#Occupywallstreet >

[deadly_habit]

the idea of socialism taking root in the us after capitalism has been the system for so many years is kind of ridiculously optimistic. hell something so basic as socialized health care is a big issue, that and a lot of the social programs as they stand now are flawed as hell (ie: not being able to get any cleaning products with food stamps).

[pkay]

i dont think pure socialism will ever take hold in the US due to the brainwashing we all experienced as children

[deadly_habit]

i dont think pure socialism will ever take hold in the US due to the brainwashing we all experienced as children

pretty much this
what i'm glad about this movement is that people in this generation, despite this spurring from twitter are realizing that all the facebook groups and e-petitions don't do a damn thing and that actually going out and protesting gets more attention. i love that people are getting together collectively to air their grievances with the current government status quo, financial situation/corporate greed, wars, etc. what i disagree with is the unwillingness to let political parties and figures get involved more directly as that would be the best way to bring about change more directly. i just hope this wakes up some of the people who never have voted and makes them more aware of how bipartisan politics aren't working and encourages more turnout for third party options, and that partaking in a system despite if you think it's broken is the only way to change it.

[dreamizm]

Look, Socialism is NEVER going to take route in the Western World, it would take generations and generations of upheaval, protest and discontent with the current system and even then it wouldn't be a conscious choice it would be the only option left.

On the relative differences between US, UK, NZ capitalism it is probably better to talk about 'free market economics' then capitalism per se and - as magma said - then you look into which markets are more, or less, regulated; the US being at one end of the scale and these protests (I would imagine) being about moving us in the other direction.

[-[2]DAY_-]

i think the protests at the core are more about value than regulation. as in, why are certain jobs valued so highly by our society that we allow them to earn wages that are thousands of times higher than the wage of a blue collar office drone or skilled manual laborer... you know, the wage gap. Most protesters don't even know what Dodd-Frank is. We're more interested in deciding that if these "1%" folks don't add value to our society equal to or greater than what they're taking from it, well.. make them stop, and divert their resources to school teachers and utility workers and shit. the people who actually build America, rather than destroy it

[magma]

Indeed. Socialism isn't the antithesis of capitalism, it's the inevitable, better developed version of it.

Ding Ding Ding.

Socialism is already being used across the entire western world. We all have socialised militaries. We all have socialised education. The idea that the US can't do socialism is hilariously misguided. It has done socialism ever since it's collected taxes and run an army with them. Pkay was (is?) an employee of a socialist institution.

Our generation's mission (if we choose to accept it) is not to scrap everything and replace it with something completely different, it's to sort out the utter clusterfuck our parents (and some grandparents) created and make sure it's a shit load fairer by the time our kids are working 9 to 5 and paying taxes. We believe in capitalism. We believe in free enterprise. We believe in profit. We believe in socialism.

Every generation moves society forward to an extent. Some get the big headlines like ending slavery, getting women the vote, ending apartheid or liberating Tahrir Square... some, like ours, are a little bit less glamorous. It doesn't mean our problems don't need addressing. It doesn't mean we get to shirk our responsibility to each other. It doesn't mean now isn't the time.

The more people that get involved the more the message will reflect the people.

[kay]

What about education's role in all this? As in actually educating people about what's going on, how the system isn't working, etc? Protests aren't always easy to follow because the messages can often be very diluted/confusing once you get past the main banner slogan.

[jugo]

What about education's role in all this? As in actually educating people about what's going on, how the system isn't working, etc?

the system has never 'worked' - somebody always ends up worse off than another in any human grouping.

i'm sure in a group of early cavemen, sitting around a fire after a hunt, there was one thinking 'how come he's got more meat than me?' and another thinking 'why should i share?'

any system for living in a group has always been addressing this conflict of interests.

in this analogy wall street is a fat caveman hogging all the meat, and we're all scrabbling for leftovers.
the occupy movement is sitting next to him letting us know how greedy he is, but we know he's not going to give it up without a fight.



*shambles off dragging knuckles on the ground*

[magma]

What about education's role in all this? As in actually educating people about what's going on, how the system isn't working, etc? Protests aren't always easy to follow because the messages can often be very diluted/confusing once you get past the main banner slogan.

Yeah, this is the big difficulty. Really the movement needs more people who are eloquent enough to properly explain what it is people are actually grumbling about, Polly Toynbee did a great job on Sky News the other day:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10 ... 17137.html

For those who don't think "real" economists or capitalists are taking this seriously, this from the lead story of the Financial Times (paywall, unfortunately), was quoted in the Guardian yesterday:

Today only the foolhardy would dismiss a movement reflecting the anger and frustration of ordinary citizens from all walks of life around the world … the fundamental call for a fairer distribution of wealth cannot be ignored." The American dream "has been shattered by a crisis brought about by financial excess and political cynicism. The consequence has been growing inequality, rising poverty and sacrifice by those least able to bear it – all of which are failing to deliver economic growth." It ends thus: "The cry for change is one that must be heeded."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/76a7c01a-f66f ... z1b30OFbvh

[kay]

What about education's role in all this? As in actually educating people about what's going on, how the system isn't working, etc?

the system has never 'worked' - somebody always ends up worse off than another in any human grouping.

i'm sure in a group of early cavemen, sitting around a fire after a hunt, there was one thinking 'how come he's got more meat than me?' and another thinking 'why should i share?'

any system for living in a group has always been addressing this conflict of interests.

in this analogy wall street is a fat caveman hogging all the meat, and we're all scrabbling for leftovers.
the occupy movement is sitting next to him letting us know how greedy he is, but we know he's not going to give it up without a fight.



*shambles off dragging knuckles on the ground*

I meant in a more general way - as in educating people to realise that the only people with the power to change how a democracy works is themselves. There's tons of talk of changing how the government thinks. But ultimately, the only way to really change how they think is to change the people in government. It's pointless to keep on re-electing the same old people again and again just because they've put on a different mask for the day. You actually need to have a whole new set of people with different base mentalities to offer an alternative, and to get people to vote for them. So it isn't just the need to educate people about the importance of voting correctly, it's also a need to educate people to see that there are other election platforms that they can stand on which are a step away from the current regimes, but which aren't just extremistically reactive (eg anarchism, etc).

[magma]

The problem we've got with the current crop of politicians is that a lot of them are career politicians. They don't necessarily come from real-world situations and so their policies aren't necessarily reactions to real-world situations... they come from focus groups, thinktanks and media organisations... their policies are borne out of headlines, lobbyists and ideologies learnt in PPE lectures at Oxford.

However, if they (and we) understand that their role is to represent the people rather than themselves, then perhaps the same faces can represent "new" ideas... all they've got to do is adjust their focus a little away from Red-Top headlines, IMF scare tactics and the Tax Payers Alliance to slightly more representative sources.

With Obama's lot making non-comittal murmurs about OccupyWallStreet and Labour politicians starting to chunter about OccupyLSX, I wouldn't be surprised to see some fighting talk about this coming out of Westminster soon. If Cameron really wants this legacy he's hinted at a thousand times, this could be his chance*




*I massively doubt this would ever happen, but stranger things have happened in the struggle to keep power. The Tories are currently looking extremely fucked; they might get desperate and actually start trying to please the people!

[dreamizm]

If Cameron really wants this legacy he's hinted at a thousand times, this could be his chance*


*I massively doubt this would ever happen, but stranger things have happened in the struggle to keep power. The Tories are currently looking extremely fucked; they might get desperate and actually start trying to please the people!

You need to aim lower... much lower.

Cameron is actually one of those former PR-execs you mentioned, and the Liam Fox-scandal has confirmed the sort of powers behind the Tories in case you thought they changed since the 80s

[test_recordings]

If Cameron really wants this legacy he's hinted at a thousand times, this could be his chance*


*I massively doubt this would ever happen, but stranger things have happened in the struggle to keep power. The Tories are currently looking extremely fucked; they might get desperate and actually start trying to please the people!

You need to aim lower... much lower.

Cameron is actually one of those former PR-execs you mentioned, and the Liam Fox-scandal has confirmed the sort of powers behind the Tories in case you thought they changed since the 80s

Yeah Cameron fits the Tories perfectly... a nice, reassuring face selling a shitty deal!

[magma]

If Cameron really wants this legacy he's hinted at a thousand times, this could be his chance*


*I massively doubt this would ever happen, but stranger things have happened in the struggle to keep power. The Tories are currently looking extremely fucked; they might get desperate and actually start trying to please the people!

You need to aim lower... much lower.

Cameron is actually one of those former PR-execs you mentioned, and the Liam Fox-scandal has confirmed the sort of powers behind the Tories in case you thought they changed since the 80s

I don't genuinely think Cameron will do much about this, it was really just a comment on the fact that perhaps career politicians might be more able to switch policies quicker than others. Cameron is fairly ingrained with fucks like the Tax Payers Alliance though... his personal interests are too great to do anything, he'll need to be ousted. I don't think having career politicos is a positive thing in the slightest.

Had my sandwich with a professional couple who'd brought their kids down for the day... watched a trader getting interviewed about his support for the protest... not sure who it was filming, maybe just an Internet thing.

Also, my London "protest spotter" book just got another cop. Jody McIntyre was trundling around... he might be a bit disappointed with how friendly the police are being, no headline-grabbing being pulled from his chair at this demo.

[magma]

Q&A happening on the Guardian website at the moment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/20 ... all-street

[deadly_habit]

i think this summed it up nicely

[wilson]

i think this summed it up nicely

On the fucking money (no pun intended).

maybe a bit

[deadly_habit]

here it is without the music and editing

[belalala]

so much sense

[tyger]

There's tons of talk of changing how the government thinks. But ultimately, the only way to really change how they think is to change the people in government.

yes, since the main political parties have both completely failed to regulate the financial sector properly (to pick one major issue), it's worth considering voting for alternatives. however, if enough pressure is brought to bear on the current politicians, they may be cynical enough to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. i'm prepared to vote for whichever candidate is most likely to carry out the policies i agree with. that doesn't imply giving equal weight to all politicians' promises; for instance, a politician who actually believes in a policy they're promising is less likely to break their word.

The problem we've got with the current crop of politicians is that a lot of them are career politicians. They don't necessarily come from real-world situations and so their policies aren't necessarily reactions to real-world situations... they come from focus groups, thinktanks and media organisations... their policies are borne out of headlines, lobbyists and ideologies learnt in PPE lectures at Oxford.

However, if they (and we) understand that their role is to represent the people rather than themselves, then perhaps the same faces can represent "new" ideas... all they've got to do is adjust their focus a little away from Red-Top headlines, IMF scare tactics and the Tax Payers Alliance to slightly more representative sources.

i think the policy decision making process is a little less haphazard than you suggest (though not in a good way ): the politicians almost always go for exactly the policy that the 1% wants, and then put all their efforts into the PR job of selling that policy to the 99%. i don't think they've accidentally picked a range of lobbyists to listen to who happen to have similar views; they've chosen sides.

of course, some lobbyists are more powerful than others. there is some genuine fear of the red tops, but nobody could be scared of the tax payers' alliance .

(focus groups are more a part of the PR process than the policy formation process. they are meant to answer the question: is this a good way to sell the policy to the electorate? or even: is there any way we can get away with this policy?)

i think politicians usually agree with at least the general direction of the policies they're implementing, so the obvious way to get different policies is to elect politicians with different beliefs. they also need not to be too pliable in the face of the usual lobbyists, or it may not matter what they believe. i have no problem with career politicians, so long as they have polices which they believe in, and state honestly, and actually try to implement (not much to ask, izzit?).