|
On October 20 2011 02:04 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 00:26 caradoc wrote:
by this argument, any discussion would be useless by virtue of the fact that it doesnt have an end goal.
demands can wait. Protests are an exercise in democracy and a valid end in and of themselves. If people have no demands and demands are necessary for anything to happen, why does the media appear worried? I can't imagine FOX news saying that the protests need demands because they want them to succeed.
If you want them to want something, maybe go tell them.
[snipped out] Its...sort of a child like arrogance that these protesters are displaying, to suggest that just by protesting, everything is going to work out well and they'll solve the problems of capitalism. They have a right to be angry...but at this point thats all it looks like, just stupid venting, where they don't know what they're doing or what they're trying to achieve, composed of various radical groups with extreme agendas, but they're hoping someone will figure it out for them. That's whats so irritating about this...its ok to be ignorant now, just go out and protest, feel like a revolutionary, and someone else will change the world for you. I know that its the job of policy makers to work on behalf of the people...but you can't expect them to just fix massive, complicated systems that are showing signs of inequality that occasionally result in recessions, just because you decide to hold a protest. This isn't something that can be done with a single vote...its a complicated problem that will require the cooperation of a number of governmental, non-governmental, and private organizations to achieve. Greed and the drive for power are inherent to human nature, and we are constantly struggling to overcome it and find systems that maximize the positives while minimizing the negatives. So...there's my rant 
I disagree. The protests do serve an important function and that is to try to pressure the system into fixing itself. You don't ever want to see a mob try to fix something themselves, especially not a problem as complex and ingrained as this, because they will royally fuck it up and destroy a lot of things in the process. Ideally, the scale of these protests will serve as a warning to the 1% that if they keep pushing people closer and closer to the cliff, one day Arab Spring will go global. It's a chain reaction, just look at how many dictatorships imploded or came to the brink of imploding in the wake of a single country. There was even a civil war.
This is not yet a zero sum game, if the current elite realize that they really have waaaay more wealth than they can use and that they really are playing with their lives a lot closer to the line than they should. It is in their self interest to not engage in brinksmanship with so much latent resentment.
|
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need.
|
On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need.
bad troll is bad. how is he not banned yet? o.o
|
On October 20 2011 03:09 pluvos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need. bad troll is bad. how is he not banned yet? o.o
I'm not trolling. But thanks.
|
On October 20 2011 03:10 AIRwar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:09 pluvos wrote:On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need. bad troll is bad. how is he not banned yet? o.o I'm not trolling. But thanks.
I apologize, but it says your country is Canada.
Calling people sheep because they choose to protest is quite weird. Sheep would actually just do what they are told and continue to do so. Just like most of the state is doing. The majority of the point of the protests is that people are being led by a leash.
Some may not realize but this protect is doing one thing. It keeps bringing up the question "What exactly are they protesting?" They have their right to protest, more people ask that question, more people gain interest. People are being beaten on the street for just about no reason by the police when the protesting people don't even have a direct thing they are protesting. But as they are beaten, that becomes an issue also.
The issues will come on their own, it's not just the capitalism.
|
Jon Stewart owned Eric Cantor on this subject last night. I suggest watching, if not for a good laugh.
|
On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. -Samuel Johnson.
When all you have is the charge of not being a "real" -ian, you know you're scraping the bottom of the scum at the bottom of the barrel for excuses.
|
On October 20 2011 03:13 GertHeart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:10 AIRwar wrote:On October 20 2011 03:09 pluvos wrote:On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need. bad troll is bad. how is he not banned yet? o.o I'm not trolling. But thanks. I apologize, but it says your country is Canada. Calling people sheep because they choose to protest is quite weird. Sheep would actually just do what they are told and continue to do so. Just like most of the state is doing. The majority of the point of the protests is that people are being led by a leash. Some may not realize but this protect is doing one thing. It keeps bringing up the question "What exactly are they protesting?" They have their right to protest, more people ask that question, more people gain interest. People are being beaten on the street for just about no reason by the police when the protesting people don't even have a direct thing they are protesting. But as they are beaten, that becomes an issue also. The issues will come on their own, it's not just the capitalism.
Well I live in Canada but I'm a Dual-Citizen. Just because you have the right to protest doesn't mean you should be. It just seems like this causes way more harm than the supposed "good" it should be causing. There's also waaay too many people that see these protests as an opportunity to cause confusion, crime, and panic. A country that is in trouble doesn't need more problems like protests like this.
|
On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need.
Sweet scotsman.
|
On October 20 2011 03:16 AIRwar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 03:13 GertHeart wrote:On October 20 2011 03:10 AIRwar wrote:On October 20 2011 03:09 pluvos wrote:On October 20 2011 03:03 AIRwar wrote:
Any real American would be against this Anit-capitalist, Marxist movement. Anyone participating in this is a sheep. I can't believe so many Americans are pretty much standing against America in it's time of need. bad troll is bad. how is he not banned yet? o.o I'm not trolling. But thanks. I apologize, but it says your country is Canada. Calling people sheep because they choose to protest is quite weird. Sheep would actually just do what they are told and continue to do so. Just like most of the state is doing. The majority of the point of the protests is that people are being led by a leash. Some may not realize but this protect is doing one thing. It keeps bringing up the question "What exactly are they protesting?" They have their right to protest, more people ask that question, more people gain interest. People are being beaten on the street for just about no reason by the police when the protesting people don't even have a direct thing they are protesting. But as they are beaten, that becomes an issue also. The issues will come on their own, it's not just the capitalism. Well I live in Canada but I'm a Dual-Citizen. Just because you have the right to protest doesn't mean you should be. It just seems like this causes way more harm than the supposed "good" it should be causing. There's also waaay too many people that see these protests as an opportunity to cause confusion, crime, and panic. A country that is in trouble doesn't need more problems like protests like this.
Yes, we need to get out our thinking caps to come up with a good solution, without corrupt democracy getting in the way (hard to do, because those who seek office are those who want power, and those who do it for a just cause either get bribed or blackmailed by others.) A real democracy would be great.
However, we should not have to sit idly around while those currently wielding power run around rampant with no form or ability to make them responsible for their actions. (those who are responsible for that are usually the police, and they answer to those in power. Do this, or your job is gone, yes that means dispersing that crowd fed up with our multi-million to multi-billion dollar bonuses.)
For all that is holy, some of the richer kids at my school have no idea there are people that live with less then 20k a year or so, much less other poorer countries. That, or they choose to ignore it because their parents supply them with all they will ever need.
|
Why are we arguing about the protesters not having solid demands and solutions? Right now their actions are mostly to create awareness, but to say there are no demands and solutions means you didn't hear those because of the way mainstream media is reporting.
Restoring democracy by removing the abilities for corporate campaign funding/bribing and banning lobbying is one of their main goals and demands, and this should be obvious by now. This point alone is already worth protesting for. In fact it's one of the main causes of many problems.
Besides that there are many other things they're saying that make a lot of sense and shouldn't be too difficult to find out about. Google their website, find their irc chat channels and read articles on non mainstream news websites. There are not only very important and easily understood points such as restoring democracy by removing corporate power over the government, destroying the patriot act, stopping the wars and other similar things, but in the movement there are also a lot of people (most of them) who know a lot about complicated problems and have good solutions. You will find what you want to know if you look at anything NOT mainstream media.
|
Perhaps its better they don't try to articulate demands.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.html
+ Show Spoiler +Are You Smarter Than a Wall Street Occupier?
Over the past month, the crusaders at Zuccotti Park have braved the elements, tussled with police, and stood their ground against Mayor Bloomberg. But how much do the protesters actually know about the economic system that they're fighting to change? To find out, we asked 50 occupiers a series of questions about Wall Street, taxes, and government. The results were mixed. See if you can do better.
|
On October 20 2011 03:49 Vile Animus wrote:Perhaps its better they don't try to articulate demands. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.html+ Show Spoiler +Are You Smarter Than a Wall Street Occupier?
Over the past month, the crusaders at Zuccotti Park have braved the elements, tussled with police, and stood their ground against Mayor Bloomberg. But how much do the protesters actually know about the economic system that they're fighting to change? To find out, we asked 50 occupiers a series of questions about Wall Street, taxes, and government. The results were mixed. See if you can do better.
Who the fuck cares about a trivia quiz. You don't need to know the genetic sequence of a shark to know that its a predator and you don't want to have them in your swimming pool.
On October 20 2011 02:04 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 00:26 caradoc wrote:
by this argument, any discussion would be useless by virtue of the fact that it doesnt have an end goal.
demands can wait. Protests are an exercise in democracy and a valid end in and of themselves. If people have no demands and demands are necessary for anything to happen, why does the media appear worried? I can't imagine FOX news saying that the protests need demands because they want them to succeed.
If you want them to want something, maybe go tell them.
So I'm assuming that's not what you mean, but that instead you say protests are valid as long as they, at the very least, have very broad goals that they want to achieve, like promoting economic equality. The problem with that is it implies that its ok to be ignorant of economics, or to have no clue as to where the problem lies and how it will be fixed - but to expect that *other people* will fix it *for* you, particularly on very vague, large issues. How about everyone just decides to have a protest to end world hunger? Have a protest to end all wars? Have a protest to end global warming?
The implicit assumption here is that people protesting are ignorant about economics, and that they expect other people to fix it for them. That is not in fact the case.
Similarly these people are having a protest to say: Make capitalism work perfectly,
Last I checked there was no specific demands, but merely a coming together to exercise solidarity and work on coming up with solutions, organizing and building the movement itself, and possibly some specific demands which will vary by region. Nobody said anything about making "capitalism" work "perfectly"
so that the influence of money has no effect on government and there's equality for all. Make it so that people don't take risks that affect us, so that we'll never have a recession or depression again. Make it so that there is *zero* accumulation of power by the wealthy, so that they don't disproportionately affect the population or the decisions of their policy makers.
Again, you're projecting your beliefs on what the protests must be about on to the protests themselves.
Its...sort of a child like arrogance that these protesters are displaying, to suggest that just by protesting, everything is going to work out well and they'll solve the problems of capitalism.
This point is dependent upon all of the protestors having a static homogenous worldview, which is demonstrably not the case.
They have a right to be angry...but at this point thats all it looks like, just stupid venting, where they don't know what they're doing or what they're trying to achieve,
There are numerous goals, there is not a single voice, hence the movement to gather momentum/information/discussion/attention, and hence the current lack of a single consensus. You can't have it both ways.
composed of various radical groups with extreme agendas,
Alright, there is absolutely no evidence for that at all-- in fact it seems to be completely the opposite, a very very broadly supported uprising composed of people from all sectors of society. I took your post up to here fairly sincerely, but I wonder if you're attempting to portray it in a certain way now since there is no evidence for this assertion.
but they're hoping someone will figure it out for them. That's whats so irritating about this...its ok to be ignorant now, just go out and protest, feel like a revolutionary, and someone else will change the world for you.
People mobilizing is in fact people doing something, it is not simply hoping others will do something. Sitting at home and saying that people mobilizing is stupid is in fact doing nothing. The protests are much more than people walking with signs. They involve a great deal of organizing, communicating, coming up with ideas/agendas/plans and strategizing for ways to effectively deal with the problems that are bringing everyone together. Side point: the french revolution started in exactly this way. Not saying this is the french revolution, but for someone with such exacting standards of communication/argumentation you take a fairly myopic view of the material you're discussing.
I know that its the job of policy makers to work on behalf of the people...but you can't expect them to just fix massive, complicated systems that are showing signs of inequality that occasionally result in recessions, just because you decide to hold a protest. This isn't something that can be done with a single vote...its a complicated problem that will require the cooperation of a number of governmental, non-governmental, and private organizations to achieve.
This is where I agree with you completely-- don't consider the protests then as a fully formed solution to what ails the system, think of it as a intermediary means towards an end. It is a vehicle for change and solutions rather than a completely articulated alternative to government.
Greed and the drive for power are inherent to human nature, and we are constantly struggling to overcome it and find systems that maximize the positives while minimizing the negatives. So...there's my rant
Yes, that's an excellent point. I would add that the current system does very little to check that greed and ability to concentrate power, so we need to build parallel organizations that will organize and structure society. I view the coming together of people in this way as an early nascent and primordial beginnings to this. The individual movements have structure-- they have assemblies, consensus decision making, committees, organizers-- these things are the potential beginnings of a larger organization, and I think that is a goal of the demonstrations themselves. What specific role this organizing will play in the months/years ahead is really not predictable at this point.
The wider point is that the system is screwed, you can't expect it to fix itself, so you mobilize and organize and create alternative organizations that will supplement or replace the system. That's what the protests are about.
EDIT: 999th post. Won't be replying for a while.
|
As to the "articles" and the medias depiction of the Protesters...
It is ALWAYS the medias job to make protestors look like idiots. Especially left leaning protestors. You'll never find favorable coverage of them. They are dumb, disconnected sheep who are just following some brainwashed ideological social movement. Same with all the WTO or IMF protests that have ever happened that they can't ignore. They are Anarchists. Trouble makers. Generally the scum of Society.
Really, quoting the WSJ outlook on the protesters... or getting your information from any corporate sponsored media outlet... is probably going to give you a skewed view of it. They don't want to make it look like this is the thing to do! These people are crazy idiots! It should be expected. When giant corporations sell their audiences to other corporations for advertising time, it's not exactly going to produce Left friendly content. It should be expected of anything on the TV but specially the WSJ
|
On October 20 2011 05:02 cursor wrote:
As to the "articles" and the medias depiction of the Protesters...
It is ALWAYS the medias job to make protestors look like idiots. Especially left leaning protestors. You'll never find favorable coverage of them. They are dumb, disconnected sheep who are just following some brainwashed ideological social movement. Same with all the WTO or IMF protests that have ever happened that they can't ignore. They are Anarchists. Trouble makers. Generally the scum of Society.
Really, quoting the WSJ outlook on the protesters... or getting your information from any corporate sponsored media outlet... is probably going to give you a skewed view of it. They don't want to make it look like this is the thing to do! These people are crazy idiots! It should be expected. When giant corporations sell their audiences to other corporations for advertising time, it's not exactly going to produce Left friendly content. It should be expected of anything on the TV but specially the WSJ
You've been reading a little too much Noam Chomsky my friend. If you honestly think the coverage of OWS isn't lightyears better than the coverage of the Tea Party, particularly because it is a left-wing movement, then you are delusional. Every other day I see some article advertising or praising the wall street protestors. And they are doing a great job of hiding the lunatic fringe from view, while the Tea Party was full of racists...
|
The sky is, indeed falling. You can close your doors and ignore it if you like, but constant growth is simply not sustainable. (Even assuming the damage we have done isn't catastrophic.) We need some model of economics that doesn't include growth. 1% per quarter, 1% per year, 1% per 10 years just isn't acceptable. We need workable models that are Zero growth and even shrinkage if we are going to avoid a bigger collapse. It's just basic logic to state that this planets economy (production, consumption, population, standard of living) simply can not continue to grow forever.
I grow weary of your sensationalism, even if it is very far down the road. I don't see why we need any model of economic shrinkage unless we can definitively prove that we are running out of options. We're nowhere near close to that yet, and the best and the brightest come up with brilliant new systems, processes, and gizmos to save us resources and capital every single year.
Secondly, the only reason "democratic" corporations wouldn't work is because they would have to compete with others. EVEN so, they might be able to. It's ludicrous to say that a Democratic corporation couldn't compete (because of "inefficiency") with a Totalitarian one. That is just blanket guess statement. "That's why the guys up top run things". Are you kidding me? How does someone sucking up like 200 million a year sound for inefficiency? I think salaries that give a Democratic business model setup at least a fighting chance against its "more efficient" totalitarian counterpart.
..........
You don't seem to get it. The bottom line is that the corporate world is a cutthroat place, here's why. Imagine the time it takes to process a "bill" in a democratic environment vs an oligarchy. Obviously longer in the democratic environment. Meanwhile the oligarchy corporation has already signed off on the "bill" and is now reaping its rewards. Time is money in the world of businesses, where windows of opportunity are short, and need to be exploited quickly. A business that asked what every single one of it employees thought about a proposal wouldn't last a second in the market.
Besides, imagine if every business was democratic. The CEO makes more money than me? Fuck him I'm taking what I want, he can make the same amount as me even though he has 15x the utility. It essentially results in a mobocracy. Why work hard for the pay raise when you can simply voice your opinion and vote for it?? :/
You have to realize that this simply does not work.
Lastly, the whole point of production is to produce the most good for the most people. The best standard of living for everyone. It's not to crush the competition or even produce things the most efficiently. The whole purpose of society and economy is to make wealth for all in some workable way. The continued movement of wealth from the bottom to the top is not working and we will see more whining like those Occupying if it continues. Most everyone wants to work hard, earn money, live comfortably and support a family. To think that some, top 1% or top 5% are somehow deserving of 1000X the income of most of the population is retarded. NO one is that many more times productive.
I don't know what you're thinking at all. From a business prespective its the goal to produce as much as possible to make as much money a possible to put your competition in the government handout line. I'm sorry if you can't handle how ruthless the world can be.
Besides you claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, which I don't entirely believe. You need to consider the fact that there are more "poor" people in the market now simply because there are more young people in the workforce compared to years past. Young people obviously don't make as much as many more experienced people (Your 40 somethings) and that this is why that statistic is partially flawed. And on top of that the 40 somethings themselves are becoming well off because they are climbing their way up the ladder to more profitable positions.
They act faster (not better), yes.But are they more efficient? Afaik the only dictatorships that you could call rich have so many natural ressources that the goverment is actually not needed at all due to the natural richness of the country...
In reality dicatorships act quite to the contrary...
The "Dictator/CEO" of a country exploits the country/corporation as much as possible whiteout risking a revolt (or even with risking it), making himself and the ones close to him uber rich while the 08/15 worker/inhabitant gets "enough" to work/live on and "hold still".
HOW AND IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT EFFICIENT? With fair/sane payroll management corporations could/would make bigger winnings, not smaller ones...
Loans wand with that the financial sector wouldn't be as important because the corporations could/would use the money they fucking earned to build stuff instead of dumping the winnings in Private-Plane Nr. 3 for Mr. CEO or just to their "investors".....
Efficiency /= Fair Wealth Distribution
The system is efficient because it forces people to work for those moneymaking jobs by offering high compensation in exchange for a high skill set that betters the company, its customers, and its employees. How much the CEO makes vs the floor guy has nothing to do with how well the internal systems of the company operate, which I outlined above.
|
On October 20 2011 05:31 Pillage wrote:
Besides, imagine if every business was democratic. The CEO makes more money than me? Fuck him I'm taking what I want, he can make the same amount as me even though he has 15x the utility. It essentially results in a mobocracy. Why work hard for the pay raise when you can simply voice your opinion and vote for it?? :/
You have to realize that this simply does not work.
What are your standards for whether something "works" or "doesn't work"? When you say that a society where the main currency is cookies and the worker and CEO both earn the same amount of cookies "simply does not work", are you implying that what we have now DOES work? Because I don't really see the contrast.
The bottom line in your example is that any person who works in the company and the CEO are equals just by merit of being born in a civilized democratic country. They are equally worth, have equal rights and their living standards must be if not equal, then at the very least comparable and within reason.
On the other hand, why indeed would someone work harder for a minimal raise, under conditions that are unequal and unfair? Person who does this and is aware of it is willingly giving up his dignity, rights and ultimately freedom.
While I can understand and sympathize people who are simply too scared and want to keep their job at any cost to feed their family, people who actually promote this ruthless concept as an ideology and campaign for it are a different case altogether.
|
What are your standards for whether something "works" or "doesn't work"? When you say that a society where the main currency is cookies and the worker and CEO both earn the same amount of cookies "simply does not work", are you implying that what we have now DOES work? Because I don't really see the contrast.
Whether or not you advance through merit, that's what determines if a social system works or not.
The whole system of advancing by merit falls apart when you can simply vote to advance yourself. That's what I was trying to point out. It's that system that falls apart, unless you consider your example which is essentially a communist society where everyone is equal across the board.
The bottom line in your example is that any person who works in the company and the CEO are equals just by merit of being born in a civilized democratic country. They are equally worth, have equal rights and their living standards must be if not equal, then at the very least comparable and within reason.
Their rights in society may be equal, but their utility to the company can be miles apart.
On the other hand, why indeed would someone work harder for a minimal raise, under conditions that are unequal and unfair? Person who does this and is aware of it is willingly giving up his dignity, rights and ultimately freedom.
For more money. Greed is an insatiable entity. Otherwise if they're that unhappy they can seek work elsewhere.
While I can understand and sympathize people who are simply too scared and want to keep their job at any cost to feed their family, people who actually promote this ruthless concept as an ideology and campaign for it are a different case altogether.
You'll find that most systems sacrifice degrees of fairness and equality in order to achieve maximum results, and that the best results usually get in the way of the more ethical solutions. It's a fine balancing act for the PR people. You don't have to kid yourself when it comes to this, even though you may be revolted by it, its the way of the world, especially in places like China and India where they simply don't give a fuck about the dirt poor. This is what the western world has to compete against, so maybe now you can see why corners need to be cut to keep people working.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
i think we need to get to the real point of why there is a recession. its not because of bad home loans or banks its because of production. the USA does not produce enough goods to sell to other country's or in our own for that matter. the best thing you could do to get the united states going again isn't protesting on wall street its passing on things made in china and other cheap foreign goods. because if your supporting cheap goods your supporting your jobs being outsourced to someone else, and the income that it brings. that's my 5 cents. vote for Ron Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
