: David <dave***@***.com
Cc: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Well John we do have to work with the system we have now. Realistically In order to change it you probably will need to have money. And I am sure there are people with money and morals that would like to change this system but there would have to be people with different ideas allowed to be involved.
---------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, David <dave@***.com>
Cc: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
David,
Egalitarians have lots of different ideas. What "different ideas" are you referring to here?
Yes, we have to live in and operate in the world and in the social system that exists today, just as a person starting a journey to a foreign destination must start out in the location where they happen to be. But to get to their destination they must explicitly aim for that destination and visualize getting there; otherwise they'll never get there, right? That's why it's so important to talk about what ought to be, or else it never will be.
--John
---------------------------------------
From: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>, allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Date: December 2, 2018 at 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
John --
Are there any other social values that matter to you besides equality?
Fred
--------------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Fred,
Well, I define egalitarian values as no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid. That's two. I also write about the importance of the Golden Rule here (equality and mutual aid are aspects of that.)
There are lots of important social values that matter to me, some of which can be considered aspects of equality and mutual aid, and others such as, say, personal integrity and honesty and loyalty and creativity and bravery and many more. I focus on equality and mutual aid because the fundamental conflict in the world is between the majority of people who have these values versus the minority who have the opposite values and who rule over us and treat people like dirt in order to maintain their wealth and privilege and power, as I discuss here. The fundamental conflict is not between people who value, say, loyalty or bravery versus those who do not.
--John
--------------------------------
From: John M <john***@gmail.com>
To: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
Date: December 2, 2018 at 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Yes, let’s you, Farah, and me meet for coffee. Could you please arrange this w/ Farah. My time is quite flexible.
Thank you,
John
---------------------------------
From: David <dave@***.com>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com
Cc: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 3, 2018 at 6:39 AM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
What I am saying JOHN is that I don’t think it’s a good idea not to have people involved that may disagree with some aspects of this group. I think right now this is the big problem. I can’t even talk
To some friends of mine that back the President. People should be able to disagree without getting into insults. Disagreement should be allowed. Even if each side could agree with a single point every now and then. Otherwise, and I think this is happening, we end up with a lot of violence.
---------------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, David <dave@***.com>
Cc: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 3, 2018 at 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Hi David,
You refer to "this group" but I'm not sure what group you have in mind. I'm guessing you mean the Local Assembly that I have been saying we should have.
You say that "People should be able to disagree without getting into insults. Disagreement should be allowed...Otherwise we end up with a lot of violence."
I agree. You may think that I disagree because I said that only people who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid have a right to participate in the Local Assembly. But here's why I actually do agree with you.
The people who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid really are the vast majority of people, and they include people who supported Trump as well as Sanders or Clinton. Back in July of 2016 the Gun Owners Action League held a rally in front of the State House to protest the Atty. General's attempt to make it illegal to buy a certain kind of gun. I went to that rally to ask people at it if they thought the message on my button was a good idea or a bad idea. The button reads "Let's remove the rich from power to have real, not fake, democracy with no rich and no poor."
There were about three or four hundred people at the rally--most I believe from western MA. They were all white. Most of them had shirts that said NRA. Most of them were wearing Trump's Make America Great Again red cap. Many of them were holding American flags. I asked 50 random people the question about the button (good idea or bad idea?). Of these 50 people, 43 (86%) said they agreed with the button and all of them happily took the button I offered to them and many of them pinned the button on themselves right on the spot. One woman gave me one of the bottles of cold water (it was a very hot day) she had, saying how much she appreciated what I was doing. Four individuals (8%) expressed (verbally) extreme hostility to the button's message, and three (6%) said they didn't know what they thought.
By my saying that only people who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid have a right to participate in the Local Assembly, I am not saying that the 86% of the people at that pro-Trump rally should be excluded. On the contrary, I am saying that they should be welcomed! Only the 8% who were extremely hostile should be excluded.
Among people who value no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid there are obviously great differences of opinion on lots of issues, and I agree with you that these differences should be discussed without insults and in a friendly mutually respectful manner, the way people who have a fundamental agreement on key values should discuss their secondary differences of opinion. At the same time, an organization aiming to shape society by the values of no-rich-and-no-poor equality and mutual aid would be ill-advised to welcome as members people who are extremely opposed to those values, would you not agree?
--John
---------------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: David <dave@***.com>
Cc: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 3, 2018 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
David,
I agree with you, and even wrote an article titled, "Some Rich People ARE Good," online here.
--John
On December 3, 2018 at 12:04 PM David <dave@***.com> wrote:
I agree with you. That you can not have hostility at meetings and let it get out of hand.There is no up side to that. But different ideas need to be listened to.I have always believed that the majority of the top 2% of financially wealthy people have always been very good at keeping the other 98% fighting against each other. But that some of the top 2% people have morals or at least feel guilty about having all that money. I believe the Local Assembly needs these people. Right now, locally, I think we need Marty Walsh to start listening and agree with Anthony that he is just letting developers do whatever they want. The question becomes, what can we do about this???
----------------------------------
From: John Spritzler <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, David <dave@***.com>
Cc: Fred <f***@pobox.com>
Date: December 3, 2018 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AB2006] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Yes. Excellent!
---------------------------------
From: Liam <liam***@gmail.com>
To: bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Date: December 7, 2018 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Brighton Allston Community Coalition] Thoughts about strengthening our resistance to Big Money Developers
Hi Farah and John,
Having read your correspondence, I too would be very much interested in being a part of this conversation. I seldom hear these subjects expressed in these terms and if you decide to meet up I would love to be included if that is alright with you. It’s especially important since I am visually impaired it is always easier for me to speak in person than using technology.
Liam
--------------------------------------
---------- Original Message ----------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Date: January 7, 2019 at 10:57 PM
Subject: A genuine, not a fake, democracy should decide questions like how the Mary Ann's bar property will be used
I just returned from the hearing about the Mary Ann's bar property. Here are my thoughts.
In a good, truly democratic, society (what I call an egalitarian society) the way a decision, like how the Mary Ann's bar property should be used, would be made very differently than how it is made today.
In an egalitarian society the people who live in Allston-Brighton and who want society to be equal (not some rich and some poor) and based on mutual aid (not pitting people against one another to make them more controllable by a privileged ruling elite) would have the final say on how the Mary Ann's property would be used. All of these people (I call them egalitarians, and the vast majority of people already ARE egalitarians even if they've never heard of that word) would have the right to attend the Local Assembly of Allston-Brighton and, as equals, democratically make the decision about how the Mary Ann's property will be used. And no higher governmental body or any private persons would have the power to veto that decision!
The Allston-Brighton Local Assembly would consider proposals from different groups of people about what they wished to use the Mary Ann's property for, and the Local Assembly would decide which, if any, of these proposals seemed most socially desirable; if--and only if!--a proposal seemed good enough, the Local Assembly would then give a green light to the people making that proposal to use the property for that purpose and, in exchange for providing this socially desirable service or product, it would grant these people the status of "membership in good standing" of the sharing economy.
As members in good standing of the sharing economy the people working for that approved enterprise would have the right to take, for free from the sharing economy, the services and products that they need to operate the enterprise and to take for free what they personally need or reasonably desire as well. (That's how they are "paid.") The sharing economy is composed of all the people who share products and services with each other this way according to the principle of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to need or reasonable desire with scarce things equitably rationed according to need." The motive of an enterprise is not profit but rather maintaining a reputation for contributing reasonably according to ability and taking only according to need or reasonable desire, which is the condition for maintaining membership in good standing in the sharing economy.
Today, in contrast, this decision about what the Mary Ann's property will be used for is made by a) the current owners of the Mary Ann's bar--who likely don't even live in Allston-Brighton--who can hold onto the property and keep operating the bar if they wish, and b) the Mayor of Boston--who is beholden primarily to Big Money funders (who don't live in Allston-Brighton) of his election campaign war chest and who is elected mostly by people who don't live in Allston-Brighton. The Mayor (via his bureaucracy) decides whether or not to give a zoning variance to a business wishing to buy the property--a business likely owned by people who don't even live in Allston-Brighton and whose aim is to make money for themselves, not make Allston-Brighton a better place for those who live here. The decision about the use of the Mary Ann's property may not even be one that the people of Allston-Brighton want. This is not democracy! It is rather a fake democracy, a dictatorship of the rich.
I suggest that we start expressing our wish to have a genuine democracy, which entails removing the rich from power. Saying we want it is the first step towards attaining a genuine democracy, which is what we really want, right?
John Spritzler
--------------------------------------
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Neal <****@gmail.com>
To: cleveland-circle-community@googlegroups.com
Date: January 8, 2019 at 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Cleveland-Circle] Genuine, not fake, democracy, should decide the use of the Mary Ann's bar property
I appreciate your perspective.
-Neal
------------------------------------------------------
From: JOHN SPRITZLER <spritzler@comcast.net>
To: allstonbrighton2006@googlegroups.com, bacommunitycoalition@googlegroups.com
Date: January 31, 2019 at 4:25 PM
Subject: My reply to Eva's criticism of BACC
Eva raised some important points in her criticism of the Brighton Allston Community Coalition. I reply to those points online here.
I hope we have a robust conversation about this.
John Spritzler