#Occupywallstreet >

[clifford_-]

im woefully under-qualified to be talking about this. i should of kept my mouth shut. obviously companies need to make a profit to stay companies, otherwise theyd go under...
but when they are making billions in profit, and their ceos are absolutely ROLLING in cash, it does make me think something isnt right. especially when there is so much poverty in the world.


(djs shouldnt give a shit about crowd response btw, they should do what they do because they enjoy it imo, but thats subjective...)

[magma]

im woefully under-qualified to be talking about this. i should of kept my mouth shut. obviously companies need to make a profit to stay companies, otherwise theyd go under...
but when they are making billions in profit, and their ceos are absolutely ROLLING in cash, it does make me think something isnt right. especially when there is so much poverty in the world.


(djs shouldnt give a shit about crowd response btw, they should do what they do because they enjoy it imo, but thats subjective...)

I got what you meant and it was on point... I just made the edit after AllNightDayDream misunderstood it. The idea that massive company profits producing high GDPs are more connected to the health of the nation than how many people can afford to live dignified lives is fucking disgusting, tbh. Compare SIR Phillip Green to the average shelf stacker in Top Shop.

tnuc.

[AllNightDayDream]

"Computer says yes" made me lol

People have been talking a few years now, And I think the solutions are already there. I've talked at length about them before on the board, so i'll skip that. For decades now, economics professors have been worried about the state of their study and the teaching of ideas that were refuted by their own authors and solutions that we've known for 80 years now but seem to have forgotten. Their books are now bestsellers. On another point, even powerful people like bernanke make a clear distinction between financial markets and the "real economy" (his words). The institutions who have committed fraud and infringed on regulations are in fact being persecuted, but the punishment is essentially a parking ticket for them.

And I don't get why you're criticizing GDP measures, it's a crucial indicator like most other ones. You can't create jobs unless there is that market demand and it's been held true that a GDP that grows at a certain rate indicates sustainable growth in employment.

But back to the topic, all of these issues are economic and won't be solved by cultural movements or drum circle parties at Bloomberg's house. It doesn't matter if you have 99% of the population nodding their head to your talking points, there has to be real political action. Gathering thousands of people in the most powerful economic districts of the world to have a "conversation" seems like an awful waste of time and resources. Lots of protestors are even worried that politicians are going to get involved which is the opposite direction of real change, assuming the problems it seeks to address are economic.

And all this talk about media bias is complete bullshit. Every time I flip on the news channels there is always some reference to the movement in any discussion of politics and economics, even on the conservative business channels, so the media is not ignoring it. I've seen at least a few segments now of montages of protestors voicing their grievances, and they are all vastly different. MSNBC is essentially licking the movement's nutsack. Every time some protestors gets maced or hit with a baton it explodes all over the networks. The world has handed them the microphone but they are just crying and whining about shit and not telling people what needs to be done.

[kay]

I'm not so certain that some of these issues can't be solved by cultural movements. I think it is ONE way of getting there. Of course, there are other equally valid ways of doing so. I don't see why they all have to be exclusive. Not everyone does or understand things the same way. For any change of this sort to be effective, the majority of the populace of any country needs to buy into it.

However, I think the other ways that are discussed generally involve invoking regulations to force change down corporations/bosses throats. While these routes may be quicker to show a result, unless implemented worldwide simultaneously they won't really do anything apart from pushing corporations to move to other countries that care less about equality, and essentially making the situation even worse in the countries they pull out of.

Changing culture, on the other hand, will take a long time. But it will be more permanent, pervasive and insidious. And eventually, today's CEOs will all be dead and a new generation will replace them. If the new generation have the right culture and mindset, then the gap between rich/poor, boss/worker might move in the right direction. This is yet another form of equality that could go alongside strides that we as a global community have made over racism, gender bias, homophobism, etc.

[AllNightDayDream]

Business execs don't care about the cultural feelings of people. Stripping down of regulations is what brought on the economic crisis to begin with, and the only way out is to place those restrictions back, among other things. The U.S.A. is the largest economy in the world. Companies aren't going to leave simply because we make them play safe.

I still don't get at all how you can think a change in culture can change income equality, or change bad business practices. There is only one entity the people can use to dictate the economy and that's government regulation.

I mean the most influential cultural movement of recent history, the hippie movement, didn't achieve jack shit in real terms. That movement lasted decades. It became style over substance, which is what this movement is in danger of becoming.

[kay]

Because there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Anyway, anyone watched Ian Hislop's: When Bankers Were Good tonight on BBC2? I found it to be quite an enjoyable watch.

[pompende]

What mentality are we supposed to grow out of? What are the ends of this struggle? What cultural changes are going to make a difference?

Seeing as it's called occupy wall street I figure the underlying issue is an economic one. How is anything other than a change in government policy going to affect that?

you could always go to a GA and find out for yourself... or you can find answers to all those questions at literally dozens of websites without getting your deck shoes scuffed.

[magma]

What mentality are we supposed to grow out of? What are the ends of this struggle? What cultural changes are going to make a difference?

Seeing as it's called occupy wall street I figure the underlying issue is an economic one. How is anything other than a change in government policy going to affect that?

you could always go to a GA and find out for yourself... or you can find answers to all those questions at literally dozens of websites without getting your deck shoes scuffed.

Are you mad? It's clearly enough trouble to read a forum post properly, let alone actually WALK somewhere and TALK to people.

[AllNightDayDream]

Magma, your post basically said the movement is about starting a "conversation", and i've yet to hear a good answer as to how that's going to solve anything. I'm only asking that these protestors, including those here who actually go to them, look at the previous movements that actually achieved something and you roll your eyes and generalize how everyone who is against the protests are this or that.

I went once to a local protest here in town. It was pleasant, we had conversations with policemen about politics and that was about it. I've talked to people who've been to the general assemblies in new york and were subsequently arrested. He tells me he was disappointed at the general assemblies because they simply handle the meaningless minutiae of the occupation's logistics and never tackled real issues other than agreeing with each other how bad they are oppressed and how greedy corporations are. I've read those ridiculous laundry lists, i've seen plenty interviews, heard plenty of defenses, there is coverage of it anywhere but still there is no solidarity on what needs to be done, what the movement is actually for. You might as well replace every occupy sign with "for display only" because that's all this movement looks to be.

[pkay]

I think most occupy folks are afraid to get centralized as it may then be suspect to corruption. The anonymous influence and disorganization keeps it decentralized and pure in one aspect but is also probably the root of its ineffectiveness.

[pompende]

Magma, your post basically said the movement is about starting a "conversation", and i've yet to hear a good answer as to how that's going to solve anything. I'm only asking that these protestors, including those here who actually go to them, look at the previous movements that actually achieved something and you roll your eyes and generalize how everyone who is against the protests are this or that.

I went once to a local protest here in town. It was pleasant, we had conversations with policemen about politics and that was about it. I've talked to people who've been to the general assemblies in new york and were subsequently arrested. He tells me ...

hmmmmm and what is this "conversation" accomplishing? magma wants to talk pragmatically, you want to prove how clever and independent you are.

yes. some people at these protests are doing it for the wrong reasons or are poorly informed. but writing the "movement" off is like writing off everyone on this forum because of skrillex.

there are some very well informed people involved in these protests who have learned some powerful lessons from a hundred years of documented non-violent disobedience: clearly one of the objectives of these occupations is to bait the powers-that-be into violently silencing peaceful free speech in order to rally public support. it has been since the first day of OWS. the lt pike meme isn't a random gift or a fluke, it's just another bulletpoint on a long list of victories.

i know why you're mad. there's are a lot of ignorant stnuc out there with enormous egos. but why not help inch things in the right direction? sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason.

you clearly aren't happy with how your government works now. and there's only one thing to do about that: change it. the generation above us isn't going to suddenly change its mind about things, and you aren't getting any younger. its time to take responsibility for your life and the world you live in.

[magma]

Magma, your post basically said the movement is about starting a "conversation", and i've yet to hear a good answer as to how that's going to solve anything. I'm only asking that these protestors, including those here who actually go to them, look at the previous movements that actually achieved something and you roll your eyes and generalize how everyone who is against the protests are this or that.

How can you have aims that represent the majority of people when the majority of people haven't engaged yet? At this stage, conversation is everything. The only thing everyone agrees on (and I assume you'd not find problem with this) is that something must be done. It may take years to get enough people interested and engaged enough to actually form a political party or even influence the existing political parties.

As a comparison, it took the "Labour Movement" about 10 years to become the "Labour Party" and start standing for seats (far longer if you take the Chartists as they're real starting point... several decades). That was 120 years ago, so perhaps we can move quicker these days, but it's certainly unreasonable to be complaining after 2 months.

It's as if you want a Messiah to show himself and take control of the movement. That's not what it's about. At this stage it's about pulling everyone together so that we're all on the same page of our economic conversation... as you might've been able to tell from my post above, it's a little more simple than writing a banner saying "SMASH CAPITALISM" or even sitting on the other side and dismissing people as "hippies" or "anti-capitalists"... right now we need as many people as possible to get involved and SHAPE the movement. It's not ready for demands yet... we're still collating the disaffected so that the movement can be shaped in all our image rather than just the few that are onboard so far.

That's why it's the 99%, because we're not letting ourselves be led by the first guy who thinks he's smart enough. We're waiting until we have actual majority consensus in order to effect real change. It must happen slowly. It must happen right. Too often these sorts of things get hijacked by extremists, rioters and hippies with no clue how the real world works... this needs to be different, so it takes a lot of time and care.

I'm sorry if that sounds like a lot of effort.

[wub]

Romani ite domum!

[pkay]

well to contrast, it didn't take the tea party very long to become a powerhouse in US politics because while there is no central leader, leaders did emerge.

I'd imagine the ultimate end game in all of this would be politics more representative of the people which ultimately will require representatives

[magma]

well to contrast, it didn't take the tea party very long to become a powerhouse in US politics because while there is no central leader, leaders did emerge.

I'd imagine the ultimate end game in all of this would be politics more representative of the people which ultimately will require representatives

Certainly, but that's the aim of all democratic movements isn't it? Changing politicians opinions takes longer than the people, but it must naturally follow... we've already talked about how long it took to have men support the right of women to vote in Parliament (our most famous leader, Winston Churchill, was still against it for various reasons in the 1920s)

Becoming a "powerhouse" isn't just limited to having any effect, whether it be something constructive or merely destroying the party of opposition. Have the Tea Party actually made any functional changes/improvements to America in their ~2 years? (Still a fair bit longer than Occupy's had..) They've certainly not made it much more difficult for Obama to get re-elected... they've almost guaranteed his second term!

They also had a ready-made starting position by already being aligned to a political party. They were always an offshoot of the Republicans, not a movement in their own right. Their only task was to push existing Republicans further to the right... and their main 'success' stories seem to have been as much interested in the pure celebrity of being a politician as they are the actual politics... Occupy isn't an offshoot of a political party or a get-rich-quick scheme for people who'd otherwise be heading the PTA... it doesn't fall under the heading of Democrats/Labour/Liberals, it's a whole new movement and so clearly will take more time than the Tea Party to become 'functional'.

To compare the two 'movements' is deeply shortsighted.

[AllNightDayDream]

there are some very well informed people involved in these protests who have learned some powerful lessons from a hundred years of documented non-violent disobedience: clearly one of the objectives of these occupations is to bait the powers-that-be into violently silencing peaceful free speech in order to rally public support. it has been since the first day of OWS. the lt pike meme isn't a random gift or a fluke, it's just another bulletpoint on a long list of victories.

Absolutely, that's a winning strategy. But gaining support is only half the battle. Every successful political movement, whether it be the civil rights movement, labor movement, suffrage movement, indian independence, bolshevik, tea party, jacobi, etc. etc. had competent leaders and management the masses could look up to for direction. They would get deeply involved in politics, looking for support giving their support. This movement prides itself on doing neither of those things, and that's the inherent flaw in it. That's why it looks so superficial. You can muster up as much popular support and stir as much conversation as you'd like, but unless you're a driven, organized movement with an end game, you're just a big crowd of loud angry people, no more no less. It seems plenty of people are satisfied with that.

you clearly aren't happy with how your government works now. and there's only one thing to do about that: change it. the generation above us isn't going to suddenly change its mind about things, and you aren't getting any younger. its time to take responsibility for your life and the world you live in.

I'm the one not being pragmatic? This sounds nice and all, but preaching about change and responsibility doesn't achieve either of those. People seem content with sitting around disrupting society just to spout some rhetoric.

It's as if you want a Messiah to show himself and take control of the movement.

In a roundabout way, that's exactly what needs to happen.

That's not what it's about

And that's my problem. It's awesome that you would want to eventually form a political body but can you honestly say that about the general feeling of the movement? How much support do you think it'll lose when people within the movement will point to a handful of savvy men in suits and say "these people represent us, give them your money, give them your vote"? Or even when a central group of people try to tell the movement as a whole what it should or shouldn't do? It's not just some radical fringe group, it's a central tenet of the movement that "that's not what it's about". It's just so typical of our generation to look at things in such a superficial light.

I'm not writing anything off, I want the movement to succeed, but it's funny that a little criticism deems me "unpragmatic" while the solutions given are more rhetoric and more "conversation". I'm worried about the future of liberal ideas in the western world. Next year is election year, and this is what we have to show for it? Shitting on cop cars, drum circle parties at the bloombergs, heaps of trash that are only cleaned up under the threat of force, hundreds of jazz hands agreeing how oppressed the western people are, democratic assemblies taking hours to decide if drummers need thousands of dollars? You tell me to look up their list of demands on their dozens of websites and I want to ask, have you? I have looked deeper than a few websites, and what I see deeply concerns me.

[AllNightDayDream]

Becoming a "powerhouse" isn't just limited to having any effect, whether it be something constructive or merely destroying the party of opposition. Have the Tea Party actually made any functional changes/improvements to America in their ~2 years? (Still a fair bit longer than Occupy's had..) They've certainly not made it much more difficult for Obama to get re-elected... they've almost guaranteed his second term!

They also had a ready-made starting position by already being aligned to a political party. They were always an offshoot of the Republicans, not a movement in their own right. Their only task was to push existing Republicans further to the right... and their main 'success' stories seem to have been as much interested in the pure celebrity of being a politician as they are the actual politics... Occupy isn't an offshoot of a political party or a get-rich-quick scheme for people who'd otherwise be heading the PTA... it doesn't fall under the heading of Democrats/Labour/Liberals, it's a whole new movement and so clearly will take more time than the Tea Party to become 'functional'.

What, and you don't think occupy is a potential offshoot of democratic/labour party? That a positive goal wouldn't be to push politics to the left?

Honestly you couldn't say any of those things if you've actually payed attention to american politics. Tea partiers almost caused the united states to default and effectively downgraded our bonds, among other things, and obama's second term is anything but "guaranteed".

To compare the two 'movements' is deeply shortsighted.

To ignore the revealing contrasts is deeply short-sighted.

[pkay]

i think comparing the tea party and occupy is fairly accurate.

I'd hope most occupy folks ultimate goal is to have people in power to represent them and their idea.

As fucking lame and inbred as the tea party is they were remarkably effective in a very short time.

[pkay]

To ignore the revealing contrasts is deeply short-sighted.

the tea party started out as "tea party style" protests. not as an actual party


If someone run as an Occupation Party candidate I think you'd see very similar results as far as a few rogue wins here and there

[kay]

Becoming a "powerhouse" isn't just limited to having any effect, whether it be something constructive or merely destroying the party of opposition. Have the Tea Party actually made any functional changes/improvements to America in their ~2 years? (Still a fair bit longer than Occupy's had..) They've certainly not made it much more difficult for Obama to get re-elected... they've almost guaranteed his second term!

They also had a ready-made starting position by already being aligned to a political party. They were always an offshoot of the Republicans, not a movement in their own right. Their only task was to push existing Republicans further to the right... and their main 'success' stories seem to have been as much interested in the pure celebrity of being a politician as they are the actual politics... Occupy isn't an offshoot of a political party or a get-rich-quick scheme for people who'd otherwise be heading the PTA... it doesn't fall under the heading of Democrats/Labour/Liberals, it's a whole new movement and so clearly will take more time than the Tea Party to become 'functional'.

What, and you don't think occupy is a potential offshoot of democratic/labour party? That a positive goal wouldn't be to push politics to the left?

It definitely isn't an offshoot of the labour party in the UK. Don't know about the US, all politicians seem to require too much entanglement with corporations for "donations" for either party to come through particularly cleanly in any election.