ilovefuzz.com

alexa. wrote:violence begets violence

Exactly

warwick.hoy wrote:I really think that the cops macing people is beside the point. What excites me about this isn't police oppression but me realizing that the peasant masses are beginning to wake and realize that the status quo and laissez-faire attitude our government takes with big business is ineffectual and intolerable. More and More people are realizing that we the citizens have no control over our government even though we are supposed to be the government. People are waking up to the fact that we live in a corporate controlled plutocracy cleverly disguised and propagandized as a democracy.

Will these protests effect any sort of change? That remains to be seen and I'm inclined to think that it's a very small step on a long road to meaningful reform. Will more and more people begin to be enlightened that we live in an illusioned society and realize that our money and how they use it is their (and conversely our) best weapon? I think so.

We cannot allow these corporations to reform America into a Neo-Feudalistic state.

While I agree with you one small point. We are a Republic not a true Democracy. It's a fun one to get a a dictionary and look up what the def' is for the different forms of government... like: Republic, Democracy and... Fascism

warwick.hoy wrote:Cookie cutter homes that I question will still be standing long enough to have their mortgages paid off.

As someone that actually works in a part of that industry... "I" would not buy a new house....

I'd say more of a Democratic-Republic. More Republic than Democracy then.

noting in passing that i've tried to confine my critiques to method; the same criticisms apply to any political ideology. remember: the power of nonviolent protest in the eras of Gandhi and King was that the protestors stood their ground but accepted the blows and inprisonment, thus holding the moral high ground. he who throws the first stone and all that.

the analysis above is incomplete; people in the industrialized nations "consume" far more than Jetskis and cookie-cutter homes. for example, humans consume water, which in any settlement larger than a hamlet is generally supplied by some form of utility ranging from a government entity to a public-private partnership to a totally private company. they consume roads in the form of wear and tear. they consume some sort of fuel, ranging from nuclear-generated electricity to buffalo poop, to cook food and to generate energy for other uses. industries consume raw materials. every time i crack a can of Coca-Cola i consume aluminum, paint, and the plastic they use to coat the inside of the can against corrosion. attempting to undo the Gordian knot of consumption in a poorly-thought-out way killed a lot of people in the Great Leap Forward, and set Chinese industry back a decade. one wants to avoid that.

dubkitty wrote:noting in passing that i've tried to confine my critiques to method; the same criticisms apply to any political ideology. remember: the power of nonviolent protest in the eras of Gandhi and King was that the protestors stood their ground but accepted the blows and inprisonment, thus holding the moral high ground. he who throws the first stone and all that.

My view(and I think this coincides with what you're saying) is that in those instances, the protesters had a distinct and specific goal. In Gandhi's case it was independence from Britain, for King equality and desegregation. Vietnam war protesters wanted an end to the war. Now, 90% of protesting doesn't seem to have any concrete, realistic goal. People just kind of show up to wherever power happens to be congregating to air their own personal grievances.

snipelfritz wrote:

dubkitty wrote:noting in passing that i've tried to confine my critiques to method; the same criticisms apply to any political ideology. remember: the power of nonviolent protest in the eras of Gandhi and King was that the protestors stood their ground but accepted the blows and inprisonment, thus holding the moral high ground. he who throws the first stone and all that.

My view(and I think this coincides with what you're saying) is that in those instances, the protesters had a distinct and specific goal. In Gandhi's case it was independence from Britain, for King equality and desegregation. Vietnam war protesters wanted an end to the war. Now, 90% of protesting doesn't seem to have any concrete, realistic goal. People just kind of show up to wherever power happens to be congregating to air their own personal grievances.

oh I can see there something pretty solid: economy with a little more regulations, a tax reform for the better social benefits and support for the needing, You know - taking a step in perhaps the Nordic model direction.

Bassus Sanguinis wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:

dubkitty wrote:noting in passing that i've tried to confine my critiques to method; the same criticisms apply to any political ideology. remember: the power of nonviolent protest in the eras of Gandhi and King was that the protestors stood their ground but accepted the blows and inprisonment, thus holding the moral high ground. he who throws the first stone and all that.

My view(and I think this coincides with what you're saying) is that in those instances, the protesters had a distinct and specific goal. In Gandhi's case it was independence from Britain, for King equality and desegregation. Vietnam war protesters wanted an end to the war. Now, 90% of protesting doesn't seem to have any concrete, realistic goal. People just kind of show up to wherever power happens to be congregating to air their own personal grievances.

oh I can see there something pretty solid: economy with a little more regulations, a tax reform for the better social benefits and support for the needing, You know - taking a step in perhaps the Nordic model direction.

Pretty much. The initial goal of it was to protest how much money and power those guys have. Real life example: there used to be a tax on stocks if you sold your shares without having them for two years. Now there isn't. Wonder who thought that one up, eh? So people with enough money can actually buy stock to the point that they increase the value and then sell it immediately without paying any tax. Then they can go build three houses right next to each other on a tropical island and bribe the local government to install underground powerlines the length of the street their house is on using their money that they made from having too much money.

Bribe? Or Browbeat.

I agree that the occupations are directionless. That may be a result of the fact that they are leaderless and that is hurting and diluting the message, although to me the message is pretty clear. I think the fact that there are so many different grievances speaks to how successful the media keeps us divided and distracted. The fact that people with so many differences of opinions and backgrounds are coming together to peacefully demonstrate shows to me that our differences don't have to divide and distract us.

I do think these demonstrators are taking their lumps like the Civil Rights Demonstrators did.

Bassus Sanguinis wrote:oh I can see there something pretty solid: economy with a little more regulations, a tax reform for the better social benefits and support for the needing, You know - taking a step in perhaps the Nordic model direction.

There are huge differences in culture that would make the Nordic model impossible to export over here.
[/obvs.]

I agree with almost everything - if not outright everything - that dubkitty has said in this thread.

If anything I'm more - what I think most people here would say is - harsh.

I'd jump into debate, but I'm not sure there is much more to talk about.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI[/youtube]

Notice how they don't talk about the reason the people were protesting. At. All.

civil rights protestors had a clear, easy-to-articulate goal that could be stated in the lead-in to a news story: "civil rights protestors" or "Negroes protesting for the right to vote." when MSNBC, the most sympathetic major news outlet in America, can't explain your cause, you're kinda screwed. if you want to communicate politically, you've got to be able to do it in info-chunks people can assimilate. people against the various wars said "we're against the war" or "we're for peace." people in favor of abortion rights say "we're for abortion rights'; people against abortion say "we're against abortion." if the Occupy Wall Street folks want to have an actual impact, they're going to have to come up with a better, more concise answer to "what do you want?" than "uh, put back the capital-gains tax on stocks held for less than two years, and, uh..." cripes, do i have to write it for you? NO MORE BAILOUTS! NO GIVEBACKS! NO MORE GE GOLDMAN SACHS! even Republicans read Alinsky now, y'know? and with the current situation you've got the perfect illustration that the corporate entity owns the game whoever's in political "power." it should be the perfect situation to, pardon the expression, capitalize upon.

D.o.S. wrote:Notice how they don't talk about the reason the people were protesting. At. All.

That's because that story was about police brutality. Hence why he went into how that sort of thing happens all the time without a camera.


Whether or not you agree with these protests, their goal is very clear. They're protesting the hoarding of wealth by the top 1%, and the laws that make it so easy for them to do it. It's about getting the discussion going, especially in the media. It's failing because it's not a tea party rally, so the media doesn't care.

The tea party point, while apt, is a defeatist cop-out.
The discussion isn't happening because those people aren't articulating their goals beyond their own peer groups.

I'm all for protesting. I just think it should accomplish more than some self-righteous backslapping.