The 99%- occupy movement- lacking focus and organisation!
- Thread starter joey555
- Start date
I must remind you that we are only talking a few thousand people. You are talking a few hundred people tops who believe strongly and they all believe different things. This is why OWS is a pointless 'movement'. They have no real reason for existing except for a nagging unhappiness. They have no Gaddafi to rally against. They have no dark blight to focus their malcontent on.
Your assumption that I have not been to a rally is just that, an assumption. In fact, just a few weeks ago I got to spend time with protesters in front of a bank in my own city. I pulled my motorcycle over to the side of the road and talked to them for a bit since I was just on my way to shop for antiques and eat sushi - no real hurry. The people who seemed to be the voice for the crowd were anti-capitalists mostly. I got the feeling they were anti-capitalists simply because they themselves were incapable of being capitalists. "I'm a failure, and I am awesome so it must be the successful holding me down." The signs were jokes (tax the rich, wheres my bail out, give me some food stamps, pay my rent, ect) Of the people there, many were children dragged out by their loser parents who blame society for their failures financially and maternally. I heard repeatedly that the rich pay no taxes and the burden is on the backs of the poor. I heard about them stealing all the money. There is a reason that college kids
84 year old woman getting maced is an issue with police. The Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for that. The occupy wall street protests have little to do with the old lady in any case, it isn't like they are protesting police brutality or anything else. Occupy wall street protesters don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. There is NO informing going on at the protests. The protests are a huge joke, filled with 1-2% that care(or think they are trying to fix things), and then the people who are dragged along for whatever reason(friendship, family, drugs, ect).
0calli
Well-Known Member
you guys ever think its just more simple than that that mabe yes these movements are un organized , but the real big winner of these movements is they invoke dialogue between everybody about what the movement is moving for or against ...........so yes a small group making an public uproar but a large populous or the country talking about it hmm if i was a protester in my mind we win hands down , cause change isnt going to happen quickly no matter how prolific the 1st protest are it will take time to get back all the freedoms americans have signed away in the name of security be it financial or military or domestic.
”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Ben Franklin
”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”
Ben Franklin
It seems to me the protesters are more focused towards a more repressive government rather than trying to gain back lost freedoms. More of a socialist spread the wealth movement than a movement of freedom. You are right about it getting everyone talking though.
Capitalism is not the problem. I am inclined to think that the people in the protests don't know what capitalism is, nor have ever seen it in their lifetimes. The Government is the issue. How the federal government can tell the businesses exactly how to operate, reward them for failing, and regulate small businesses out of existence while still being accused of being capitalists is beyond me. I would suggest that people who think that Capitalism is the problem read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law". I have included a link to it below.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
joey555
New Member
UR RIGHT.....WE ARE NOT LAZZIER FAIRE (sic?) it does not work and becomes vampiric in nature. we have socialist mechanisms in place. see we also ddn'r hhve true democracy- and no one has EVER, EVER, NEVER SEEN COMMUNISM!
THEN U HAVE A REPUBLIC (Sorry Carthoris, u probally already know this) which takes on many forms. capitalism as u all know is an economic system, not governmental....democracy is the breeding ground that fosters such a system.
the 10th amendment is a very tricky thing to mess w/ and most judges would rether not have to deal w/ it. oops i spelled "rather" wrong,and my grammer is off.....oh, shit where is the grammer nazi so he can goose-step me into submissson- lol.
http://
I would suggest anyone who thinks capitalism is not the problem read "Socialist Economics for Marxists - A Critique of Political Economy" by John Harrison. He proves that capitalism is doomed to cycle through boom, bust, poverty, inequality, fascism and war, over and over, endlessly. In the nuclear era this is no longer acceptable. It is only a matter of time, given the current state of affairs, before we are all vaporized. We must take charge of our world and end the tyranny and chaos of capitalism if we are to survive the next century.
This is actually a basic tenet of economics. The origin of profit is the unpaid labor of workers. How else could someone accumulate such incredible wealth? No one produces a million dollars worth of goods a year, but many receive that much. Economics is a zero sum game. This claim is backed by the laws of physics of our material world (conservation of energy).
Want proof? Work as a coal miner, and see how much coal you can buy when you're done. Even if you do it alone with a shovel, you won't be able to buy what you dug up. Even after factoring in the cost of administration of the mine, etc...
Marx actually was the founder of much of our modern understanding of capitalism. He was more of an economist than anything else, though he basically founded modern sociology. One example of how little credit he has been given is the business cycle. He insisted it was inevitable - there would be overproduction, which would lead to inability to sell products, which would lead to workers being laid off - a feedback loop - people becoming poor because there is too much wealth stored in locked, guarded warehouses. (Oh, the irony, and how reminiscent of today, as people go homeless because there are too many homes.) He was ridiculed for his theory of the business cycle for 100 years. Over and over, the capitalists believed they finally had the solution, and that Marx's theory would finally be proven wrong. Only after the failure of Keynesianism in the 70s was it grudgingly accepted as fact. But no one gave him credit for it.
He covered far more ground than this, of course. And all of his work has been vindicated by history. Reading through what he wrote was surreal simply because of how accurate his predictions were. After reading science fiction novels in my childhood, I grew accustomed to laughing at books from the past, but with his, I did not laugh. The only thing he failed to consider was the full power of the welfare state to suppress the class struggle for entire generations. By softening the harshest realities of capitalism through progressive taxation, welfare programs, labor legislation, and regulation of business practices (most significantly, the food industry), enough of the population was able to live comfortably enough to prevent any serious threat to capitalism from materializing.
Ultimately, Marx's fundamental criticism of capitalism was not about the inevitable stark inequality of its economics (paid according to power, not productivity) and undemocratic nature of its politics (who actually thinks they have a say unless they have money?). He focused instead on its failure to utilize manufacturing capacity (to "develop the productive forces"). The dive in the standard of living during crises has much more to do with the closing of farms and factories than rising inequality. From around, I believe, 1950-1970, the wealth enjoyed by the average person doubled, but the change in inequality was small. It was full employment, and the development of more efficient manufacturing techniques, that led to material abundance.
With capitalism, when you have too many homes, people go homeless, when you have too much food, people starve. Factories workers built by worker's own hands sit guarded by cops so that they cannot get back in to restart production for their own needs. Warehouses full of goods are locked up and mothballed, so that workers that made them, and need them, cannot have them. Fields grow thick with weeds, and those who would till this earth instead starve landless, living lives of poverty. In crisis, capitalism stands fully in the way of production, loaded gun in hand, menacing any starving person who would dare plant some crops. This happened - literally - during the Great Depression, when farmers were kicked off their land by the banks during the Dust Bowl.
The story does not only end with economic disaster. War is also inevitable during crises, as trade wars result by sheer necessity, leaving one country backed against the wall with no choice but to respond with force, as the loser's industries find themselves unable to sell their goods, or purchase necessary raw materials. When they lose the trade war, they turn to the shooting war. Stage one is happening now and stage two is on the way. Europe is rearming.
160 million people died from wars in the 20th century. Far more were injured, and far more still were forever mentally scarred, or were forced to live lives of abject poverty due to the bombing of factories, torching of crops, and slaughter of fellow workers. It's going to happen again if we don't stop it. The path from crisis, to trade war, to war, has been traveled many times.
Those who slander Marx know little about what he actually said. I was once among them (libertarian), wrongly believing that mass murderers like Stalin or Mao were the Marxists they claimed to be. Marx was the most sensible of economists and reading his works made the events of the last 100 years actually understandable - a first, for me. He didn't write about how everything had to be collective property, or how the rich had to be shot in death camps. He didn't sit down and design "perfect societies" on paper - it was actually his frustration with these unrealistic idealists that got him writing in the first place. He envisioned a democratically run society, where men and women, blacks and whites, gays, drug users - everyone - had an equal say in both the economic and political spheres of their lives. He showed in his works how capitalism maximizes the worst in us, and makes good men do awful things (Warren Buffet got rich killing wages, and Steve Jobs got rich by exploiting horrible working conditions in China). He recognized, rightly, that capitalism is fundamentally flawed and that even if it provided perfect democracy and full equality, it would still use resources poorly and still suffer from crises, and that for us to minimize the worst in us, and make efficient use of the resources available to us, we would need real democracy, and rational management of these resources.
joey555
New Member
i have; i donated $, gave out blankets, pillows, and was interviewd by abc. so i feel i have somewhat of a right to speak. alot of u are making very valid points. however when dealing w/ figures like "99%" u are going to get fringe elements that will hurt the purpose if the movemnet. hell- the woman's & civil rights movemet had fringe nuts a well as the tea-party.
that's understandble, but alot are idealist college kids who have not yet lived in the "real world" except for mtv. i would not have been so critical if i didn't care!
but i did predict that the movement would fall into a state of entropy if they didn't organize in certain other ways as well. sure enough the movement in philly is virtually dead.
ohilly is a major metropolitain city.almost the 5th largest (it was until st. loius took the spot) so i can't speak for oakland, L.A., N.Y etc. but if philly can implode so too can other major areas- hopefully they will learn from their mistakes.
now im not saying it's all over- no by far! things can change.
RIGBY, why do u ask about the bars? IMO, that means little ( i mean it's important to recognize ppl. for their accomplishments or helping others). TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THIS- HELPING OTHERS, MAKING THEM LAUGH....EVEN FOR A MOMENT, AND THE FRIENDS I HAVE MADE ON HERE ON A DEEPER, PERSONAL LEVEL MEANS MUCH MORE THEN WHAT A LITTLE TINY STAR CAN EVER DO.
HERE + REP FOR U........JUST DON'T GET ALL HUNG UP ON IT. IT WILL CCME FAST ENOUGH FOR U BRO!
@ NODRAMA- ur right my man! i do agree, usually i don't overkill......but i was in the mood. the guy really needs to be dealt with.
so w/ that said i will not say anynore unless he comes @ my neck. i usually do have a ~teflon-coated exterior".
best wishes...............................................joey
joey555
New Member
This is actually a basic tenet of economics. The origin of profit is the unpaid labor of workers. How else could someone accumulate such incredible wealth? No one produces a million dollars worth of goods a year, but many receive that much. Economics is a zero sum game. This claim is backed by the laws of physics of our material world (conservation of energy).
Want proof? Work as a coal miner, and see how much coal you can buy when you're done. Even if you do it alone with a shovel, you won't be able to buy what you dug up. Even after factoring in the cost of administration of the mine, etc...
Marx actually was the founder of much of our modern understanding of capitalism. He was more of an economist than anything else, though he basically founded modern sociology. One example of how little credit he has been given is the business cycle. He insisted it was inevitable - there would be overproduction, which would lead to inability to sell products, which would lead to workers being laid off - a feedback loop - people becoming poor because there is too much wealth stored in locked, guarded warehouses. (Oh, the irony, and how reminiscent of today, as people go homeless because there are too many homes.) He was ridiculed for his theory of the business cycle for 100 years. Over and over, the capitalists believed they finally had the solution, and that Marx's theory would finally be proven wrong. Only after the failure of Keynesianism in the 70s was it grudgingly accepted as fact. But no one gave him credit for it.
He covered far more ground than this, of course. And all of his work has been vindicated by history. Reading through what he wrote was surreal simply because of how accurate his predictions were. After reading science fiction novels in my childhood, I grew accustomed to laughing at books from the past, but with his, I did not laugh. The only thing he failed to consider was the full power of the welfare state to suppress the class struggle for entire generations. By softening the harshest realities of capitalism through progressive taxation, welfare programs, labor legislation, and regulation of business practices (most significantly, the food industry), enough of the population was able to live comfortably enough to prevent any serious threat to capitalism from materializing.
Ultimately, Marx's fundamental criticism of capitalism was not about the inevitable stark inequality of its economics (paid according to power, not productivity) and undemocratic nature of its politics (who actually thinks they have a say unless they have money?). He focused instead on its failure to utilize manufacturing capacity (to "develop the productive forces"). The dive in the standard of living during crises has much more to do with the closing of farms and factories than rising inequality. From around, I believe, 1950-1970, the wealth enjoyed by the average person doubled, but the change in inequality was small. It was full employment, and the development of more efficient manufacturing techniques, that led to material abundance.
With capitalism, when you have too many homes, people go homeless, when you have too much food, people starve. Factories workers built by worker's own hands sit guarded by cops so that they cannot get back in to restart production for their own needs. Warehouses full of goods are locked up and mothballed, so that workers that made them, and need them, cannot have them. Fields grow thick with weeds, and those who would till this earth instead starve landless, living lives of poverty. In crisis, capitalism stands fully in the way of production, loaded gun in hand, menacing any starving person who would dare plant some crops. This happened - literally - during the Great Depression, when farmers were kicked off their land by the banks during the Dust Bowl.
The story does not only end with economic disaster. War is also inevitable during crises, as trade wars result by sheer necessity, leaving one country backed against the wall with no choice but to respond with force, as the loser's industries find themselves unable to sell their goods, or purchase necessary raw materials. When they lose the trade war, they turn to the shooting war. Stage one is happening now and stage two is on the way. Europe is rearming.
160 million people died from wars in the 20th century. Far more were injured, and far more still were forever mentally scarred, or were forced to live lives of abject poverty due to the bombing of factories, torching of crops, and slaughter of fellow workers. It's going to happen again if we don't stop it. The path from crisis, to trade war, to war, has been traveled many times.
Those who slander Marx know little about what he actually said. I was once among them (libertarian), wrongly believing that mass murderers like Stalin or Mao were the Marxists they claimed to be. Marx was the most sensible of economists and reading his works made the events of the last 100 years actually understandable - a first, for me. He didn't write about how everything had to be collective property, or how the rich had to be shot in death camps. He didn't sit down and design "perfect societies" on paper - it was actually his frustration with these unrealistic idealists that got him writing in the first place. He envisioned a democratically run society, where men and women, blacks and whites, gays, drug users - everyone - had an equal say in both the economic and political spheres of their lives. He showed in his works how capitalism maximizes the worst in us, and makes good men do awful things (Warren Buffet got rich killing wages, and Steve Jobs got rich by exploiting horrible working conditions in China). He recognized, rightly, that capitalism is fundamentally flawed and that even if it provided perfect democracy and full equality, it would still use resources poorly and still suffer from crises, and that for us to minimize the worst in us, and make efficient use of the resources available to us, we would need real democracy, and rational management of these resources.
SORRY Purk.......but ur preaching to the chior! i have read- "value,price, and profit" , "das kapital" , "communist manifesto" , "alienated labor", and all of marx & engles' work.
capitalism can work, not pure capitalism, if modified and the unelected officials that abuse their position as regulators.
a command economy is ans was disatrous. unless done in another way instaed of using the same template that USSR, CHINA, CUBA, ETC.
as far as facism brought about by capitalism....i don't see the correlation and would not use absoluue terms like that. we do have an oligarcy tho.
btw....im not putting down MARX, I THINK HE WAS BRILLIANT.....HE HAD AN UNCANNY WAY OF OBSERVING CAPITALISM AND WHAT IT CAN DO AND DESCRIBE IT. HE MADE AN IMPACT IN HISTORY AND THE WORLD STAGE. SHIT, IF NOT FOR HIM & OTHERS 1917 WOULL HAVE BEEN JUST ANOTHER YEAR!
0calli
Well-Known Member
well said ..........................
Great to hear I'm not alone on the left here!
I actually agreed with that first statement until I read that book suggested. It's a critique of reformism - he shows why attempts to reform capitalism are inevitably doomed to failure. It concludes that we need conscious control over our economy to end the madness permanently. Welfare states can only exist when capitalism is thriving. When capitalism is in crisis, it transforms the state into a fascist apparatus of tyranny and repression, and dumps all the welfare programs.
The second statement I agree with. Tyranny and prosperity don't combine. The planned economy MUST, absolutely MUST be democratically run.
The most important conclusion of that book is what I said above though:
This is entirely inevitable in capitalism. Keynesian economics failed in the 70s - they can't stop the wonderful "business cycle" from perpetuating. Nothing but conscious control of the economy can. No amount of regulation or progressive taxation can prevent, or mitigate, the disastrous effects of capitalism's regular failure to utilize, and develop, the productive forces. Even if everyone in the United States had exactly the same income - due to imposing progressive taxation - the economy would still be in the toilet, along with our standard of living.
Ultimately, Marx's fundamental criticism of capitalism was not about the inevitable stark inequality of its economics (paid according to power, not productivity) and undemocratic nature of its politics (who actually thinks they have a say unless they have money?). He focused instead on its failure to utilize manufacturing capacity (to "develop the productive forces"). The dive in the standard of living during crises has much more to do with the closing of farms and factories than rising inequality. From around, I believe, 1950-1970, the wealth enjoyed by the average person doubled, but the change in inequality was small. It was full employment, and the development of more efficient manufacturing techniques, that led to material abundance.
With capitalism, when you have too many homes, people go homeless, when you have too much food, people starve. Factories workers built by worker's own hands sit guarded by cops so that they cannot get back in to restart production for their own needs. Warehouses full of goods are locked up and mothballed, so that workers that made them, and need them, cannot have them. Fields grow thick with weeds, and those who would till this earth instead starve landless, living lives of poverty. In crisis, capitalism stands fully in the way of production, loaded gun in hand, menacing any starving person who would dare plant some crops. This happened - literally - during the Great Depression, when farmers were kicked off their land by the banks during the Dust Bowl.
The problem with the USSR and China was that the leaders were idiot tyrants. The planned economy still was far more productive than capitalism (people were actually leaving the US in droves for the USSR during the depression). Growth rates as high as 20% were achieved - 1-3% is normal for capitalism! The USSR went from a peasant nation trapped in the 1600s to a modern, industrialized superpower able to go head to head with the US in just a few years. What went wrong was that they spent huge amounts of resources on the military - too much - because of the Cold War. Also, industry in the USSR wasn't nearly as developed as in the US as it had previously been a peasant nation, and had been blown to bits during WWI, again during the revolution, and then pretty much leveled in WWII by the Nazis. If it hadn't been for Stalin, things would've been much better, and if they'd started off with a developed industrial base like we had here in the US, they would've made capitalism look like a sick joke.
The most cited problem with the planned economy is inefficiency, but anyone who's worked at a major corporation can tell you that people spend more time playing FarmVille than doing real work. Dilbert is not really an exaggeration.
With a planned, democratic economy, everyone has a vested interest in the quality of their work. Even in a welfare state, a factory worker pays no price for shoving a cheeseburger in the air conditioner of a truck as it's slapped together. But in a democratic planned economy, everyone "owns stock."The other commonly cited issue with the planned economy is an inability to predict demand for various goods. The irony is that this problem is actually even more of a problem with capitalism. Every corporation has to predict demand, and they usually don't do a good job. That's why we get crises - overproduction, they overestimate demand, too much shit ends up in a warehouse somewhere, so they lay people off since they don't need to make more, and then the whole cycle takes off... with a planned economy, all that happens is there's a brief shortage of a particular good while production is adjusted. There were great shortages of consumer goods in the late days of the Soviet Union, but this was because of the Cold War - they were wasting huge amounts of economic output on the military. Also, it didn't help that the administration of the economy was tyrannical and not democratic. It's hard to predict demand if the people aren't involved in the process!
P. S. I scanned a copy of that book - I can provide it to anyone who is interested. It's a short and easy read, about 150 pages, written in plain, everyday language. Very easy to understand and clear, more so than any other book on the subject I've encountered, and it hits all the important topics. And not to mention... it's very convincing. Before I read it, I was a liberal. After, I became a Marxist, irreversibly so.
Also, I got the name wrong. It's "Marxist Economics for Socialists - A Critique of Reformism" by John Harrison.
If you don't like PDFs and manually scanned pages, you can get a hardcopy for a dollar:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=marxist+economics+for+socialists&x=0&y=0
It is truly the most dangerous book ever written, as anyone who reads it will forever carry the conviction that the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism is the only option we have.
For those who have not studied Marxist economics, the best description I can give is the "laws of physics" of economics.
Keynesianism did not fail in the 70's, it was brought to the forefront of US economic policy. The US was on a metallic standard in 1971, the convertibility of the US Dollar to gold was suspended in August of that year. Keynes was of the opinion that the entire economy should be based upon the issuance of credit and that is exactly what we have had since then.
joey555
New Member
smoking and waxing politics. talking about capitalismbest , sociallism, facism, command economy (even democratically).thomas jefferson once said- "if all men were angels, there would be no need for government."i stress progress not perfection......, our founding paper 's said " in order to make more perfect union." how do u make a more perfect union?hahahhahahaa..... best wishes.........................................joe y.[video=youtube;w_phdgnryVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_phdgnryVU&feature=youtu.be[/video]
best wishes.........................................joe y.[video=youtube;w_phdgnryVU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_phdgnryVU&feature=youtu.be[/video]
0calli
Well-Known Member
NEW 0CALLI x KEVIN MURPHY COLAB. 1000W GROW OF THE NEW STRAIN CRITICAL OVERDRIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ON NOW.
~~0Calli~~ Critical~Overdrive~2012~1000w~Grow~Session~
SRRY FOR THE HIJACK !!!
~~0Calli~~ Critical~Overdrive~2012~1000w~Grow~Session~
SRRY FOR THE HIJACK !!!
joey555
New Member
you know that is complete conjecture, but i appreciate an anticipatory response. opponents will and always have tried to divide & conquer- nothing new.
but having a sloppy message just exacerbates all the confusion already had. now look occupy PHILLY is almost extinct! i prdicated this and it's not hard.
globally is a different story. if it's a revolution u are alluding to then, well thath would be plausible......but the probability of sucess would not be good. on the other hand if a movment arranges the groups in a tactal way; like this--- @ the front of the line u use alot of females & children , and old ladies and men. this way, psychologically speking, the police don't see a threat (i.e. big brute guys.....yelling and screaming....or jumping around w/ a sign) they see smiling faces and ppl. that remind them of their family. make the police feel they too are the 99% er's.
their really was mis-oppertunities. these are tactics that helped bring down slobodon milosovickh (sic) in what? yugoslavia,croatia? anyway that was a tried & true tactic, and their is much more to weaken the municiple pillars of power.
best wishes..................................joeyhttp://
