XR Debt Strike Project - What are your thoughts on this idea?

This looks great to me -- a strong step in the right direction. I'm wondering whether the mass debt strike element will involve some kind of conditional commitment approach?

I imagine this could be accommodated via the Debt Collective platform and potentially other tools created for this, but I think it could be important to foreground the conditional commitment approach as people will be very hesitant to unilaterally withhold debt but much more inclined to do so if they know thousands of others have committed to do the same, all at the same time.

I don't get it, Gail
The paper specifies three demands of which the first seems pointless, the second is excellent and third foolhardy.
Demands

1. That international financial bodies, IMF, World Bank, OECD, banks, Hedgefunds, etc tell the truth - that humanity is in a crisis, life on earth is being killed, because our economic, financial and legal operating system is deeply flawed and has to be changed for us to survive.

2. We demand that the Law of Ecocide, is recognised as part of the international Rome Statutes, since this would criminalise mass damage and destruction of the environment and recompense and rehome those most affected by it.

3. That there is a multi stakeholder panel and international citizens assembly to reconfigure our operating system, taking into consideration the political, economic, social, cultural, technical, legal and social constructs that harm life. That we “rewire” humanity…

1. Financial institutions have no role in spreading information. Makes no sense to me.

2. Ecoside is an obviously necessary law and maybe XR should demand from its billionaire backers that they ut enough cash into the existing organisation to help it achieve its goal.

3. 'Rewiring' humanity was the goal of many societies, including Communism, and none of them achieved it.
   Any scheme that requires rewiring of humanity is bound to fail. We have to accept what we are and work with that. We are selfish, lazy, self-interested, family orientated, thus always prioritising our families over any other cause or action - all a result of evolution by means of Natural selection.
   Knowing that means we know what kind of laws we must have to safeguard our society from our own nature - and that means multiple layers of independent supervision of all societal activities - be it democracy, trading or finance.
   The relaxation of these safeguards over the past 30+ years and at the same time development of high tech methods outrunning the meagre safeguards in place are the main causes of our predicament.
   Lets concentrate on fixing these,
   (btw, I could not get all this on your feedback form!)

I suppose the Bank of England puts out periodic statements, in fact Mark Carney did say something about climate crisis in his last statement.

Has this been ok’d by Gail ?

Hi mate. Has what been ok'd by her? Inviting feedback via here? Yes it has, I've been chatting with her and Feedback Culture about it

I generally find this idea extremely exciting.
Because it feels simple, clear, very achievable (as an action) amazingly symbolic and could be so powerful. It's the most pure redistribution of power, with rebels as the sacrificial, no personal gain enablers.

It feels really big and important and I'm still processing the idea.
I do have 1 tangible concern about the demands - as someone who worked on the first major film about Ecocide (certainly in the UK) it's an issues I've believed in, passionately, for many years. But is this project proposing the increase the number of demands we're already putting on gvmt?

I'm feeling so, so far away from the examples in history we reference so often (Suffragettes, MLK, Sat marches, etc) because our demands are SO much more complex, multi-faceted and seem to be shifting.

On the other hand, perhaps it does work for XR to have 'sub-demands' (SOME rebels will do X action until Y additional demand has been met) ..I don't know, I just want to be able to actually be able to picture XR succeeding. Because it's got a strategy, with a goal. If we can't even clearly vision it ourselves - the point at which we're like "Ok, you could've done more gvmt, but you've done enough to satisfy us, so we'll withdraw our civil disobedience"
I'm interested if other rebels feel clear what point they'd be 'satisfied' and feel like no more covil disobedience is required?
Is it not important we more or less align over where that line of satisfaction is drawn?

But again - I love this, I support it alongside my questions and doubts.

I generally disagree. It does not feel at all clear to me - there is not a clear and obvious link between a law of ecocide and the debt crisis. I am not saying they are not related but there are many causal differences.

I think I disliked this at the point I read that a minority of celebrities and comfortable rebels would initiate the action. I’m sorry but this reeks of blatant paternalism and shows little understanding of the banner statins Décolonisé XR.

Until a rent strike can engage mass support it cannot work. People will get picked off and suffer further. Clearly those most marginalised and so most affected by debt have least resilience to further attrition. This is recognised but blatantly ignored in the design brief.

I hope that this type of action can be reimagined, but as it stands I hope it does not see the light of day.