Dubstepforum.com

kay wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:

magma wrote: 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.

Same thing happens here, and unions of course contribute a lot to the democratic party. Doesn't mean the party doesn't have the potential to deliver. Just look at Dodd-Frank. Even though it's going at a snail's pace (perhaps rightfully so), every week some new piece complaining about it appears in the financial papers.

OccupyLondon/Britain is most definitely not associated with the Labour Party. They're as entwined with the current financial system as anyone... they were in charge for most of the deregulation!

AllNightDayDream wrote: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.

To expect any sort of political movement to be blowing elections apart a year after they've started is very hopeful... anything hashed together so quickly (like the Tea Party, for example) would end up being crushed under the weight of its own unpreparedness. The Tea Party might have an effect, but it won't be a very constructive one - most likely handing a second term to Obama on a plate - because they didn't take the time to work out what it actually was they wanted to complain about before they started running for office... that's why all their 'candidates' get ripped to shreds when they're put in the spotlight. They're angry, but they haven't really got a clue why.

Success for the movement might not involve forming a political party. I imagine it won't, actually, but you never know... I'd quite like the idea, personally. It might simply be the net effect of gradually changing the Overton Window of economic discussion in the country so that the established political parties are forced to change the current monotone of economic thought... a large part of the complaint from Occupy is simply "We have no choices. When it comes to your relationship with the banks, you're all the same and we're sure you're all wrong... what the fuck are we supposed to do?"

The sad thing is that our current choices led us to choosing between Labour (the party that led us into the mess by being too much like...), The Conservatives (even cosier with the financial sector/IMF) and the Liberal Democrats who don't appear to give a fuck about economics in the slightest these days.

Again with the Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage movements... neither had to form major political parties to get their job done. They just had to change national opinion to such an extent over years and decades that it was impossible for the politicians to do anything else. It might take years, it might take decades... a few elections might pass... it's no reason to rush into something stupid, turn up ill-prepared, get ridiculed and blow the credibility of the ideas for another couple of decades by everyone getting painted as Communists or something. Slow and steady wins the race...

magma wrote: To expect any sort of political movement to be blowing elections apart a year after they've started is very hopeful... anything hashed together so quickly (like the Tea Party, for example) would end up being crushed under the weight of its own unpreparedness. The Tea Party might have an effect, but it won't be a very constructive one - most likely handing a second term to Obama on a plate - because they didn't take the time to work out what it actually was they wanted to complain about before they started running for office... that's why all their 'candidates' get ripped to shreds when they're put in the spotlight. They're angry, but they haven't really got a clue why.

This is completely incorrect. The tea party was borne out of the bailouts, when conservatives recognized that the people making up the party they thought represented them were passing "government handouts" which they loathe so much. It was clear from the beginning that tea partiers were against government spending projects and tax increases in any form (they had their share of radicals with even more radical views as well). They were wholly against the stimulus program, which probably saved the american economy from an actual depression, and ignorantly saw this as an obama exclusive policy (Bush began stimulus on his way out). Thus, you have this shuffling of republican seats, vehement opposition to anything with obama's fingerprints on it, and extremist opposition to anything increasing the federal debt (in their minds), thus the ridiculous debt ceiling debate, near default, and downgrading of US bonds. Tea party politicians effectively halted progress on new START treaties, repealing of DADT, and extended unemployment benefits (towards the latter end of the technical recession) so they could keep the bush tax cuts from expiring. Your caricature is completely incorrect and that's why you can't understand how much more effective the tea party approach is than the occupy one.

magma wrote:Success for the movement might not involve forming a political party. I imagine it won't, actually, but you never know... I'd quite like the idea, personally. It might simply be the net effect of gradually changing the Overton Window of economic discussion in the country so that the established political parties are forced to change the current monotone of economic thought

Forming an actual separate party isn't an effective route. Barriers of entry make it pointless. I remember my first vote went to the green party in a gubernatorial race, but I had to dig fairly deep to find debates that included him. The only ads you could find were on his website. That has to be a huge part of the movement's end game, perhaps more so than simple economic reform. Campaign finance is something most people realize is a pressing issue but they usually slip it under the rug. But you have to play the game to win the game, so you can change the game.

Magma wrote:a large part of the complaint from Occupy is simply "We have no choices. When it comes to your relationship with the banks, you're all the same and we're sure you're all wrong... what the fuck are we supposed to do?"

Um... What? This again makes me wonder about the solidarity of the movement.

Magma wrote:Again with the Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage movements... neither had to form major political parties to get their job done. They just had to change national opinion to such an extent over years and decades that it was impossible for the politicians to do anything else. It might take years, it might take decades... a few elections might pass... it's no reason to rush into something stupid, turn up ill-prepared, get ridiculed and blow the credibility of the ideas for another couple of decades by everyone getting painted as Communists or something. Slow and steady wins the race...

again, you must have misunderstood me because forming a new party is fairly pointless. All of those movements had to play politics, but you're side skirting the real point with those analogies about organization and leadership. But keep things in perspective: women's suffrage and civil rights were things people had to fight against culturally as well. Now, in the aftermath of a nearly global recession, and future threats of economic woe, who is going to say our economies are structured just fine? All the common man knows is that important people who supposedly know things fucked our economies, millions of people are out of work as a result, and the future doesn't look too bright either. The fight for support is nearly won already.

There are so many people like me, with liberal mentalities who want to see significant change but don't see the point of subscribing to this movement because of its incompetence. If the movement showed it can do something more constructive than gather an ass load of people in parks and "start conversations", I assure you the floodgates of international support would open exponentially more than it already has. The fact there is no management is a huge obstacle to that. Slow and steady surely wins the race, but no one is racing, they're just getting people to watch, when everybody is already watching. They need to DO something, and not some childish anon shit like tweeting bloomberg's personal number. Keeping things as is is going to perpetuate the stereotype of liberals being useless and spineless, and will indeed blow up any future attempts for a liberal movement.

magma wrote:OccupyLondon/Britain is most definitely not associated with the Labour Party. They're as entwined with the current financial system as anyone... they were in charge for most of the deregulation!

In Affluenza Oliver James compares Blair to Thatcher... he called it "Blatcher policies"

New Labour ministers are actually on record for saying things like: "We are not against people getting very rich while we're in government"... I think they were trying to suck up to the rich for donations towards creating political power for themselves adn they lost sight of Labour's aims, no wonder the gap between the top and bottom got even wider!

Tony Blair also tried to convince the Labour party to remove the word 'socialist' from the party's manifesto for no reason other than that he thought they should

AllNightDayDream - I don't think we're getting anywhere. I think this is the start of a beautiful struggle, maybe lasting years... you don't due to the lack of Michelle Bachman's and Sarah Palins willing to embarrass themselves in front of the world and sabotage the respect of the cause they supposedly support. You're the hare, I'm the tortoise. Or is it Tea Party that are the Hare and Occupy the Tortoise? Anyway, perhaps we should leave it there. We're going round in circles.

I'll be interested to revisit this discussion with a few of you in a couple of years time.

fair play. so much for starting conversations, though, haha

AllNightDayDream wrote:fair play. so much for starting conversations, though, haha

Conversations between two people are normally the trickiest to resolve... I'm not sure either of us are gaining anything. You've certainly not made me think it's time to give up and I've not inspired you to join, it's just a difference of opinion... we'll revisit it when new information presents itself and it turns out I'm right.

Anyway... just watched: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Were_Good/

Thanks to kay for pointing this out. Great watch and immensely relevant. Glad to see telly like this, especially with his introduction from OccupyLSX!

It's a shame that the church's main influence seems to be concerned with futile sex arguments these days when they should be concentrating on their traditional role as the counterbalance to society's naked greed. It's almost a shame we don't have a Final Judgement to be scared of anymore.

magma wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:fair play. so much for starting conversations, though, haha

Conversations between two people are normally the trickiest to resolve... I'm not sure either of us are gaining anything. You've certainly not made me think it's time to give up and I've not inspired you to join, it's just a difference of opinion... we'll revisit it when new information presents itself and it turns out I'm right. \

That wasn't my goal, but I honestly hope you turn out to be right.

magma wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:fair play. so much for starting conversations, though, haha

Conversations between two people are normally the trickiest to resolve... I'm not sure either of us are gaining anything. You've certainly not made me think it's time to give up and I've not inspired you to join, it's just a difference of opinion... we'll revisit it when new information presents itself and it turns out I'm right.

Anyway... just watched: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Were_Good/

Thanks to kay for pointing this out. Great watch and immensely relevant. Glad to see telly like this, especially with his introduction from OccupyLSX!

I think Zena's back is right at the very start, think I recognised her bright red coat. Was only on for a split second.

anyone watching the secret occupy gig? played some jungle bit earlier and a bit of techno. and thom yorke was djing earlier. pretty sweet.

Eplo wrote:thom yorke was djing earlier

nice, a super rich musician djing for an event about the disproportion of wealth.

brand it up fellas, let's sell some t-shirts

kingGhost wrote:

Eplo wrote:thom yorke was djing earlier

nice, a super rich musician djing for an event about the disproportion of wealth.

brand it up fellas, let's sell some t-shirts

You reckon he got paid a fee?

kingGhost wrote:

Eplo wrote:thom yorke was djing earlier

nice, a super rich musician djing for an event about the disproportion of wealth.

brand it up fellas, let's sell some t-shirts

You've got something against rich people?

it's supposed to be a revolution, not a fucking party or a rave. yeah sure let's have thom yorke come out and spin some new bits... next we'll go over to tent B where there's a mobile starbucks set up.

oh yeah, revolution! Down with the system, man!

But really, what's wrong with starbucks? Did you know they pay around $1000 in tuition per year for employees who are full-time students?

What is a revolution supposed to look like to you anyways?

AllNightDayDream wrote: oh yeah, revolution! Down with the system, man!

But really, what's wrong with starbucks? Did you know they pay around $1000 in tuition per year for employees who are full-time students?

What is a revolution supposed to look like to you anyways?

something like that i guess?

$1000 in tuition a year! wow! that's amazing, especially considering a local university here charges about $400 per credit hour for in state students. that $1000 sure will go a long way. yup, totally. - no, bro, i was just using starbucks as a reference. i drink caribou coffee.

all i'm saying is when you start to turn an organized protest into fucking coachella, it loses some credibility.

Yeah, french revolution, mobs of ignorant people beheading thousands on a weekly basis, killing their leaders, killing anyone with a dissenting voice, and then conspiring amongst themselves to consolidate power... Great "revolution".

Starbucks is a good company. Say what you will about the work but they engange in plenty of community projects, and their tuition cash is just one example of how they treat their employees well. I don't understand how you can gawk at that and pretend it's not enough. It's a step in the right direction, at least. They're nothing like Wal-Mart, for example.

This movement has been steadily losing credibility for a while now, and a large part of it is the "revolution" mentality. People keep confusing shit they see in movies with real life.

kingGhost wrote:it's supposed to be a revolution, not a fucking party or a rave. yeah sure let's have thom yorke come out and spin some new bits... next we'll go over to tent B where there's a mobile starbucks set up.

Way to focus on very isolated events and form your opinion of the whole movement based on them

AllNightDayDream wrote:Yeah, french revolution, mobs of ignorant people beheading thousands on a weekly basis, killing their leaders, killing anyone with a dissenting voice, and then conspiring amongst themselves to consolidate power... Great "revolution".

Starbucks is a good company. Say what you will about the work but they engange in plenty of community projects, and their tuition cash is just one example of how they treat their employees well. I don't understand how you can gawk at that and pretend it's not enough. It's a step in the right direction, at least. They're nothing like Wal-Mart, for example.

This movement has been steadily losing credibility for a while now, and a large part of it is the "revolution" mentality. People keep confusing shit they see in movies with real life.

do you work for starbucks or something?

the company i work for pays full tuition.

really i'm taking the piss. i just thought it was hilarious that a very rich person was DJing to entertain people who are protesting against very rich people.