Dubstepforum.com

jameshk wrote:

magma wrote:

jameshk wrote:

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:are people openly smoking weed down there?

Its a no drugs, no alcohol site.

This. Plenty of signs dotted around the place and a permanent police presence... it's most definitely not a festival/party. It's in the busiest business district in the country and a massive exercise in PR for the cause... everyone's very much on their Ps & Qs!

You seen a few tins drunk by the homeless, and you can smell a spliff or two every now and then. But there's always going to be the minority who ruin it for the majority in every case.

Saw a couple of kids with smoke coming out of their tent getting a right talking to from one of the camp officials on Saturday... good thing really, it's not a holiday camp. A drugs arrest or a drunk/disorderly and suddenly all the papers have what they need to tear it down.

The drinking came up at the GA a couple of weekends ago. Whoever was speaking just reiterated the camp rules and someone in the crowd heckled... in true Occupy fashion they were asked to share their issue with the group so that it could be discussed... suddenly, they didn't have a problem with the rule anymore. The democracy down there is brill.

magma wrote:

jameshk wrote:

magma wrote:

jameshk wrote:

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:are people openly smoking weed down there?

Its a no drugs, no alcohol site.

This. Plenty of signs dotted around the place and a permanent police presence... it's most definitely not a festival/party. It's in the busiest business district in the country and a massive exercise in PR for the cause... everyone's very much on their Ps & Qs!

You seen a few tins drunk by the homeless, and you can smell a spliff or two every now and then. But there's always going to be the minority who ruin it for the majority in every case.

Saw a couple of kids with smoke coming out of their tent getting a right talking to from one of the camp officials on Saturday... good thing really, it's not a holiday camp. A drugs arrest or a drunk/disorderly and suddenly all the papers have what they need to tear it down.

The drinking came up at the GA a couple of weekends ago. Whoever was speaking just reiterated the camp rules and someone in the crowd heckled... in true Occupy fashion they were asked to share their issue with the group so that it could be discussed... suddenly, they didn't have a problem with the rule anymore. The democracy down there is brill.

Wicked. You gona be down there this weekend at all?

preventing people from drinking but not actively discouraging weed would be a better move imo.

it seems to be like the occupy movement is too concerned with populism to ever be truly anti-capitalist in a capitalist world. they're defining themselves as acceptable within the parameters of the oppressive media state.

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:it seems to be like the occupy movement is too concerned with populism to ever be truly anti-capitalist in a capitalist world. they're defining themselves as acceptable within the parameters of the oppressive media state.

in other words doing their best to get things done and not be marginalised, by said state.

its just about an increase in checks and balances, regulation to increase fairness and co-operation for the benefit of more than just the already mega-rich

and if you're gona argue for pure capitalism since any other form doesn't work, China's state capitalism has shown how a government can control a capitalist business structure within a socialist framework to great effect

now if we take our liberal democracy and apply the same kind of system as china has, thats a bridge between the two, hopefully avoiding the downfall of both complete totalitarianism and pure capitalism

im no expert in economics though.

OBVS

secretly we all want to live in fascist states where we're the norm.


or maybe that's just me.

id make myself my bitch

O Tumma Tum Ladin wrote:leftists always waste their time moaning about past grievances and debating whether supporting someone is ideologically acceptable.

I wasn't debating. I was stating that he IS ideologically unacceptable.

yh well he survived the second world war as a jew and is now a billionaire

It's the just the fact that people want something, but they can't emphasise it as a whole. A lot of the statements made by the advocates are simply unrealistic - mixed in with actual points - bringing down the credibility of the whole movement. As someone said before about the rift between employees an investors - a certain return is promised for investors - without those returns, you have no investment, which means no innovation. Forcefully taking away returns from investors would just stifle innovation and fuck up the system. People arguing for something like that brings down the entire movement by suggesting unrealistic demands.

What is reasonable is protesting against the actual crimes going on. Huge tax dodges, illegal lobbying, excessive executive bonuses. Within these actual companies regulation can be done and is necessary - it can prevent things like the Enron scandal. The question is how to execute all this stuff.

The problem is, the companies have us by the balls. These huge corporations hold the whole structure of our countries in their hands.

An investment bank crashes? Wipes out the whole economy. A huge defense firm decides to outsource to another country? Massive unemployment.

So what exactly?

jameshk wrote:

jaydot wrote:Dn't do it, get a job or something.

Excuse me? I have a job. Im a youth worker, im doing something for community instead of something purely for profit.

I was joking with ya.

magma wrote:The drinking came up at the GA a couple of weekends ago. Whoever was speaking just reiterated the camp rules and someone in the crowd heckled... in true Occupy fashion they were asked to share their issue with the group so that it could be discussed... suddenly, they didn't have a problem with the rule anymore. The democracy down there is brill.

Reminds me of how the Movementarians got people to watch their entire induction video.

hayze99 wrote:As someone said before about the rift between employees an investors - a certain return is promised for investors - without those returns, you have no investment, which means no innovation. Forcefully taking away returns from investors would just stifle innovation and fuck up the system

quite the opposite. corporate profits take a larger share of national income than (say) 30 years ago, and wages a correspondingly lower share. and that has contributed to some of the problems we now have with the economy. the post-war boom (in the 1950s and 1960s) was kept going by consumer spending, which was kept going by wages taking a large share of the increase in GDP. lower real wage growth has broken this cycle. the gap was initially plugged by consumers borrowing more to spend, which obviously (obviously with hindsight, that is) was unsustainable and has now broken down.

the economy needs incomes more equally spread, which has to mean a higher share going to wages. that is true both for the kind of macro-economic reasons i've stated, and because purpose of the economy is to meet human needs.

it is possible for an economy to suffer from under-investment owing to profits being too low. but we are currently nearer to the polar opposite to that situation.

(BTW, we are mainly talking about equity investment, in which investors are *not* promised a specific return.)

(also BTW, talk of "innovation" in business seems to mostly hot air. it's what people say when they can't claim to have *invented* anything, but want some of the same kind of glory.)

Noam wrote:in other words doing their best to get things done and not be marginalised, by said state.

how? When has the occupy movement made any real political moves? I'm totally behind many of their sentiments, while some of their more base radical ideas are disastrous, the actual organizers seem to be completely inept to do anything other than continue in awe of their makeshift "democracy". What of the growing fund of more than 500,000 dollars? What is that going to be used for? How do they want people to vote? What specific changes do they want made? It's Beyond the point where they can pretend they don't have those responsibilities to actually act as a MOVEMENT. That's why they're being evicted out of zuccoti park because the leadership (as much as they'd like to pretend they dont have one, they do) isnt doing anything. At least that's how it looks in the states, correct me I I'm wrong.

AllNightDayDream wrote:

Noam wrote:in other words doing their best to get things done and not be marginalised, by said state.

how? When has the occupy movement made any real political moves? I'm totally behind many of their sentiments, while some of their more base radical ideas are disastrous, the actual organizers seem to be completely inept to do anything other than continue in awe of their makeshift "democracy". What of the growing fund of more than 500,000 dollars? What is that going to be used for? How do they want people to vote? What specific changes do they want made? It's Beyond the point where they can pretend they don't have those responsibilities to actually act as a MOVEMENT. That's why they're being evicted out of zuccoti park because the leadership (as much as they'd like to pretend they dont have one, they do) isnt doing anything. At least that's how it looks in the states, correct me I I'm wrong.

Occupy doesn't look to address any of those things. It's overriding purpose at the moment is simply to cause these conversations to keep happening everywhere. Everyone is engaging with this conversation in some way or another at the moment... you don't get that sort of effect from a one day protest. Only camping out and providing a space for people to converse in the open makes a loud enough and long enough noise to be taken seriously.

We had a million people march through London against the Iraq war. They caused a bit of bother for a day, everyone who wasn't on the protest got on with whatever they would've been doing anyway and then life went back to normal... nobody did a fucking thing about it... same with almost every march I've ever been on. Perhaps if we'd followed Brian Haw's lead and hundreds had occupied Parliament Sq for months on end things might have been at the very least, a lot more awkward for Blair and Co... he seemed like a lovable nutjob at the time, but I'm starting to think he's the smartest protester of recent times... it's a real shame he's not here to see all this.

magma wrote: Occupy doesn't look to address any of those things. It's overriding purpose at the moment is simply to cause these conversations to keep happening everywhere. Everyone is engaging with this conversation in some way or another at the moment... you don't get that sort of effect from a one day protest. Only camping out and providing a space for people to converse in the open makes a loud enough and long enough noise to be taken seriously.

We had a million people march through London against the Iraq war. They caused a bit of bother for a day, everyone who wasn't on the protest got on with whatever they would've been doing anyway and then life went back to normal... nobody did a fucking thing about it... same with almost every march I've ever been on. Perhaps if we'd followed Brian Haw's lead and hundreds had occupied Parliament Sq for months on end things might have been at the very least, a lot more awkward for Blair and Co... he seemed like a lovable nutjob at the time, but I'm starting to think he's the smartest protester of recent times... it's a real shame he's not here to see all this.

Well if that's the sole purpose, it's frankly stupid and won't change anything. You have all that energy, support, and appeal, but you use it to have "conversations". Anyone can have in-depth meaningful conversations anywhere it's not going to change a thing. It's good that word is getting out, but that only goes so far. Everyone and their pet lizard knows that our occupation of iraq was based on a flat-faced lie, yet no one is being investigated or punished for spreading faulty evidence and leading us to war. Things like the switch your bank day are the kind of things the movement needs more of, not more energy directed nowhere. It's wasteful, and it's bothersome because it's going to have an impact on any meaningful movement later.

Why would you be taken seriously? because you can camp out in a park and talk all day? When they form leaders, start talking politics, discussing policy, start moving money, start backing candidates and issuing press releases, then they'll be taken seriously. As a supporter of the movement it pains me to say it looks like an ongoing, glorified festival. If it had a semblance of real organization, all those acts of violence in oakland, seattle, and now NYC would've been capitalized on and mainstream support for the movement and their solutions would have multiplied. You can only scream so long about everything that's wrong, but you're full of shit unless you take the leap trying to fix it.

AllNightDayDream wrote:

magma wrote: Occupy doesn't look to address any of those things. It's overriding purpose at the moment is simply to cause these conversations to keep happening everywhere. Everyone is engaging with this conversation in some way or another at the moment... you don't get that sort of effect from a one day protest. Only camping out and providing a space for people to converse in the open makes a loud enough and long enough noise to be taken seriously.

We had a million people march through London against the Iraq war. They caused a bit of bother for a day, everyone who wasn't on the protest got on with whatever they would've been doing anyway and then life went back to normal... nobody did a fucking thing about it... same with almost every march I've ever been on. Perhaps if we'd followed Brian Haw's lead and hundreds had occupied Parliament Sq for months on end things might have been at the very least, a lot more awkward for Blair and Co... he seemed like a lovable nutjob at the time, but I'm starting to think he's the smartest protester of recent times... it's a real shame he's not here to see all this.

Well if that's the sole purpose, it's frankly stupid and won't change anything. You have all that energy, support, and appeal, but you use it to have "conversations". Anyone can have in-depth meaningful conversations anywhere it's not going to change a thing. It's good that word is getting out, but that only goes so far. Everyone and their pet lizard knows that our occupation of iraq was based on a flat-faced lie, yet no one is being investigated or punished for spreading faulty evidence and leading us to war. Things like the switch your bank day are the kind of things the movement needs more of, not more energy directed nowhere. It's wasteful, and it's bothersome because it's going to have an impact on any meaningful movement later.

Why would you be taken seriously? because you can camp out in a park and talk all day? When they form leaders, start talking politics, discussing policy, start moving money, start backing candidates and issuing press releases, then they'll be taken seriously. As a supporter of the movement it pains me to say it looks like an ongoing, glorified festival. If it had a semblance of real organization, all those acts of violence in oakland, seattle, and now NYC would've been capitalized on and mainstream support for the movement and their solutions would have multiplied. You can only scream so long about everything that's wrong, but you're full of shit unless you take the leap trying to fix it.

So it's better to sit on the internet not doing anything?

We're not asking to be taken seriously as individuals. We're asking for people in positions of power to take the issues we raise seriously and form policy from doing so. We're the people, not politicians... we're providing a space for those with the ability to represent us properly as those who currently have the jobs are woefully lacking. Union leaders are engaging, politicians are starting to engage (John McConnell had a letter published in the Independent this week), papers are getting on board (OccupyLSX took over the Guardian this week) and people are getting genuinely worried about where this is going to go.

Only time will tell the impact it has - it's incredibly young to be writing it off already... a couple of months for a political movement? It's really only just getting started... you're terribly impatient! It's already changed the global conversation more than any domestic protest I've ever seen... I can only infer that the insults directed at it are from people desperate to mask their guilt about not doing anything themselves but sit on the Internet bitching about people with a grain of enthusiasm left.

Maybe we are pathetic. At least we're not fucking apathetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15790972

Occupy London Stock Exchange protesters say they have taken over an empty office block in Hackney, east London, belonging to the bank UBS.

YES

One part of me was like "Fvck yeah, squat fucking everything" and another part realises they're just going to tarnish the movement as a bunch of law-breaking, filthy squatters.

(Which they already did in Bristol yesterday, "Slum City" was the headline and the story continued onto page 3 where it was adjacent to the story about The Factory of 'hardcore squatters' being evicted)