40 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

Could have put this back up in the other occupy thread, but I guess we can split things up. A truthout article if you have something against them, although this one is much more historical than political.

Linky

While many of us are working to ensure that the Occupy movement will have a lasting impact, it's worthwhile to consider other countries where masses of people succeeded in nonviolently bringing about a high degree of democracy and economic justice. Sweden and Norway, for example, both experienced a major power shift in the 1930s after prolonged nonviolent struggle. They "fired" the top 1 percent of people who set the direction for society and created the basis for something different. Both countries had a history of horrendous poverty. When the 1 percent was in charge, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated to avoid starvation. Under the leadership of the working class, however, both countries built robust and successful economies that nearly eliminated poverty, expanded free university education, abolished slums, provided excellent health care available to all as a matter of right and created a system of full employment. Unlike the Norwegians, the Swedes didn't find oil, but that didn't stop them from building what the latest CIA World Factbook calls "an enviable standard of living."

One thing worth mentioning here:

When workers formed unions in the early 1900s, they generally turned to Marxism, organizing for revolution as well as immediate gains. They were overjoyed by the overthrow of the czar in Russia, and the Norwegian Labor Party joined the Communist International organized by Lenin. Labor didn't stay long, however. One way in which most Norwegians parted ways with Leninist strategy was on the role of violence: Norwegians wanted to win their revolution through collective nonviolent struggle, along with establishing co-ops and using the electoral arena.

We've had a communist movement for a long, long time. But as it says, our political groups did not accept armed revolution or acquiring power through violence. Which I'd say was one of the smarter choices they've ever done.

And it is pretty close to what we see today in the occupy movements: Non-violent behavior and organization is the best agent for change. Once you start using violence to actively promote your goal, you become just like the previous rulers and no better than them.

Edited by duke_Qa, 31 January 2012 - 07:34 AM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

The protests however have begun to become violent.
The protests have largely been ignored by the wider public and relegated to a minor interest.
The only time it gets media attention is when there are arrests and/or violence.

[duke_Qa]

As mentioned in the OP article, there was a two year lull in the 1920s between open conflicts. That the occupy movement is getting less TV-time during winter with a Republican nomination going on is no surprise. I bet once the house starts to discuss funding for running the government, some crazy tea-party politician is going to block any attempt at compromise yet again and give the movement more free advertisement.

Anyway, Oakland has been one of the more bare knuckled occupations around, I dunno why but there seems to have been discontent for a while.
And this May In Chicago, there is a G8+NATO summit that they seem to be planning to drop by, which sounds like a good opportunity to get noticed to me.

Edited by duke_Qa, 31 January 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Not really G8 meetings are always protested fiercely and barely get a mention by the media.
Rich people meet and talk about being rich it's too be expected that the poor people complain although it's more like hippies since lets face it they are the majority of protesters and especially since the Occupy movement is a pretty weak movement that has no concrete goals.
You can't achieve jack shit unless you know what you are after.
Less money going into buying government sounds good but they've offered no way to actually achieve it.
As you can see I'm sceptical of the Occupy movement, I'm glad something is finally happening if only to give voice to the rage.

What would happen if the "1%" were to be removed from their positions they'd be replaced very quickly.
Ultimately the goal for the Occupy movement should be Governmental, Social, Education, Health and Fiscal reform.
To scrap everything and start again somehow I doubt a peaceful protest would achieve such radical goals.

[Elvenlord]

No concrete goals? Have you not been paying attention? They want to get the money out of politics and for money to stop deciding elections. I really don't understand people who seem to think they have no goals. You say they've offered no way for this happen? Why the hell do they need to? It's pretty simple. The people who wanted to end slavery never "offered" a way to free the slaves, they just said free the slaves. So it is with money. Just end the buying of politicians. It's not that hard.
As for weak? They have shaped the entire national conversation. They brought wealth distribution to the forefront. Remember Romney just releasing his tax returns a couple days ago? I doubt that would have been such a big deal if not for OWS informing the people.

Why don't you go read the article in the first post? It answers who will replace the 1%.

[Pasidon]

There are always these violent movements happening somewhere in the world with economies collapsing and common sense lacking... yet when something as simple as our internet is threatened, the chaos among the general public is profusely higher.

This is just more nonsense, obviously. My only real noteworthy opinion on this is that 'sticking it to the man' might be a common theme this year.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

No concrete goals? Have you not been paying attention? They want to get the money out of politics and for money to stop deciding elections. I really don't understand people who seem to think they have no goals. You say they've offered no way for this happen? Why the hell do they need to? It's pretty simple. The people who wanted to end slavery never "offered" a way to free the slaves, they just said free the slaves. So it is with money. Just end the buying of politicians. It's not that hard.

Abolition wasn't that cut and dry and neither is this.
You can't just wave a wand and magically resolve the issues at heart.
Money won't disappear from politics simply because a minority of people want it to.
Remember the Occupy movement is still a minority out of the 300 million or Americans the majority still apathetic.
The Occupy movement doesn't have a charismatic leader which is very important for a movement it provides leadership and focus.
The Occupy movement is simply a rabble of people dissatisfied over their lives it won't be a real movement until there's a real fire under them and realistic and achievable goals.
It will either find a leader and gain focus or more likely fizzle out with minor shallow compromises done by government to save face.

[duke_Qa]

Abolition wasn't that cut and dry and neither is this.
You can't just wave a wand and magically resolve the issues at heart.
Money won't disappear from politics simply because a minority of people want it to.
Remember the Occupy movement is still a minority out of the 300 million or Americans the majority still apathetic.
The Occupy movement doesn't have a charismatic leader which is very important for a movement it provides leadership and focus.
The Occupy movement is simply a rabble of people dissatisfied over their lives it won't be a real movement until there's a real fire under them and realistic and achievable goals.
It will either find a leader and gain focus or more likely fizzle out with minor shallow compromises done by government to save face.

1. no, but its not as cut and dry as you claim it is either.
2. Funny how magical a wand(youtube, twitter, facebook, etc etc) can be if you manage to hit the hearts and minds of people.
3. Politics is nothing but money, but who's in charge and how it's used, is dynamic.
4. You can multiply the numbers of occupiers that have been out in the streets by a hundred and you got a nice conservative number of people who are willing to sacrifice money and time for such a cause. multiply with 1 000-10 000 for people who are willing to vote in their direction.
5. Thats the beauty isn't it, a headless snake can't have its head chopped off or disgraced by one man. There will be figureheads, but as long as the common theme is simple and the cooperation is strong, it doesn't need leaders in a old-fashioned sense.
6. Rabble* . The fire is just around the corner I guess. The more idiocy the republicans act out on, the more power occupy gets. Another economic tremor in the world and the occupy movement explodes. An economic depression/new recession and the involuntary recruits for occupy would be in the millions within a week.
7. Still don't see the problem, The more trouble this economy gets into, the more power for occupy. The more focus their topics get in media, more politicians have to focus on it. There didn't use to be a counter-movement in the US against massive crony-capitalism and right-wing politics, but now there is, and people are paying attention to the options they suddenly have acquired.




* ("Rabble" deserved a PS: All our ancestors have sometime been rabble fighting against injustice in their time, we all have whores in our family trees. Anyone defining anyone as rabble deserves a intimate experience with a guillotine. The moment you call a group rabble I claim the right to call you an upper-class twit. )

Edited by duke_Qa, 31 January 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I think you are romantising the Occupy movement.
Do you honestly think anything will come of it?
Maybe it's the cynic in me I'm doubtful.
I don't this movement will do it it doesn't have the energy needed for change and probably for a while to come.
A movement like that may effect most countries but we're talking about the USA here a country that has resisted change for decades.
Do you think Corporations or Government care about it people are unlikely to change their habits now?
The big contributors are companies that make money from the average person everyday that's why they try and influence politics.
A boycott is hardly going to work when for instance all Oil companies are in the same game there's not much you can do to boycott them cars need fuel.
In American politics the people have no power, the stop SOPA campaign was successful because it happened on the internet where the people have the power.

My opinion on the OM has changed since it started it had promise at the start but not a damn thing has changed and no one really cares.

[Elvenlord]

I repeat. Much has changed already. OWS has shaped the national discussion. People are aware. That's a huge first step.
Furthermore, it's been what, 4 months? What has ever been done in 4 months? Civil Rights took over a decade. It may take something more, but this is only the beginning.

[duke_Qa]

I think you are romantising the Occupy movement.
Do you honestly think anything will come of it?
Maybe it's the cynic in me I'm doubtful.

As Elvenlord says, the awareness. That's the key here. The awakening metaphor is very nice, as people have realized now that they don't have to choose between the devil and the deep-blue sea. You are cynical because you've been given those two fake choices since the 70s, you rather not make a choice. Which is fine with those giving you the choices since they don't have to worry about you then. But now, people have started asking the right questions and demanding better choices, and that is what counts.

A movement like that may effect most countries but we're talking about the USA here a country that has resisted change for decades.
Do you think Corporations or Government care about it people are unlikely to change their habits now?

You assume they have a say in this? Governments are for people, and corporations are ruled over by governments just as people are. With or without corporate personhood. The American election system has like what, 50% turn-up? What if you suddenly got 70% and those 20% voted progressive candidates? thats a 25/45, or 35% republican/TP and 65% democrat/occupier, a massive landslide.

Politicians have forgotten why they have gotten elected in the states, and I heavily suspect they now have to go "populist" if they want to stay in their comfy positions. as Elvenlord mentions, Great changes have been done in longer time in the US.

A boycott is hardly going to work when for instance all Oil companies are in the same game there's not much you can do to boycott them cars need fuel.
In American politics the people have no power, the stop SOPA campaign was successful because it happened on the internet where the people have the power.

My opinion on the OM has changed since it started it had promise at the start but not a damn thing has changed and no one really cares.

Fuel is fuel, and you can always find someone who sells outside the syndicates if you are motivated enough. Big banks have lost tens of thousands of customers because the OM have asked people to go over to alternatives outside Citibank and all the other monoliths. They are feeling the pain, and new businesses are growing out of the havoc. New businesses with pro-occupy sentiment and pro-union attitudes are gaining fertile ground. putting down your money with someone else than the monoliths is the answer here.

You seem to be impatient about progress. As mentioned above, this just started. Gaddafi wasn't overthrown in 4 months, it took 8-9, and that was full scale civil war with western air-support and special forces. This is a non-violent movement with a core truth that is beyond military or political defeat. People are saying "this is not the way" and have (the last numbers I heard) 40% sympathy with the general populace compared to the 15-25% of TP's which have some of the same problems but idiotic solutions. Things have changed and they will change more.

[Nertea]

It's got enough momentum that Obama used it in his State of the Union speech, and looks like he'll be playing that card in the election.

If you're following the blithering idiots rampaging their way through the Republican nominations, it's even appearing there, though I doubt any of them will ever admit it (Gringrich attacking Rommey for having tons and tons of money, being out of touch, etc). If Rommey wins the primaries, you can bet that Obama will use that for all its worth.

Thing about the occupy people is that as Duke mentions with the election attendance, they're worth more. Your average election attendance is 50%, a person who is in the movement, or even agrees with the goals of the movement is FAR more likely to vote, making them a strong electoral faction. They are an interested, non-apathetic party that will use available methods. So they, at the very least, have to be played towards.

Edited by Nertea, 01 February 2012 - 12:59 AM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

But there's no reason for the the politicians to even listen to them, they could ignore their votes completely if they wanted.
Which is a part of the problem the US political system is outdated and can easily be corrupted from holds overs from the time before cars.

The best way for the Occupy movement to achieve goals is to call for a referendum on political reform and as far as I know they haven't pushed for one.
Instead going with the vague "fix the government" idea which isn't a bad idea it's just not very well thought through.
If they really want to successfully change the way things are done they will have to come up with a practical solution.
No point complaining if you aren't going to anything about it, at the moment they are only complaining.
If the goals aren't well thought out and they do manage to change things there's a chance they could set up something worse in the future.

Instead of a protest movement they'd have a better chance as a political movement.

[duke_Qa]

They've come with plenty of demands that are pretty practical and would solve a lot of the problems people have with the electoral system. Forcing elections to be less about the amount of cash you can juice into it and more about what the politician is really about is a good start. Reinstating Glass-Steagal in some manner would be another, having the federal reserve under public control would be a big step. Reducing the ability of lobbyists to allure with cash and post-electorate lobbying jobs in a revolving door of cronyism would also help.

Here's a pie that does it better:

Instead of a protest movement they'd have a better chance as a political movement.

The trick is that you don't want to insert yourself into the same old system, you want to mold the system before you embrace it. Going into political movement off the bat right now would de-fang the movement. It's better to work outside the box in this case to make your case for change heard.

[Nertea]

But there's no reason for the the politicians to even listen to them, they could ignore their votes completely if they wanted.

The point is that they are now on track to NOT ignore them.

Seriously, the thing that's going to bring Rommey down when he eventually goes up for the election is going to be his comments that $400k a year "isn't that much money". If his fellow Republicans are using it as a talking point,you can bet that the Democrats are going to go full steam ahead on exploiting it to their advantage.

That said, it's going to do nothing, considering how bought the system is right now. Still, there might be time early in the election to kill a couple of the nastier things. As a start, I'd like to see that law that allows a corporation to donate unlimited funds to a political campaign to go. Corporate personhood should also get ditched. End lobbying and anonymous political donations (not sure on how to accomplish one).

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

But what politician would ever push to essentially have their pay drastically cut?
Those donations are essentially their summer homes.
As long as there's this much money going into politics it's highly unlikely that a legitimate candidate could even try and push for change.
They'd basically just get buried by the opponents.

[duke_Qa]

They'll cut their pay or they'll have no job, if the people demands something and the politicians refuse to do it, they'll get replaced.

Who can defend the smothering of democracy with "but my summer-house, it needs corporate money to be maintained :(". We are not meant to be servants of those we've elected, they are meant to be our servants.

Edited by duke_Qa, 02 February 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Ash]

All the politicians have to do, or will ever do, is say "Yes we hear you and we'll put measures in place to help."

The pickets and the protesters and the "great unwashed" will all go home and then there'll be a little media currying with titbits like "oh look at this bill that I put forward that other politicians didn't like - they're the reason it didn't happen!" or that there will be an "independent review".

And then nothing will happen, except that things will carry on the same as they ever did, and nobody at the bottom gets any better off.

I guarantee you, give it another three months and everyone will have forgotten about the Occupy movement.

[duke_Qa]

Ever the optimist I see

Bread and circus is required for that to continue. If the politicians are short-sighted and incompetent enough, they are unable to provide us with that. That is what happened in 2008, and a sea of change in public perception has flooded over the world since then. Worst case scenario is that the economy smooths out the next 6 months and these people fade back out. Obama would then win the election and some few things might go in a positive direction. Better case scenario is that we get another economic tremor and people get frenzied again.

It's a win-win situation. As long as we have Internet and free communication, things are bound to change.

[Ash]

I don't see that the Internet has done a great deal for the improvement of society in RL, save for to allow people to find better quotes for their car insurance or holidays, or perhaps have an easier time with their homework.

It certainly hasn't prompted the great leap forward toward a utopia that you purport.