Very true. Capitalism, socialism, communism - in their pure forms none are evil or corrupt, simply different methods for a society to use. But put corrupt *people* in charge...
Theory is so nice, unfortunately we live in the real world. Sometimes it seams that we live with the option of being ripped of by capitalist, are freedoms taken by socialist, or killed by communist. Never mind, give me the capitalist.
The important thing is to stay away from the fanatics, the true-believer all-or-nothing types, advocating any of these (or any other system to solve all your problems).
I think we know that the majority of the rioters in London were not politically motivated--certainly not the ones that caused the worst violence and damage, and plenty of the occupiers are just passive nuisance makers imo.
I don't think we know that at all. They may not have run through the streets actively thinking "the government has ruined the economy and denied me opportunities to be successful", but there's little doubt that the situations that gave rise to the riots were political situations. If it was a small scale riot, you could maybe argue that it was the result of some small criminal class, but the riots were on a scale almost unparalleled in contemporary Western history, which indicates that people are being driven to respond out of desperation. Capitalism will always produce inequality, and people marginalised by the system will always be compelled to resist it. The London rioters did that very successfully, and even though the government and the right in general were very quick to suggest that anyone sympathetic to their position was inciting violence, it's pretty clear that the problems that gave rise to those riots are the same problems that are giving rise to Occupy movements across the globe.
I heard on the radio today that to get rid of the movement we need "another Nixon". Someone to say no, not Obama's whole "I could care less, it seems my last hope is hunting down dictators anyway rah rah rah!" Yes the movement is spreading but it really isn't. It is a hodgepodge of people with no real leader or set of values, oh man no more Capitalism shut up 1 % we got it covered over here. If they really were the "99 percent" they would not need to rally at all. Congress and the Senate(I assume 99 % of them are 99 % too right?) would vote it all away.
Congress and the senate are in the pockets of corporations thanks to a lack of legislation that limits the power lobbyists are able to exert. The Occupy movement has no clear goal, and nor should they. The moment they issue a demand is the moment the movement fails. It isn't about a leader, or about some new political angle, it's pure protest, it's democracy at its finest. America should be proud to have citizens willing to act, rather than sit back and hope the next change of government will magically solve the problems. And if someone really uttered the sentence "We need another Nixon", I highly suggest you listen to a different radio station. Even for Republicans, that's moronic.
Oakland and Atlanta OWS protests end in police clashes. The nyc one has forced the mayor and police to cooperate with generally peaceful marches, and popular support but I wonder how long Brookfield properties and Ray Kelly will let themselves be detoured? Actually the OWS, at least the one here in ny does have a written out set of tenets that they protest for, but according to some of the people I talked to down there, the paramount objective is the protest itself; to get americans to act against the things that stare them in the face, like the unemployment rate, wealth gap, increasing poverty, misrepresentation in the government; I suppose the same catalysts the lead so many people around the world to oppose in more violent ways, such as the London riots.
In addition to what has been said about the movement not having much traction in the U.S. because they don't really represent a large number of people, now you have people starting to actually come out and say "wait a minute, these guys don't represent me." The Occupy's claim to be the 99% is nonsense, of course. I suspect the sentiment of these guys is closer to the mainstream view than Occupy: http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_backlash/?npt=NP1&hpt=hp_t1
Arron89: So your okay with Democracy if it is utter BS? You said it yourself: Why the hell shouldn't they have a reason? People have been injured because of this movement. So is it okay to prance around saying: "Occupy Wall Street!" for no reason. Its just stupid. And on Nixon, if you get over his pride he was a good president. He is the reason America is still talking to China(i.e the people who save America's ass by loaning us bundles of money.) Nixon was elected 4 times (twice VP, twice President) and the fourth time 49 of the 50 states voted him through. Then Watergate comes along, keep in mind he got NOTHING out of Watergate and the people doing it for him did so willingly. You honestly think other presidents have never lied to America? And how can one rationalize Vietnam worse than the other wars America has been into. What more selfish a reason to go to war then Oil when people can just hunker down and drill in Alaska, a haven of gold oil ... etc etc etc. Sorry for the brevity but I'm getting tired and not ready for absolute political debate... yet. But one last note, it was not meant as "we need another president like Nixon" it was "We need another president to get things done like Nixon." Which, even if you consider his actions immoral and whatnot, he got it done. Steerpike: Completely agree. Oh yeah and America is by no means a democracy, it is a democratic republic. Massive difference.
Why should they have a goal? If someone is depressed, does the doctor demand that they tell him how to get better? Of course not. Capitalism is a virus, and 99% of the American population are its victims. The Occupy movement isn't about specific financial reforms or legislation, it's about forcing people to acknowledge that the system is broken and Corporate America, or at least the 1% at the very top, have a duty to fix it. As for the 53% bullshit, this is the whole problem. People believe in this myth that working hard hard means you will be successful. That's like saying that if you were tall and had hair, you would be short if you were bald. The reason the Occupy movement exists is because that rationality is false. You only have to look at the number of people on this very forum who have complained about how hard it is to get a job to know that getting 3 jobs has nothing to do with working hard and everything to do with luck. In the surprisingly wise words of Lemony Snicket: There may be a way not to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
See there is the issue, its working hard, taking risks and a little of lady luck. Has not let me down yet. also what is unreasonable about keeping the cake. do I owe something to the hungry man? does he owe something to me?
If you don't think you owe something to 'the hungry man' then I'm glad I don't share a country with you, not that I can say much better about some people in this country...
No I don’t. however I might still decide to be charitable. Where do you see a duty being formed between you and the hungry man. I am curious about this.
All throughout my life I've been given opportunities. Sure I've worked hard, but it doesn't matter how hard you work unless someone gives you the opportunities you need to begin, whether it's through publicly funded education, public health systems, welfare grants so that my single mother could still afford to raise me and my siblings so that we could go to college with government scholarships, subsidised education and interest-free student loans, not to mention the public funds given to my lecturers to enable them to do the research that makes the university so great. I'm thankful to the very generous millionaire patron who funds my current internship at a publicly funded art gallery where other generous individuals institutions both locally and abroad give us the resources to offer opportunities to other deserving people. My point is that regardless of how hard you work, no one is autonomous. Everyone relies and has relied on someone else to get to where they are. Which means every individual has the choice to either exploit the system, hoard everything they've gained from it and scoff at those who haven't shared their luck, or they can give back into the system to help others gain the opportunities that they've been lucky enough to enjoy themselves.
Some people are given opportunities, some go looking for them, and some make them. Some are lucky enough, smart enough, and hardworking enough to do all three. I do find it ironic that you appear to hate capitalism so much, and yet without it, that millionaire patron would not have been able to fund your internship. Just sayin'...
I broadly support the aims of the occupy movement, though I'm undecided as to how much I actually do support them, but I have a massive amount of respect for Giles Fraser at the moment. He's the (now ex) canon chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, where the Occupy the London Stock Exchange protest ended up, and has resigned in protest against the cathedral leadership's plans to give in to City of London pressure, make a u-turn and forcibly evict the protesters saying: "I resigned because I believe that the chapter has set on a course of action that could mean there will be violence in the name of the church." Easily the most dignity and principle I've seen in months.
Goes that way a lot shadowwalker. I know a number of people who have gone to smaller versions of these protests. Many are kids who haven't had to do much hard work. they all carry around their iPods and phones, and they'd be lost without Facebook or Twitter. They've got debit cards they like the use, come home afterwards and turn on the Xbox 360. And then, surrounded by all of the fruits of capitalism and consumerism, complain about capitalism and consumerism. It is yet another reason you can't take these people seriously. There are some who believe in what they are doing. Many who do not and are just there because it is the thing to do.
It is providing us a lot of intertainment. I see it as aimless, and hypotricritical. Many look like paid agitators and I bet a lot are.
A paid agitator would make sense. That persons starts a riot too early when people aren't yet that irritated by the actions of the government or whoever. And therefore the protest is weak, since it all happens before it would naturally occur. People will be calmed down without much trouble for a long time, and the "rich" people will be safe the same amount of time. At one point they will become angry again. You let it boil, and then it pops suddenly and very hard. You send in an early agitator, making it all flow out slowly and rather calmly.
Interesting. In my experience most opportunities don’t come to you, you in a active sense make them or take them. it’s interesting that you see it as passive.
Think arron is speaking of the healthy reciprocation of social contracts. No one expects a degree or job to come knocking at your door, but those at the head of institutions/businesses and government are obligated by their beneficial use of public roads, policing, and infrastructure to build up their success and influence, to only be fair in returning adequate opportunities for education/jobs/policies that promote stable development, and not break that contract.
With taxis being the way that companies and individuals give back in this social contract, then is there social duty to make as much profit as possible?
