On October 12 2011 09:05 mmp wrote: I think what actually happened (and DrainX distorted) is that the TeaParty emerged as individuals demonstrating their disapproval of XYZ, but that they only attracted the darling attention of big news networks because (1) right-wing $ was happy to promote and help organize events, (2) that $ got speakers at public gatherings who promote their own race for office, their own politics, and (3) those persons that got elected as a so-called "Tea Party Caucus" leveraged their House seats to swing the Republican party toward a more libertarian economic agenda, as desired by the $ that helped get them the swing votes. Folks on the left are no less vulnerable to established Democrats trying to show up at rallies and giving a motivational speech, and maybe for a moment it looks like this corrupt Democrat is actually on your side, but they're playing politics and trying to appeal to the radical left.
You are partially right here, but don't forget how large the tea party protests were and how politically active the tea partiers were (and are). It simply wasn't something that could be ignored. It was and is big news.
The Tea Party's social politics, accusations of racism, etc., are rightfully labelled as mischaracterizations in my opinion (not to dismiss radical individuals who get camera attention for being inflammatory), because the people that drive this Caucus and can direct a constituency of right-wing voters are primarily interested in economic policy that benefits their investment, not marriage/gun/racist bullshit that makes some scared people feel comfortable about their culture.
Yes, this is correct. The tea party is purely about economic and fiscal policy. The social issues are purely collateral.
As for the XYZ, again you have the obvious fact that poor economic conditions (especially in rural "Red State" America where good jobs are come-and-go scarce) are going to spur political activism, wherever you come from. There are folks on the left that loath the Tea Party because of cultural divisions. There are folks on the right that hate liberal ivy-league pot-smoking hippies from California and think the OWS kids should shut up and get a job. But the underlying truth is that they're both pissed off about similar issues (however they may be perceived), and there are plenty of independent, right, left, and center persons, libertarian to socialist, who agree that we have serious political and economic problems. There is plenty of room to debate the HOW we fix it (maybe you think libertarian economic ideals are both fair and effective, maybe someone else thinks that welfare capitalism is great, or maybe you're a communist) but the point is that the debate needs to _happen_ (OWS may be left-biased, but it appears to have the most open platform for individual contribution you will find anywhere, and they are trying their best not to get soaked up by any partisan interests). The only people who don't want there to be any debate at all are the people in established power -- and /you/, my lowly TL reader, are not one of them.
This is also correct. However, the one caution that I would add about the OWS movement is that it contains some radical, and even revolutionary elements, to it that are dangerous. This is OWS's biggest albatross and impediment to attracting more mainstream support.
I'm always correct. :p
As for the revolutionary bits, yeah that's definitely the sentiment that's riding at the heart of the movement and that inspires people to camp out and risk jail time. Whether you want to call it "over the top" is a matter of perspective though. It all comes down the what you perceive to be the problems, and what you perceive to be the solutions.
The left's popular perception of the problem is that the conventional political process (Federal representation, i.e. Congress & the executive office) is bought and sold to the point that even if you can amass a major political constituency, you cannot break past the barriers erected by politically-entrenched interests. And this isn't a naive cynicism -- the progressive left has been long ostracized and marginalized by the mainstream Democrats, and you can make a case that the rank-and-file Democratic base has been more adversarial than coalition-building when it comes to progressive issues.
So then when you talk about solutions, I don't think the movement can afford to appeal to the mainstream by playing the same old game (and it's a game that I don't think has worked for progressives since the civil rights movement) when the perceived problem is conventional avenues of political power. The OWS movement itself, the General Assembly in particular, is an attempt to find a more democratically accountable means of governance, rather than simply demand recognition from the establishment (they've been trying that for decades and it has gotten them very little).
So I don't think there's any backing down from that accusation of radicalism or revolution-mindedness, it's totally what the movement is about. I think there's a lot more to say about how that sort of revolution can or should develop, but I'll let you respond to what I've already said first.
On October 12 2011 12:04 domovoi wrote: For the OWS movement to be successful, they need to focus their message. Enough of this "corporations are evil" bullshit, they need to focus their attentions on the political process and on the one issue that is actually important: the economy (and long-term, the environment). The problem is that the U.S. Government especially the Federal Reserve is hampered by the current political atmosphere. Yes, I am referring to certain right-wing reactionaries who view any attempt at fixing the economy as illegitimate despite the mandate that Obama was given in 2008.
There is a rich message full of many policy ideas, but the overriding theme here is that the people who have been calling out corrupt politicians on the economy, the environment, and foreign policy (which Americans overwhelmingly disagree with) have been marginalized by the political process. This may look like a spontaneous group of reactionaries, but trust me the folks who are organizing these events know what the political game is like and have been organizing for years. As pitiful as it may look to see people camping out in NYC, this is about as good as it's looked for progressive politics in a long time. Taking their demands to Congress is where the movement goes to die.
The OWS needs to represent a countervailing force against the Tea Party to give the U.S. Government an environment where it can at least try to fix the economic issues. Because the government continuing to sit on its ass has done little good since the recession started.
I don't think the Tea Party should be seen as an adversary. At its core are more Americans that have been screwed by the economy, are sick of corrupt politicians, and want some form of change. Just because our perceived causes & solutions differ, does not mean that we are not all in it together. To be clear, many progressives do not see this as a Right vs Left issue, even if many Right and Left-aligned persons do retain their partisanship.
Unfortunately, the OWS movement is made up of young, idealistic, and, worst of all, stupid protesters who think jailing bank executives or complaining about stupid shit like animal abuse will have any effect whatsoever on the livelihoods of the 99% they claim to represent.
I think that's entirely your characterization and opinion, but it's far from reality. I don't like the lynch mob tone that's gotten out a lot of passionate people, but there are real grievances that have gone unaddressed by the Justice Department, and those grievances aside there is a positive message coming from the more astute participants who have been promoting progressive causes long before /this/ economic crisis was a hot topic.
On October 12 2011 12:58 mmp wrote: I'm always correct. :p
As for the revolutionary bits, yeah that's definitely the sentiment that's riding at the heart of the movement and that inspires people to camp out and risk jail time. Whether you want to call it "over the top" is a matter of perspective though. It all comes down the what you perceive to be the problems, and what you perceive to be the solutions.
So far so good.
The left's popular perception of the problem is that the conventional political process (Federal representation, i.e. Congress & the executive office) is bought and sold to the point that even if you can amass a major political constituency, you cannot break past the barriers erected by politically-entrenched interests. And this isn't a naive cynicism -- the progressive left has been long ostracized and marginalized by the mainstream Democrats, and you can make a case that the rank-and-file Democratic base has been more adversarial than coalition-building when it comes to progressive issues.
I'd add two things here. First, you're not going to find any disagreement from the tea party on the point that politics is horribly corrupt right now.
Second, I'm not sure what the progressive left has to complain about right now. They've had a really good run the past few years with Obama and the Democrats at the helm: the stimulus bill, Dodd-Frank, DADT - repeal, Obamacare, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now (and let's not kid ourselves, Obamacare will lead to universal healthcare unless it's repealed because it will destroy the private insurance industry). The US is a center-right country, yet all these programs were still passed.
So then when you talk about solutions, I don't think the movement can afford to appeal to the mainstream by playing the same old game (and it's a game that I don't think has worked for progressives since the civil rights movement) when the perceived problem is conventional avenues of political power. The movement itself, the General Assembly for example, is an attempt to find a more democratically accountable means of governance, rather than simply demand recognition from the establishment (they've been trying that for decades and it has gotten them very little).
And here we come to it. The progressive left has figured out that it will never get everything that it wants through traditional and regular political means (voting progressive politicians into office) and are now looking to replace the political system with something else that will more readily facilitate progressive policies. This is where OWS goes off the rails. There is no broad-based American support for this type of change and (hopefully) there never will be. Most people realize the obvious danger of what's being advocated.
So I don't think there's any backing down from that accusation of radicalism or revolution-mindedness, it's totally what the movement is about. I think there's a lot more to say about how that sort of revolution can or should develop, but I'll let you respond to what I've already said first.
On October 12 2011 12:04 domovoi wrote: For the OWS movement to be successful, they need to focus their message. Enough of this "corporations are evil" bullshit, they need to focus their attentions on the political process and on the one issue that is actually important: the economy (and long-term, the environment). The problem is that the U.S. Government especially the Federal Reserve is hampered by the current political atmosphere. Yes, I am referring to certain right-wing reactionaries who view any attempt at fixing the economy as illegitimate despite the mandate that Obama was given in 2008.
The OWS needs to represent a countervailing force against the Tea Party to give the U.S. Government an environment where it can at least try to fix the economic issues. Because the government continuing to sit on its ass has done little good since the recession started.
Unfortunately, the OWS movement is made up of young, idealistic, and, worst of all, stupid protesters who think jailing bank executives or complaining about stupid shit like animal abuse will have any effect whatsoever on the livelihoods of the 99% they claim to represent.
The government has done anything but sit on it's ass since this recession started...
^ One of the more popular things done by the government. Sadly, pretty much everything the gvt. does to help the econ has basically the same effect. People are always jumping for the government to do something, when the right thing to do and the governments purpose is to do absolutely nothing.
On October 12 2011 12:58 mmp wrote: I'm always correct. :p
As for the revolutionary bits, yeah that's definitely the sentiment that's riding at the heart of the movement and that inspires people to camp out and risk jail time. Whether you want to call it "over the top" is a matter of perspective though. It all comes down the what you perceive to be the problems, and what you perceive to be the solutions.
The left's popular perception of the problem is that the conventional political process (Federal representation, i.e. Congress & the executive office) is bought and sold to the point that even if you can amass a major political constituency, you cannot break past the barriers erected by politically-entrenched interests. And this isn't a naive cynicism -- the progressive left has been long ostracized and marginalized by the mainstream Democrats, and you can make a case that the rank-and-file Democratic base has been more adversarial than coalition-building when it comes to progressive issues.
I'd add two things here. First, you're not going to find any disagreement from the tea party on the point that politics is horribly corrupt right now.
Second, I'm not sure what the progressive left has to complain about right now. They've had a really good run the past few years with Obama and the Democrats at the helm: the stimulus bill, Dodd-Frank, DADT - repeal, Obamacare, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now (and let's not kid ourselves, Obamacare will lead to universal healthcare unless it's repealed because it will destroy the private insurance industry). The US is a center-right country, yet all these programs were still passed.
So then when you talk about solutions, I don't think the movement can afford to appeal to the mainstream by playing the same old game (and it's a game that I don't think has worked for progressives since the civil rights movement) when the perceived problem is conventional avenues of political power. The movement itself, the General Assembly for example, is an attempt to find a more democratically accountable means of governance, rather than simply demand recognition from the establishment (they've been trying that for decades and it has gotten them very little).
And here we come to it. The progressive left has figured out that it will never get everything that it wants through traditional and regular political means (voting progressive politicians into office) and are now looking to replace the political system with something else that will more readily facilitate progressive policies. This is where OWS goes off the rails. There is no broad-based American support for this type of change and (hopefully) there never will be. Most people realize the obvious danger of what's being advocated.
So I don't think there's any backing down from that accusation of radicalism or revolution-mindedness, it's totally what the movement is about. I think there's a lot more to say about how that sort of revolution can or should develop, but I'll let you respond to what I've already said first.
At least you're intellectually honest.
There's a lot to unpack and I wish I had time to give a proper response to many of your points, but you and mmp are doing a good job so far. As always I appreciate your perspective as it's a more intelligible and articulate conservative voice than many others in this thread and others.
I do want to touch on a couple points. I don't think the left is particularly happy with the stimulus, financial reform, or health care reform. Either due to Obama being more moderate than they thought, or obstructionists in Congress standing in the way, all of these bills were tainted by excessive compromise and "watered down", on top of being (and this is most important in my opinion) poorly designed as mere band-aids to broken systems, not actual overhauls. Personally I hope you're right about Obamacare destroying private health insurance companies, but I think it will just make them stronger
I don't know how prominent this fringe element promoting the replacement of the Constitution is, as I haven't seen that message at all myself - I'm sure it is being overhyped by Fox and underhyped by MSNBC - but what such a thing would accomplish is dubious to me. Anyway, it definitely isn't a policy demand and it won't become a policy demand. It may be something more innocuous like changing the way money influencing elections and government in general, but that's hardly radical; impossible? Probably. Either way, is advocating changes to the Constitution, which by definition requires broad support and working within the process, more radical than those that advocate armed resistance or assassination of the president? That comparison may not be fair, because that fringe of the Tea Party is certainly small - overhyped by MSNBC and underhyped by Fox - so I don't want anybody to extrapolate too far with what I'm saying. From what I have seen of OWS, they repeatedly insist on non-violent methods and reiterate that violence will only undermine their cause.
On October 12 2011 12:58 mmp wrote: I'm always correct. :p
As for the revolutionary bits, yeah that's definitely the sentiment that's riding at the heart of the movement and that inspires people to camp out and risk jail time. Whether you want to call it "over the top" is a matter of perspective though. It all comes down the what you perceive to be the problems, and what you perceive to be the solutions.
The left's popular perception of the problem is that the conventional political process (Federal representation, i.e. Congress & the executive office) is bought and sold to the point that even if you can amass a major political constituency, you cannot break past the barriers erected by politically-entrenched interests. And this isn't a naive cynicism -- the progressive left has been long ostracized and marginalized by the mainstream Democrats, and you can make a case that the rank-and-file Democratic base has been more adversarial than coalition-building when it comes to progressive issues.
I'd add two things here. First, you're not going to find any disagreement from the tea party on the point that politics is horribly corrupt right now.
Second, I'm not sure what the progressive left has to complain about right now. They've had a really good run the past few years with Obama and the Democrats at the helm: the stimulus bill, Dodd-Frank, DADT - repeal, Obamacare, and a few others that I'm forgetting right now (and let's not kid ourselves, Obamacare will lead to universal healthcare unless it's repealed because it will destroy the private insurance industry). The US is a center-right country, yet all these programs were still passed.
So then when you talk about solutions, I don't think the movement can afford to appeal to the mainstream by playing the same old game (and it's a game that I don't think has worked for progressives since the civil rights movement) when the perceived problem is conventional avenues of political power. The movement itself, the General Assembly for example, is an attempt to find a more democratically accountable means of governance, rather than simply demand recognition from the establishment (they've been trying that for decades and it has gotten them very little).
And here we come to it. The progressive left has figured out that it will never get everything that it wants through traditional and regular political means (voting progressive politicians into office) and are now looking to replace the political system with something else that will more readily facilitate progressive policies. This is where OWS goes off the rails. There is no broad-based American support for this type of change and (hopefully) there never will be. Most people realize the obvious danger of what's being advocated.
So I don't think there's any backing down from that accusation of radicalism or revolution-mindedness, it's totally what the movement is about. I think there's a lot more to say about how that sort of revolution can or should develop, but I'll let you respond to what I've already said first.
At least you're intellectually honest.
I can definitely appreciate where you're coming from with regards to the danger of "facilitating" political ends, and I'll get to that later.
But first I want to focus on what you said about progressives having it good under Obama. lol they hate Obama, or at best think that he's way behind the progressive curve, sold out, "lost his spine," "forgotten his progressive roots," etc etc. Allow me to recap:
DADT was a soft issue, of a non-partisan nature. The military already has a poor image and weak recruitment, this is the sort of thing that's hard to /not/ repeal once it's a hot political topic. Obama didn't end DADT, Dan Choi and the gay rights community (excluding some anti-war-principled gay rights folks) ended it by getting their message picked up in the mainstream to the point that Congress felt they had no choice but to support a repeal if they wanted to be in the clear next election cycle. But it was a soft issue, because it didn't cost Congresspersons anything to support it (even the military supported it) -- all you have to do is be on the popular side of the argument and you're safe, which is why only a few hardliners thought it was in their best interest to support it (like McCain). Once it gets to the Oval Office for signature, Obama somehow "gets credit" for making it happen?
I don't want to go into a nitty gritty debate of what's good/bad in Obama's health plan, but in a nutshell it's not going to *fix* the healthcare problem in America unless you redefine the problem to be "not enough Americans are covered." The plan in MA which has been sort of the model for the Federal bill is to *mandate* that everyone get healthcare if they're not covered at risk of penalty, and only if your income is extremely low or you're under special circumstances (e.g. recent college graduate) are you able to opt-in for special deals. Well that helps the problem of people being under-covered, but the bigger problem is inefficiency & costs. There are some elements of the legislation that do ease the process for persons underemployed or just out of college and it does go for some improvements in efficiency / give&take here&there, but progressives want a public option to compete with the big health insurance companies, rather than ensuring that we remain loyal customers to them. While stimulating competition via smaller/leaner insurance in the market is an idea that the Right has offered as an alternative, when you look at the major faults in the healthcare system, the most highlighted problem is the huge cost that ends up reaching consumers (sick people) on account of inefficiencies and paperwork that hospitals & healthcare providers need to deal with just in dealing with the multitude of insurance companies and their diverse coverage plans, patient history, and the back-and-forth dialogue that has to happen between the hospital, the provider, and the patient. Progressives have backed single-payer (government-backed/public) as it gets rid of this middle-man bureaucracy and places it under the Federal auspice. I think there's a lot of fair criticism about this solution, especially in that it threatens the big healthcare companies that already have our business, but Vermont is unilaterally going for a statewide health program of this sort, and some people view public healthcare as a civil right and Federal responsibility. The amount of "freeloaders" under such a plan would have to be equated with their share of the tax burden, but on the whole it is estimated to be quite cheap for the taxpayer relative to what they're paying into insurance now + what they pay the government to attempt to fill the gaps. Again, this is a huge target for criticism and debate, but it is an option that has large popular support yet was denied by the Obama administration, which is why progressives are not satisfied. Healthcare will remain a luxury for which you really need to have a good job to get the best coverage, or you're going to have to continue paying an arm and a leg. A lot of Americans work multiple part-time service jobs, no one of which comes with good healthcare options, because it's simply not feasible for part-time employers to offer a plan for non-salary work (or at best it's going to be a shitty plan).
It really is up for speculation whether or not the healthcare bill will be transformed (what, decades from now?) into universal healthcare through incremental legislation, but as I mentioned above you can look at MA and you can look at VT for new legislation and they're very different in their content. It's going to take a long time for that sort of transformation to pan out, and it will have to be when the insurance companies are asleep. The deal that we did get further entrenches our dependence on big insurance companies and weakens competition from both small businesses and the public sector. See [1] for more on the aftermath.
Regarding the stimulus bill (which Paul Krugman remarks[2] was a failure because it didn't go far enough or address the deeper problems), Dodd-Frank... the folks who call themselves the 99% and are hitting the streets in every major city certainly aren't impressed. We've seen good regulation and consumer protection in this country in the past and it's been repealed, circumnavigated, or watered down -- and the business lobbyists are coming back to take everything they get, especially against unions. If I recall correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), American workers are at minimum in recent history for union representation -- and the attacks from "right to work" proponents are at best from short-sighted persons willing to sell themselves short for any job they can get (go read Grapes of Wrath); and at worst are intentional efforts on the part of business interest to cut labor costs when most Americans are already working long hours or multiple jobs, don't have job security, are underpaid (the minimum wage is below the estimated "living wage" -- i.e. a 40hr week at minimum wage falls short of feeding / housing / providing healthcare / educating yourself and your dependents), and don't get the benefits that they need to live up to the ideal standard of life known as the American Dream. While America doesn't have it nearly as bad as persons in much poorer countries, remember that our ppp is much higher than the rest of the world, so a loaf of bread costs ~$3 in America while that much money adjusted for exchange rate with rupees might get you tons of bread in India's market, so your quality of life w/ regards to food would be better. It's the raw experience of most Americans that so much of their money is going in to just getting by with food & rent versus paying for healthcare & drugs, or viewing college education as a risky trade-off between investment in your career versus debilitating debt... the obvious conclusion is that people are under a lot more stress than they deserve for the work they're putting in.
And to further criticize the Obama administration, progressives are disgusted at how this administration has dropped the ball on foreign aggression and human rights, government spying & civil rights abuses, torture, indefinite detentions w/o habeas corpus, assassinations, executive signing statements, the list just goes on and on of things that Democrats wanted to impeach Bush over (and that are preventing members of the Bush cabinet from travelling overseas for fear of arrest and arraignment before the ICC) and yet Obama has not stepped away from these policies, despite pre-election rhetoric to the contrary and massive popular disapproval.
So I would disagree that this has been a successful administration for progressive interests, although I can imagine why Right politicians would characterize their losses as Left gains -- winning a political fight and getting legislation signed doesn't necessarily equate to progress if you're not getting a lot of bang for your buck.
Finally, your point about radicalism and trying to bypass the establishment. Yes, it's scary when any group of persons believe that they are above the law by virtue of their righteousness, but I don't see that in the OWS & related movements (not yet, anyway). The closest thing to that is the demand for payback against the upper class, big banks, corporations, and anyone else with oodles of $, and as I wrote previously there are some legitimate grievances that should be addressed by the Justice Department but won't, hence the slogan "they got bailed out, we got sold out." Otherwise, the movement is committed to nonviolence, inclusion, and self-determination. I think it's that last point which needs to be emphasized. The kind of revolution that's being discussed does not (at the moment, anyway) involve a party or a caucus or a grand know-it-all leader like so many other political movements tend to adopt and that conventional politics and big media understand best. If you know your history, you'll know about how the the Gandhi-led resistance to British imperialism was primarily a fight for economic self-determination[3] -- that is, simply getting Indians in control of Indian resources and not playing by the established rules because they were unjust. A revolution doesn't have to take on the cliche imagery of the storming of the Bastille or the siege on the White House (the other White House [4]), and I'm curious to hear what ideas come out of the General Assembly to the effect of bringing economic and political power into the hands of the citizenry.
On October 12 2011 13:09 mmp wrote: I don't think the Tea Party should be seen as an adversary. At its core are more Americans that have been screwed by the economy, are sick of corrupt politicians, and want some form of change. Just because our perceived causes & solutions differ, does not mean that we are not all in it together. To be clear, many progressives do not see this as a Right vs Left issue, even if many Right and Left-aligned persons do retain their partisanship.
Then the OWS movement is doomed to irrelevancy. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans and conservative Democrats find it politically feasible to block every single significant legislation coming out of the White House. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans have the gall to threaten the Federal Reserve if it starts paying attention to the other half of its dual mandate (i.e. full employment). In short, the Tea Party is creating a political environment where the government is unable to address the primary concerns of the protesters: improving the economy so they can get fucking jobs!
I think that's entirely your characterization and opinion, but it's far from reality. I don't like the lynch mob tone that's gotten out a lot of passionate people, but there are real grievances that have gone unaddressed by the Justice Department, and those grievances aside there is a positive message coming from the more astute participants who have been promoting progressive causes long before /this/ economic crisis was a hot topic.
These "grievances" are irrelevant bullshit that only attracts demagoguery. Does prosecuting bank executives improve the economy? No. Does limiting bank executive salaries improve the economy? No. Does preventing banks from foreclosing on properties improve the economy? No. Almost none of the OWS grievances if addressed will improve the economic situation, which is the primary concern of the 99% they purport to represent. The anti-corporatist agenda is a huge distraction that won't solve anything. The OWS movement needs to direct its ire at Republicans and their constituents that empower them to engage in obstruction. Until then, Democrats will be unable to enforce party discipline, which has been a huge problem.
On October 12 2011 16:20 mmp wrote: Holy shit I wrote a lot. Glad I drank that coffee!
Nice piece, Other news concerning the scope of the movement, by that i mean that the core principles of the movement are not restricted to "american soil" only but are common problems that people struggle through the entire world.
'Occupy' Banking Protests Set To Spread To London 12/10/11 The Huffington Post
Protests against the global financial system which have seen huge demonstrations in New York's Wall Street will spread to the City of London this weekend.
A number of campaign organisations, including direct action group UK Uncut, say they will support an occupation of the heart of the capital's financial centre on Saturday as part of a "global movement for real democracy" to highlight social and economic injustice.
The Occupy London Stock Exchange collective said a Facebook page on the protest had attracted more than 9,000 followers, with more than 3,500 confirmed attendees.
Laura Taylor, a supporter of the so-called OccupyLSX, said: "Why are we paying for a crisis the banks caused? More than a million people have lost their jobs and tens of thousands of homes have been repossessed, while small businesses are struggling to survive.
"Yet bankers continue to make billions in profit and pay themselves enormous bonuses, even after we bailed them out with £850 billion."
Another supporter, Kai Wargalla, added: "This is a people-powered movement protesting against the increasing social and economic injustice in the UK. We want to stand with the 99% - the overwhelming majority who value people over profit.
"We want to make our voices heard against greed, corruption and for a democratic, just society. We stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, protesters in Spain, Greece and the Middle East who started this movement. They have inspired people all over the world to step forward and make their voices heard."
UK Uncut supporter Peter Hodgson said: "The success of the square occupations across Spain in calling for democracy and an end to austerity, alongside the rapid growth of the Wall Street occupation, has shown that this is what is needed in London and the UK. The government is ignoring its electorate as they impose these austerity measures."
On October 12 2011 13:09 mmp wrote: I don't think the Tea Party should be seen as an adversary. At its core are more Americans that have been screwed by the economy, are sick of corrupt politicians, and want some form of change. Just because our perceived causes & solutions differ, does not mean that we are not all in it together. To be clear, many progressives do not see this as a Right vs Left issue, even if many Right and Left-aligned persons do retain their partisanship.
Then the OWS movement is doomed to irrelevancy. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans and conservative Democrats find it politically feasible to block every single significant legislation coming out of the White House. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans have the gall to threaten the Federal Reserve if it starts paying attention to the other half of its dual mandate (i.e. full employment). In short, the Tea Party is creating a political environment where the government is unable to address the primary concerns of the protesters: improving the economy so they can get fucking jobs!
I think that's entirely your characterization and opinion, but it's far from reality. I don't like the lynch mob tone that's gotten out a lot of passionate people, but there are real grievances that have gone unaddressed by the Justice Department, and those grievances aside there is a positive message coming from the more astute participants who have been promoting progressive causes long before /this/ economic crisis was a hot topic.
These "grievances" are irrelevant bullshit that only attracts demagoguery. Does prosecuting bank executives improve the economy? No. Does limiting bank executive salaries improve the economy? No. Does preventing banks from foreclosing on properties improve the economy? No. Almost none of the OWS grievances if addressed will improve the economic situation, which is the primary concern of the 99% they purport to represent. The anti-corporatist agenda is a huge distraction that won't solve anything. The OWS movement needs to direct its ire at Republicans and their constituents that empower them to engage in obstruction. Until then, Democrats will be unable to enforce party discipline, which has been a huge problem.
domovoi
These "grievances" are irrelevant bullshit that only attracts demagoguery. Does prosecuting bank executives improve the economy? No. Does limiting bank executive salaries improve the economy? No. Does preventing banks from foreclosing on properties improve the economy? No. Almost none of the OWS grievances if addressed will improve the economic situation, which is the primary concern of the 99% they purport to represent. The anti-corporatist agenda is a huge distraction that won't solve anything. The OWS movement needs to direct its ire at Republicans and their constituents that empower them to engage in obstruction. Until then, Democrats will be unable to enforce party discipline, which has been a huge problem.
I concur, prosecuting banks, that is prosecuting the people responsible for doing the fraudulent, criminal acts which has cost the majority of people allot of money, and thus suffering needs to be brought to justice.
This will set an example and a whole new standard for future "manager", "CEO" "Traders" etc. The people in corporations will no longer think that they can do anything they want. You can have to switch your perspective on corporations, First of all large corporations are by nature corrupt. Because we have let them get away with anything. I.e. financial fraud, polluting environment, displacing peoples homes for profit, endangering people's life for profit. bribing of politicians and justice. and the list goes on and on.
Corporations are not by definitions bad, but in current day corporations have become criminal institutions which should be brought the justice. Corporations play such a important role in our daily life so when their actions are unjust that is, inhuman, irrational, corrupt etc... it affects us all. Some direct, some indirect.
Therefore i think it is crucial that Justice is brought back to the Corporate world, then the Corporations will become a surplus for all man kind. (Corporations are nothing else than a group of people working together with a common goal to achieve something).
That "something" currently that something is profit, maybe we should redesign the goal to get better results. that does not mean corporations will seas to exist. They will just function differently.
But if we do not prosecute those in charge of these criminal activities, how will we be able to change anything?
i.e. a drugs dealer owns the streets were you live, the living standards has been deteriorating because of the drugs dealer and its activities. His activities are detrimental to you and all around you. In order to change this, the drugs dealer has to be caught, investigated, and prosecuted (if we assume we are civil). Only then change for the better can happen in that street. The same is applicable for rampant criminal corporations. Just replace the word drugs dealer with corporation, and street with economy.
If we do not do anything now about the behaviour of the people in the corporation and we try to solve the current problems that we are "mopping with the tap open" <-- (dutch saying literately translated). And as we can conclude mopping something with the tap open and water gushing down will not be effective or will it?
On October 12 2011 13:09 mmp wrote: I don't think the Tea Party should be seen as an adversary. At its core are more Americans that have been screwed by the economy, are sick of corrupt politicians, and want some form of change. Just because our perceived causes & solutions differ, does not mean that we are not all in it together. To be clear, many progressives do not see this as a Right vs Left issue, even if many Right and Left-aligned persons do retain their partisanship.
Then the OWS movement is doomed to irrelevancy. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans and conservative Democrats find it politically feasible to block every single significant legislation coming out of the White House. The Tea Party is the primary reason why Republicans have the gall to threaten the Federal Reserve if it starts paying attention to the other half of its dual mandate (i.e. full employment). In short, the Tea Party is creating a political environment where the government is unable to address the primary concerns of the protesters: improving the economy so they can get fucking jobs!
For reasons I've stated above and below, I don't think OWS will achieve relevancy by incorporating itself into specific legislative battles.
I think that's entirely your characterization and opinion, but it's far from reality. I don't like the lynch mob tone that's gotten out a lot of passionate people, but there are real grievances that have gone unaddressed by the Justice Department, and those grievances aside there is a positive message coming from the more astute participants who have been promoting progressive causes long before /this/ economic crisis was a hot topic.
These "grievances" are irrelevant bullshit that only attracts demagoguery. Does prosecuting bank executives improve the economy? No. Does limiting bank executive salaries improve the economy? No. Does preventing banks from foreclosing on properties improve the economy? No. Almost none of the OWS grievances if addressed will improve the economic situation, which is the primary concern of the 99% they purport to represent. The anti-corporatist agenda is a huge distraction that won't solve anything. The OWS movement needs to direct its ire at Republicans and their constituents that empower them to engage in obstruction. Until then, Democrats will be unable to enforce party discipline, which has been a huge problem.
I totally agree that anti-corporate revenge is not a realistic strategy (but the issues being discussed do go beyond this one sentiment, wouldn't you agree?), and there's plenty of blame to go around, but I don't think that party unity from the Democrats is the solution. If you look at post-2008 before the Democrats lost the house, and Clinton's 8-year term, when Democrats had power to get their laws passed, did they seize these opportunities to get progressive legislature through? No, they ostracized their progressive constituents and played the center. Why? Because while the Republicans take their money from big energy & defense/manufacturing, the Dems listen to big tech businesses & multinational industries and ally themselves with big finance[1]. So we got free trade instead of fair trade, weak anti-trust regulation, weak oversight, weak consumer protection, and deeper entrenchment into money politics.
Many progressives have given up on the Democratic party, even though they know they don't stand a chance on their own in the two-party system. We still have a handful of progressives in Congress, but they have little more effect than giving lengthy speeches and patronized interviews.
More than 100 arrested at Occupy Boston protest site By Ros Krasny BOSTON | Tue Oct 11, 2011 Reuters
(Reuters) - Tensions boiled over early on Tuesday in downtown Boston, where police arrested more than 100 protesters after the Occupy Boston group expanded its footprint and was told by authorities to move back.
Protesters said that late on Monday police had issued an ultimatum to return to their small original encampment by nightfall or be moved along.
Protesters' tents have been set up in Dewey Square Park in downtown Boston all month but on Monday expanded to a larger section of the nearby Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.
Shortly after midnight, hundreds of Boston and Transit police officers, some in riot gear, moved in, handcuffing protesters and tearing down tents.
Police said 129 people were arrested, most for unlawful assembly.
"At 1:30 this morning hundreds of police in full riot gear brutally attacked Occupy Boston," the protest group said in a news release, adding that authorities "made no distinction between protesters, medics, or legal observers."
Police said no one was injured in the maneuver.
Metal barriers were erected around the section of the greenway on Tuesday as the protesters returned to Dewey Square Park.
Among those arrested was 58-year-old small business owner Michael Turner, who said he was taken into custody about 2 a.m. while sitting on the greenway, arms locked in a circle with other supporters.
"I just had to come," said Turner, who along with his wife has stopped by before and had donated supplies.
"I think corporate America is screwing us, basically," he said.
Turner, who said he was last arrested in Boston some 40 years ago protesting the Vietnam War, said the police were polite and in his view the situation was calm.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said in a Twitter message he was sympathetic to the Occupy Boston cause, but public safety was a priority.
"We all want to fight for the middle class," a second tweet from the mayor said. "Still, need to respect all our residents and make sure the city runs smoothly."
Many of those arrested were scheduled to appear in Boston Municipal Court throughout the week.
Occupy Boston organizers linked on their website to an online collection site to fund legal aid for those arrested.
More than $7,000 was donated from about 220 people by mid-day, according to the website.
Boston earlier saw one of its biggest rallies so far in a movement that began in New York last month to protest against perceived Wall Street excesses and other social issues and has spread to cities across the nation.
Hundreds of protesters, including many college students, marched in support of Occupy Boston.
Protests across the country have objected to what they see as an unacceptable income gap between rich and poor.
They also complained about the Wall Street bailout in 2008, which they say aided banks while average Americans suffered under high unemployment and job insecurity.
(Additional reporting by Adam Hunger and Lauren Keiper; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Jerry Norton)
On October 12 2011 01:13 Equity213 wrote: All I can think of in all this is a quote by Rothbard:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Making Economic Sense (1995)
I realize not everyone at the protests is ignorant. Its a diverse crowd and I have no doubt that some of them are well informed. However from listening to the big ticket speakers they have had and reading the various websites and signs its pretty apparent that most of them cant tell the difference between voluntary trade and corporatism.
Kind of ironic how almost everyone with an education in economics would disagree with Rothbard on how economic systems work then. Maybe the Austrian economists are the ones who should follow his own advice and not spew their ignorance?
Not that I have to justify my economic education to you, but im not an austrian.
Its interesting how certain people flip their lid and attack you if you quote one though. Does the quote make logical sense? I dont see any flaw in it. So why does it matter who said it?
I wonder what would happen if "war on poverty" was declared in the same manner today. At the very least I would expect talk about a "communist coup" or something along those lines.
EPT
