EPTWhat better way to appeal to such a varied group than by acting honest and going for broke?
go go go elimination of 2 party systems!
Occupy Wall Street - Page 85
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
What better way to appeal to such a varied group than by acting honest and going for broke? go go go elimination of 2 party systems! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 19 2011 01:53 farvacola wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Schoen, the author is a neo-con POS, and you sir, are a liar. Did you miss the part where the article says he was a pollster for Clinton? EDIT: And looking at his background and history, he has only worked for democrats. So please, explain to me how he is not a "democrat pollster." | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
On October 18 2011 23:45 Qoheleth wrote: Appropriate for this thread Totally appropriate. George Carlin basically sums up the driving force behind the occupy wall street movement. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On October 19 2011 02:01 xDaunt wrote: Did you miss the part where the article says he was a pollster for Clinton? EDIT: And looking at his background and history, he has only worked for democrats. So please, explain to me how he is not a "democrat pollster." Both parties have such narrowly divergent policies that it hardly matters which party he was a pollster for. Of course the establishment wants to co-opt the movement, because the movement is threatening to the establishment in that it questions tenets that keep the system propped up. The reason the movement can expand to hundreds of cities and hundreds of thousands of people not just in the US, but worldwide, is because the deep frustration which is acting as kindling is felt over such a wide area, arguably globally, and is there regardless of what political party happens to be in power. The democracts are certainly microscopically to the left of the republicans, so they stand to gain more by utilizing the language of the protesters so as to give the appearance that they are ideologically compatible with the wider population, but that's a scam, and people should recognize it's a scam, just like the Tea party isn't actually a grassroots movement, but a hardcore rightwing arm of the republican party that has co-opted real frustration. Anyways people shouldn't be fooled and stick to the message. The reason the protests have so much potential for growing into robust, longterm, and very very deep movements is precisely because of their diversity of viewpoints, and the fact that while its clear that they are against elements of the current paradigm, solutions to it are diverse, local, and complex, and need to be thought out. If you want an alternative to the current paradigm, it has to grow out of somewhere. Making the protest 'about' a single issue makes it silly, and analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The real issues are much deeper and require a much more nuanced approach. On October 19 2011 02:12 Reborn8u wrote: Totally appropriate. George Carlin basically sums up the driving force behind the occupy wall street movement. yeah man, George Carlin is good shit. =) | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
have you seen the republican candidate field? I'm a republican and I think that obama would make a better president then them. well i would hope that a republican would realize that any republican president will have a diminished power relative to the congress than bush or obama did or have with their congresses, which will help mitigate any faults and lets not kid ourselves mitt romney would be a far better president than barack obama. he's bland and is a policy wonk and doesn't want to radically transform the country in any kind of way. whether being just far better than barack obama would be enough is another question. whether any republican candidate or barack obama is up to it is a serious question. God help the poor fools that want to run in 2012. ehh it'll be no more or less crazy than 2004. vigorous passionate democratic competition is a sign of a healthy democracy. no one serious is suggesting we toss out the republic. as long as the people still have faith in the democratic process the country will be alright. and despite all the anger and desperation the people are not generally suggesting we tinker around with our core principles of government. Both parties have such narrowly divergent policies that it hardly matters which party he was a pollster for. Of course the establishment wants to co-opt the movement, because the movement is threatening to the establishment in that it questions tenets that keep the system propped up. The reason the movement can expand to hundreds of cities and hundreds of thousands of people not just in the US, but worldwide, is because the deep frustration which is acting as kindling is felt over such a wide area, arguably globally, and is there regardless of what political party happens to be in power. The democracts are certainly microscopically to the left of the republicans, so they stand to gain more by utilizing the language of the protesters so as to give the appearance that they are ideologically compatible with the wider population, but that's a scam, and people should recognize it's a scam, just like the Tea party isn't actually a grassroots movement, but a hardcore rightwing arm of the republican party that has co-opted real frustration. Anyways people shouldn't be fooled and stick to the message. The reason the protests have so much potential for growing into robust, longterm, and very very deep movements is precisely because of their diversity of viewpoints, and the fact that while its clear that they are against elements of the current paradigm, solutions to it are diverse, local, and complex, and need to be thought out. If you want an alternative to the current paradigm, it has to grow out of somewhere. Making the protest 'about' a single issue makes it silly, and analogous to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. The real issues are much deeper and require a much more nuanced approach. the idea that both parties have narrowly divergent policies is not true simple example. democrats - keep obamacare. republicans - repeal obamacare and replace it (maybe) with something that costs a lot lot less. i am not sure if the marxist ideology of a good portion of the protesters and a majority of those in charge is going to be palatable. regardless of supposed diversity of viewpoints and emphasis on local solutions. spreading to dozens of cities worldwide and involving a few hundred thousand people is not really an accomplishment for the international left usually they can wrangle up a few millions when their blood is up we'll see how big it is in six months, that seems a reasonable time for it to grow, it took the tea party about that long to start having a big political effect and, what if the local solution is neo-liberalism, capitalism? no matter how you dress class warfare up it still amounts to class warfare. all this talk of nuance and depth is a smokescreen to try to hide the fact that you are arguing OWS will grow because you want it to. and that OWS espouses deeply restributionist views. the only way OWS will grow is if it moves more to the center; the tea party did not have to because hey, 40% of the population self-identifies "conservative." that's a big percentage of the 225 million adults in the US to draw supporters from. "liberals" get 20% and "moderates" the rest. the center has been trending slightly right since obama's election. its simple political demographics. the OWS must emphasize the areas where its complaints and the tea party's overlap - crony capitalism, the revolving door between high government posts and high-ranking positions at "connected" corporations, bailouts of "too big to fail," etc. - to gain true popular support. the great mass of the american people do not want heavy-handed left-opportunism. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On October 19 2011 03:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: ehh it'll be no more or less crazy than 2004. vigorous passionate democratic competition is a sign of a healthy democracy. Do you actually believe there is vigorous passionate democratic competition? really? When election success since essentially the 1950's is directly related to available campaign funding, and that both parties represent such a narrow spectrum of opinion that is so far divorced from what the vast majority of people actually want on an issue to issue basis, that voter turnout is at a steady decline, for most of the last century? I'd suggest its more like two lions fighting over a carcass, while the hyenas try to bark at the lion they think will eat slightly less of it. Of course the lions are passionate about it. They want the meat. no one serious is suggesting we toss out the republic. as long as the people still have faith in the democratic process the country will be alright. and despite all the anger and desperation the people are not generally suggesting we tinker around with our core principles of government. I think there are people that are suggesting precisely that, or at least a deep reorganization. Of course its not a homogenous movement so there are all sorts of proposals at this point. Decision making seems to be by consensus though, which is interesting and significant in a lot of ways, so progress on single issues takes a long time. One general sentiment that seems to be shared across all demonstrations is the suggestion that we need at least deep structural changes to the fundamental organization of society in general. One interesting element of a lot of this is that there is a drive towards more locally based solutions, and against a strict traditional division of labour. There is a really real recognition that the fundamental organization of society is deeply responsible for the problems it now faces. This is a complex problem of course, but the approach of just figuring it out as things progress is a good solution. If it continues to grow at even a fraction of the rate it has been, this has the potential for some pretty profound changes, analogous to those in the french revolution. -- the understanding of the way society is organized, and the actual communication that goes on in these rallies is much more nuanced/sophisticated and profound than I expected (suggestive of a recognition of some of these issues I just outlined, there are more of course), and than is typical of a more mundane, issue focused one. This could be pretty big. Of course its still really early-- could get coopted. People could get impatient for changes and delegitimize individual movements. Could be police crackdowns which intimidate people from demonstrating-- already the case in some places (though in other places, crackdowns actually increases turnout as people get increasingly fed up). Will be an interesting year that's for sure. Lots of new movements starting daily actually-- theres now an 'occupy the hood' movement, which is people applying these principles to occupy the hood-- not a single hood, but 'the hood' as a large set of places and as a social construct with its own set of attached issues and needs, and with the occupy movemnt, a single solidarity movement across all of them. In the end, people can poo-poo and rant about how people engaging in protest are fundamentally flawed individuals (they are lazy, they are unwilling to work, or perversely that they are rich, spoiled, and have entitlement issues, they are idealistic, what have you), but this firstly should be recognized as an attempt to delegitimize their very real concerns, and secondly is a moot point regardless-- if conditions are such that such a significant number of people spontaneously start to move, then regardless of how you label said people, their movement is still real. Its a very head-in-the-sand approach. Regardless of how you label individuals, one thing that the French Revolution accomplished was the recognition of the rights of the individual as paramount to a functioning democratic society-- that belief is so deep rooted it won't just disappear, so the excuses and labelling of people as flawed individuals and their concerns as misguided really doesn't get you very far. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Do you actually believe there is vigorous passionate democratic competition? really? When election success since essentially the 1950's is directly related to available campaign funding, and that both parties represent such a narrow spectrum of opinion that is so far divorced from what the vast majority of people actually want on an issue to issue basis, that voter turnout is at a steady decline, for most of the last century? Yes I do, because I hold a fairly high opinion of the intelligence of the common man. Voter apathy is not necessarily the responsibility of the parties. Voters have a responsibility too. I think there are people that are suggesting precisely that, or at least a deep reorganization. Of course its not a homogenous movement so there are all sorts of proposals at this point. Decision making seems to be by consensus though, which is interesting and significant in a lot of ways, so progress on single issues takes a long time. One general sentiment that seems to be shared across all demonstrations is the suggestion that we need at least deep structural changes to the fundamental organization of society in general. One interesting element of a lot of this is that there is a drive towards more locally based solutions, and against a strict traditional division of labour. There is a really real recognition that the fundamental organization of society is deeply responsible for the problems it now faces. This is a complex problem of course, but the approach of just figuring it out as things progress is a good solution. If it continues to grow at even a fraction of the rate it has been, this has the potential for some pretty profound changes, analogous to those in the french revolution. -- the understanding of the way society is organized, and the actual communication that goes on in these rallies is much more nuanced/sophisticated and profound than I expected (suggestive of a recognition of some of these issues I just outlined, there are more of course), and than is typical of a more mundane, issue focused one. I'm not contesting what OWS believes, I'm contesting what the great mass of Americans believes. It doesn't sync up significantly with OWS. There is not a great passion for changing the political structure of the country. There is a great passion for changing the political structure of the parties. This could be pretty big. I just don't believe it can happen. Lots of new movements starting daily actually-- theres now an 'occupy the hood' movement, which is people applying these principles to occupy the hood-- not a single hood, but 'the hood' as a large set of places and as a social construct, with the occupy movemnt, a single solidarity movement across all of them. I hope it's not crass to mention that radical political movements have come and gone within the black community before, and that the only successful black political movements have been moderate in nature. Specifically I'm talking about Dr. King, the SCLC, and the NAACP. All I'm suggesting is that well I disagree with most of what OWS has to say I'm not suggesting that but what I am suggesting is that most Americans have little interest in more the more big government approach that OWS wants. In the end, people can poo-poo and rant about how people engaging in protest are fundamentally flawed individuals (they are lazy, they are unwilling to work, or perversely that they are rich, spoiled, and have entitlement issues, they are idealistic, what have you), but this firstly should be recognized as an attempt to delegitimize their very real concerns, and secondly is a moot point regardless-- if conditions are such that such a significant number of people spontaneously start to move, then regardless of how you label said people, their movement is still real. Its a very head-in-the-sand approach. I don't care if they're a bunch of pot-smoking hippies (and most of them aren't, although a lot smoke weed), I smoked two blunts not an hour ago. AK-47. Not bad. Anyway I just think you're engaging in wishful thinking because the OWS movement does not advocate ideas that have ever had great appeal to the American people, and do not have great appeal now. Except in some areas which are significant ones to be sure, that I think OWS should emphasize if it wants to be anything more than just another left-wing protest movement, which in America is a nice euphemism for goes-nowhere-movement. I don't want to dampen your excitement which I'm sure I won't anyway (lol) because the more people that try to get people engaged in politics no matter which ideology they support, the more people who get into the political arena and exposed to all sides of the competition and when more people know more things, that can't be bad. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On October 19 2011 03:41 DeepElemBlues wrote: Yes I do, because I hold a fairly high opinion of the intelligence of the common man. Voter apathy is not necessarily the responsibility of the parties. Voters have a responsibility too. The core issue with this though is that the two parties don't diverge on any issues that are actually of concern to people. There is no 'none of the above' mark on a ballot that actually helps things. This suggests that the system itself is fundamentally flawed, so people need alternative methods of engagement. I'm sure even if we disagree on specifics, we would both agree that fairly core elements of the system itself are deeply flawed. I have a pretty high opinion of the intelligence of the common man as well, and I think most people, though they may not be able to enunciate or articulate them, have a pretty good understanding or intuition of these systemic issues-- hence the events we see. I hope it's not crass to mention that radical political movements have come and gone within the black community before, and that the only successful black political movements have been moderate in nature. Specifically I'm talking about Dr. King, the SCLC, and the NAACP. A pretty significant difference is that this type of movement now is contextualized as being in sync with a larger social uprising. Its not a fringe or an ethnic or a minority issue anymore. Anyway I just think you're engaging in wishful thinking because the OWS movement does not advocate ideas that have ever had great appeal to the American people, and do not have great appeal now. Except in some areas which are significant ones to be sure, that I think OWS should emphasize if it wants to be anything more than just another left-wing protest movement You can't really pigeonhole this as a leftwing movement. My own leaning would likely be pigeonholed as leftist and I'm obviously in support of this movement, but it belies logic to suggest that a spontaneous leftist uprising just occurred all over the world spontaneously. This is further evidenced by the fact that the uprisings themselves have a heterogenous set of goals/ideals/demands, cuts across a very broad selection of society with young/old/workers/professionals/academics/unemployed and individuals of essentially all ethnic groups represented. Not leftist, not minority. Hence '99%'. (also see: (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/10/18/occupy_wall_street_poll_shows_protests_mainstream_popularity.html) | ||
|
rza
Canada384 Posts
| ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
Voting changes things. Protests influence votes. But, sure, tell people to stop protesting and vote instead. That will keep things the same, which is what you seem to desire. I'm not telling people to stop protesting, I'm telling people to start protesting for something that will actually fix the problem. Not a single Republican feels threatened at all by the OWS movement, and that is just pathetic. This is in stark contrast with the Tea Party, who was able to shift the Republican party and Congress as a whole to the right. They had a simple message: object to anything that Obama supports. And the ramifications have been staggering. The political process is being paralyzed because of Americans not liking Obama? It's paralyzed because of Republicans, who are empowered by the Tea Party. Not Americans in general, but a sizable, very vocal group. The abomination known as Obamacare, It's better than the status quo, but a lot of the good features had to be taken out because of, yes, the Republicans! Even though THEY ONLY HAD 40 SENATORS. and the Stimulus bill. Which again had to be reduced because of the Republicans. And need I remind you that theoretically, from 2008 until 2010, the Republicans should not have had any say in the manner?! Okay, so the first Stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough... then Obama proposes a smaller stimulus and this is gonna help? Are you telling me the OWS is against the jobs bill? How about the political process is being paralyzed because Congress isn't willing to pass a real budget that makes the necessary cuts. And this has nothing to do with Obama, this is coming down to Congress not willing to act. The idea that somehow American's hatred of Obama is influencing this is ridiculous. Nothing Obama has proposed is going to solve the problem, even if Congress agreed to it. I'm not a fan of fiscal stimulus, but I think the government should at least give it a shot, because frankly you have to be a biased ideologue if you are utterly convinced it will or will not work. More importantly, I'm a big believer in monetary stimulus (as is basically every other credible economist), but the Republicans and the Tea Party have created a political environment that makes it impossible for the Fed to stimulate. Why the hell should we worry about the debt right now? American debt has a negative interest rate! People want to PAY the US government to loan it money. Moreover, long-term, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have offered serious solutions to the debt problem. A solution that doesn't even consider tax increases is not a serious solution. Why won't Congress fix this problem? A) Hands are tied by campaign funding. B) Obsession with re-election paralyzes them from making the hard choices. No, the answer is simple. It has nothing to do with corporations. Why the fuck would corporations care about the budget, except to the extent that not fixing it will hurt the economy in the long-run and corporations hate it when the economy sucks? No, the culprit is the Tea Party and the Republican politicians they empower. They have absolutely zero interest in reducing the deficit. The only thing they are interested in is lowering taxes (especially for the rich) and reducing benefits for the poor. They have no interest in addressing the funding side of the equation. They pay lip service to "reducing spending." The last time we had a Republican-controlled government, they raised government spending. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 19 2011 04:12 domovoi wrote: I'm not telling people to stop protesting, I'm telling people to start protesting for something that will actually fix the problem. Not a single Republican feels threatened at all by the OWS movement, and that is just pathetic. This is in stark contrast with the Tea Party, who was able to shift the Republican party and Congress as a whole to the right. They had a simple message: object to anything that Obama supports. And the ramifications have been disasterous. Fixed maybe? Anyways if the Republicans/Tea Party just wants to watch the world burn why would a movement trying to actually benefit people emulate that? What positive change have they done? As in what beneficial legislation have the Tea Party/Republicans gotten through with their tactics rather than just preventing things from happening. | ||
|
Stirbend
United States45 Posts
" Why the hell should we worry about the debt right now? American debt has a negative interest rate! People want to PAY the US government to loan it money. Moreover, long-term, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have offered serious solutions to the debt problem. A solution that doesn't even consider tax increases is not a serious solution" This is like saying any solution to getting my credit card debt that doesn't include a pay raise isn't a serious solution. Raising taxes in a stressed economy is dumb. Raising taxes is also a very short sighted way to get money. And when we are talking about getting rid of debt on the massive scale we have to, raises taxes in general turns out to be just plain moronic because you're not getting rid of it anytime soon. I also can't take seriously any financial solutions from a party that goes against what economists are saying somewhere between 90 and 100% of the time. As long as Democrats cling to keynesian economics, no one with a brain is going to take them seriously. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On October 18 2011 20:37 teddyoojo wrote: i think theres a big big mistake in saying "we are 99%". because we arent. we are the people that live a good life, while the other half of this world dont. maybe/probably due to this 1%. it doesnt matter. going out there whining we are 99% that gets fucked by the greed of capitalism isnt right. maybe i misinterpret this shit, id be glad if so. i just feel bad for the "real" poor people that wont get shit no matter how this will end. Who says they're only talking in a selfish way? I see many people who come up with this question but they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. When people of the movement say "we are the 99%", they are not talking about the 99% of america specifically. They're talking about EVERY person on earth, and also every other form of life such as the many animals and plants/trees. The protesters don't just want more for themselves, they want a better and more fair world for everyone and everything. Also, this image is relevant: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ICTAa.jpg) | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On October 19 2011 06:39 H0i wrote: Who says they're only talking in a selfish way? I see many people who come up with this question but they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. When people of the movement say "we are the 99%", they are not talking about the 99% of america specifically. They're talking about EVERY person on earth, and also every other form of life such as the many animals and plants/trees. The protesters don't just want more for themselves, they want a better and more fair world for everyone and everything. Well on a global scale the 1% is something like 50k/year or so, which certainly changes things about who the '99%' would be. But the criteria loses a lot of meaning globally due to more pronounced cost of living differences and inclusion of incomes in undeveloped nations of conflict areas (which certainly deserve help, but still). | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On October 19 2011 07:18 Logo wrote: Well on a global scale the 1% is something like 50k/year or so, which certainly changes things about who the '99%' would be. But the criteria loses a lot of meaning globally due to more pronounced cost of living differences and inclusion of incomes in undeveloped nations of conflict areas (which certainly deserve help, but still). semantics. is it relevant to discuss specifically who the upper 1%ile are, or is it better to accept that 99% is a useful analogy for massive disparity? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On October 19 2011 07:23 caradoc wrote: semantics. is it relevant to discuss specifically who the upper 1%ile are, or is it better to accept that 99% is a useful analogy for massive disparity? Yes it actually does. Because WHY do some people end up in the top 1 percentile? Because if they have worked for it - who are you to take it away from them because you failed at achieving what they did? EDIT: I now realise that I misread the guy you quoted and I'm talking about something differently - my bad... | ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
[B] Well on a global scale the 1% is something like 50k/year or so, which certainly changes things about who the '99%' would be. Is this accurate?! Wow, my entire perception of the government is messed up. Smh | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On October 19 2011 07:54 Taekwon wrote: Is this accurate?! Wow, my entire perception of the government is messed up. Smh Just think about it. Nearly the entire continent of Africa is dirt poor. There's over 2 billion people in China and India that are lucky to make more then a few dollars a day. And there's a couple hundred developing countries where there only a smallest fraction of people make a decent living compared to the 42 developed counties where even there most people make well below 50k. I can't blame people for wanting to better their lives, but compared to the majority of the people on the planet, we're living like Gods here in the US. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On October 19 2011 07:38 Ghostcom wrote: Yes it actually does. Because WHY do some people end up in the top 1 percentile? Because if they have worked for it - who are you to take it away from them because you failed at achieving what they did? EDIT: I now realise that I misread the guy you quoted and I'm talking about something differently - my bad... Does working behind a desk count as a billion billion times more work than walking 100km to get water every day? Or does this work have more value than feeding the poor, or helping people in other ways? Is manipulating the system and buying/corrupting the government acceptable, and is it ok to call this "working for it"? Is there a reason for not helping people? One does not need 3 houses and 5 cars nor will it make him/her happy, but people do need food, water, schools, hospitals and a house. What argument can you possibly give to justify the enormous inequality that literally is the cause for people dying every day because of hunger, disease and war, all preventable? Is it a good idea to let about 50% of the world control less than a few percent of the wealth of the entire world, and to let a tiny amount of a percent of the people on the world own everything? Who are we to take it away? Who are they to take it away from us, the people, and I mean all the people. Rich people are not rich because of them, they are rich because they found a way to exploit the system/the people, legally or not. Is it really necessary to run the world in a way where we assume people are infinitely greedy and selfish entities, and that fighting to death is the best option we have? Do you not think this very idea actually makes people think this is what they are and should do? Do you not see how the economic system brainwashes people into being extremely selfish and greedy, do you not see how it has many other bad "features" such as promoting the abuse of our natural resources, because the system wishes to grow infinitely? Do we need an infinite amount of crappy products? Do we really need to destroy all trees and fish? Or our rare earth metals? Should we really continue using oil while we know it will run out and when we have good alternatives already? And imagine what we would have if progress on this area and many others would be supported instead of obstructed by governments/corporations/etc and their regulations and actions. Thankfully people are finally waking up and seeing the truth. | ||
|
Taekwon
United States8155 Posts
On October 19 2011 08:04 Myles wrote: Just think about it. Nearly the entire continent of Africa is dirt poor. There's over 2 billion people in China and India that are lucky to make more then a few dollars a day. And there's a couple hundred developing countries where there only a smallest fraction of people make a decent living compared to the 42 developed counties where even there most people make well below 50k. I can't blame people for wanting to better their lives, but compared to the majority of the people on the planet, we're living like Gods here in the US. No, I thought it was less. lol | ||
| ||
