40 replies to this topic

[Elvenlord]

There was that whole Arab Spring thing.

Also, this.
Basically, the movement to overturn Citizen's United is growing, and I would attribute that to the action of OWS.

[duke_Qa]

Remember, the internet didn't become mainstream before youtube and facebook. We were the nerdy sweaty pioneers who laid down the virtual railroads for the masses

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

http://www.sanders.s...a4-ec2c39342c6c
This is interesting a politician doing some good, far more than the shitty sit-in OWS.

[Elvenlord]

While Bernie Sanders is generally awesome, notice this came after OWS. Which probably means he was influenced by it, which is exactly the point of OWS. I don't know what more you want. Armed revolution?

[Pasidon]

Isn't that how these things always turn out?

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I want more than just sitting around and whining.
Why aren't people running as independents, raising money and lobbying politicians.
Basically trying harder to influence the people in charge instead of wasting time with the regular people.
The general public have limited say on laws and policies since politicians "represent" their constitutes and can essentially make their own calls on a matter.
The power of the people is in the vote but who do you vote for when both parties are kowtowing to everyone but the people they are supposed to represent.
To be effective the people have to recreate their own power while I wouldn't call for revolution they should call for a referendum on something like Bernie is pushing.

[Elvenlord]

Hi
Lobbying is part of what they're fighting against, why would they themselves do it?

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Did you read the comments on the article?
Oh yeah this is the guy's twitter-

Because it's clearly effective and the best way to get your voice heard.
The aim shouldn't be to remove lobbying but to remove the huge cash bribes.

[Elvenlord]

Yes. Since when do we care what people on facebook say? I mean really. That's all you could come up with?

They're pretty much the same thing. Yes yes, there are supposed to be differences, but at this point whoever has the most money can do it best.

[Pasidon]

Why aren't people running as independents, raising money and lobbying politicians.

Because the rent is too damn high.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Yes. Since when do we care what people on facebook say? I mean really. That's all you could come up with?

These are the regular people you know voters.
The idea is to pitch credible candidates who would actually have a chance at winning.

I'm starting to wonder how good support for the OCW really is my guess it will continue to drop.

[Elvenlord]

Look at what they're saying. They wouldn't support anything that's not ultra-conservative. There's nothing OWS could do that would earn their support, short of kicking out the gays and begging for lower taxes for a bigger military.

[duke_Qa]

No point in trying to grab them with right-wing rhetoric. Those that are able to see that the OWS movement is capable of bringing change that is positive will be convinced. The rest will just try to bend it their way, and then they'll vote someone else anyway.

I'd hoped someone in the US would arrange a pro-OWS concert, aka live-aid back in the 80s. That would have been a interesting media event that would go far.

edit: Fascinating article about Rules of political engagement, avoiding cynicism, accepting that there will be resistance, etc etc. good read, the sixth one is even relevant for my current political situation IRL.

Edited by duke_Qa, 04 February 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I'd hoped someone in the US would arrange a pro-OWS concert, aka live-aid back in the 80s. That would have been a interesting media event that would go far.

The funny thing being that anyone wothy of bringing the numbers would be in the 1%

[Puppeteer]

edit: Fascinating article about Rules of political engagement, avoiding cynicism, accepting that there will be resistance, etc etc. good read, the sixth one is even relevant for my current political situation IRL.

I may be breaking rule number 2, but how are those tenets any different from the orthodox American creed of optimism?
These tenets have been the rules for the 1% for decades now. And this appropriation by the 99% is hardly new or revolutionary. If anything, it's conceding to the same frameworks of economy and ethos.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I was just thinking.
The Occupy movement is happening mostly in the US the world's richest country by the 1% of the US who still have more money than the vast majority of the world's population.
You don't see the people of Bangladesh occupying.
When you also think about it we are talking about lower-middle class people complaining about upper-middle and upper class people's money.
The lower class would be too busy actually working or trying to find work.
This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy these protests aren't the working poor so much as an excuse to complain.
There's even an Occupy Melbourne protest in Australia of all places country with one of the best standards of living the world.
I'd rather be poor in a rich country than wealthy in a poor country.
With every passing day I find myself more opposed and more disgusted at this whole thing.

[duke_Qa]

Not sure if serious...

Smacks of hypocrisy? This is the most anti-hypocritical movement I've seen in my lifetime. It bases itself off information we now have easy access to, it points out the flaws in a system we've created on our own. Are you saying that we, the creators of modern capitalism, don't have the right to change it again? Who has the right then?

You are leaving your voice and opinion to be abused by the rich and powerful, who cares nothing for the free market. They want a biased market, they want monopolized markets that they can squeeze as much money out of as possible. They want a market where they can buy out smaller competitive firms, slice them up, fire their employees, and take the surplus into their own private bank accounts. Short sighted greed capitalism.

And saying that since we've lived well of the system takes away our right to fight for change in it? What kind of suicidal belief is that? Yes, we have done better than many others. yes, we've kept our mouths shut when abuse has been done in the name of profit. For me, the true hypocrisy is to keep our mouths shut as we see ourselves doing something wrong. By saying "oh we are so hypocritical, we are biting the hand that feeds", you are showing your submissiveness to your owners. The hand that feeds got filled by our labor, goodwill and honor. If they didn't have our support they would have never gotten anywhere. You can't do business on the global scale we see today if there is no civilization or society.

Hypocrisy is to stay silent and eat the scraps they throw under the table for us, instead of getting angry and doing our best to provoke positive changes.

I'd rather be poor in a rich country than wealthy in a poor country.

Funny, those two are not exclusive of each-other. I'd rather be rich in a rich and socially rich country than poor in a socially poor country.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

You are leaving your voice and opinion to be abused by the rich and powerful, who cares nothing for the free market. They want a biased market, they want monopolized markets that they can squeeze as much money out of as possible. They want a market where they can buy out smaller competitive firms, slice them up, fire their employees, and take the surplus into their own private bank accounts. Short sighted greed capitalism.

That's not one of their goals to fix.
Maybe you are just into anti-establishmentism like so many in the movement.
It's not so much about striving for equality as it is fighting against the machine.

The issue of separating money from politics and dissolving corporate personhood rights (partially) don't need a movement it just needs legislation which could be brought in by people asking their local reps lobbying them for change.
As you said that's how people have their power yet I haven't heard of anyone pushing for that approach.
A large part of the anti SOPA campaign was people contacted their reps.

Standing around public places and singing songs and carrying around pickets isn't going to do jackshit.

[duke_Qa]

So once you say "something's wrong with the system", you become anti-establishment/anarchist? Whats wrong with being critical about something that you see isn't working? Seems that you think fighting against the machine is something you do just to break it down. That's what tea-party people do, they blame government and try to go "anarcho-libertarian", which would be worse than the crappy system that runs right now. The system needs a chemotherapy, not a bullet to the head.

The issue of separating money from politics and dissolving corporate personhood rights (partially) don't need a movement it just needs legislation which could be brought in by people asking their local reps lobbying them for change.
As you said that's how people have their power yet I haven't heard of anyone pushing for that approach.
A large part of the anti SOPA campaign was people contacted their reps.

Standing around public places and singing songs and carrying around pickets isn't going to do jackshit.

A movement gets things done, it gets attention, it gives people a social circle to share the load with. People can't fight corporations, movements can. People can't get bought media's attention, movements can.

Occupy have been in contact with plenty of politicians, and they do their own lobbying. They've, as mentioned before in this thread, radically changed the focus of media and politicians in the few months they've been active, which is a victory beyond anything anyone could hope to imagine. Yet you think all they've done has been a failure. I'd guess you are just looking for excuses to defend your previous beliefs on how the world works, instead of being proven wrong by a bunch of "meddling kids" and "hippies", that you've believe has nothing good to say about anything, for some reason.

edit: This video, on top of being critical of Obama from a progressive point of view, points out the flawed right-wing imbalance that the US system got. Obama thinks he's playing on the 40-yard line, but the truth is he's on the 10-yard line, and no matter what he does, he won't appease the right-wingers.

Edited by duke_Qa, 06 February 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

So once you say "something's wrong with the system", you become anti-establishment/anarchist?

No once you shift from the real subject matter which is corporate interference and opposition of the recent Supreme Court ruling and start saying that all corporations are evil
and start saying things like "they".
"They" should be "us" we all should take the blame instead of pushing it onto the nearest target even if it is justified.
The US citizenry holds some responsibility for their general political apathy the fact that it's taken this long for any sort of movement or protest is pathetic when you consider how long these issues have been present.
Instead of vaguely shouting for change they should provide a credible alternative and a means to achieve other wise even if successful the movement will achieve nothing but quick fixes and shallow compromise.
They should be pushing for a referendum on major governmental reform in the US but that's unlikely to happen because the US as a whole is highly resistant to change and quite possibly to damn lazy.

Occupying landmarks is a stupid and ineffective idea what do they hope to achieve by sitting on their asses?

But anything can say from now on is just going to be repeating myself.

If it was a legit movement they'd be arguing for wiping foreign debt form impoverished countries, raising the minimum wage, reforming the education system, improving health care, setting up programs for the poor areas and trying to create new jobs things that could do some real good.