Pardon me Arron, I don't think what I said must have been clear. I wasn't suggesting it is always personal control rather than luck, that wasn't my intention. Often, yes, it revolves around things outside of our control. But I'm sure you agree, when you put something down to luck, suddenly there is no cause. Not necessarily passing the buck from you to someone else, but from someone else to... well... nothing. It may seem like a harmless 'rebranding' but when you suggest it is luck, which we both agree it isn't, suddenly there is no event that can be learnt from... despite the fact there clearly always is somewhere up the chain, do you agree?
I don't think so...I mean, I don't think a certain arrangement of circumstances is necessarily a question of blame, or even necessarily of causality...sometimes, things just happen, sometimes things are just arbitrary. I don't necessarily think that every event in life can be neatly traced to a particular cause and effect, otherwise fields like economics would have no reason to exist--or, more clearly, there would be no debate in fields like economics, or politics in general. If cause and effect was always so simple, there would be no room for debate, but there clearly is. Which links back to the initial question of the Occupy movement. The protesters are drawing attention to the problems of our current situation, and their critics are demanding "show us what caused the problem, show us what you want to change". That way of thinking is the problem; humans, even collectively, can't possibly account for every aspect of the current politico-economic situation. We have no objectivity, and these protesters know that, but the right wing doesn't seem to. They want everything to be formulated into a Classical economic model of rigid cause and effect, but really we need to realise that that way of thinking is not of any value in our current situation. It's too vastly complicated, and the political system and the economic system are too far divided which makes it even more difficult to gain any control on the situation. The Occupy movement is generally seen as a political phenomenon, but I would argue that because it involves economics, it is also outside politics, which means it is also outside democracy. Capitalism is not democratic, but the right wing/those against the protesters are forcing them to inhabit a political space and enter into the political field (demanding what their political position is, what their policies are). I think Zizek has it right, at this moment, the Occupy movement has no answers, nor any questions. It knows what the symptoms of the problem is, and now, through these rallies, they are encouraging everyone to consider the pathology of our current economic and political situation.
Let me just correct you here - after I quit laughing. Because for you to consider my remarks those of the 'right-wing' is soooooo off-base it's just ludicrous. Yes, I believe in systems like public education. I also believe that government should use tax payer money - MY money - to help support those systems. Further, I believe that people have the responsibility to decide whether or not to seek out the opportunity of going to school, of paying for their share of that schooling, and then using that education to make their opportunities for their future. Whether they make good or bad choices, leading to great or lost opportunities, is their individual responsibility. And with that (still chuckling) I shall bid adieu to this conversation. It's obvious at this juncture that rhetoric and not reason is holding court.
Occupy San Diego cleared out by riot police; arrests made in North Carolina and Nashville because apparently you cannot have people exercising speech rights. Generators and fuel seized by fdny because of supposed fire hazards, but most likely it is to force people to leave from the coming cold. People do not make their opportunists. It might hold true for the minority of the upper classes, but personally it is not true. I did the whole thing of schooling, college, endless sleepless nights, exams upon exams; managed it all thinking I would be able to get my foot in the door, work my way up as is the story of a career; nothing panned out, and now like so many young educated Americans, I am unemployed/underemployed, lucky to even find stable retail or fast food jobs. Top it all off, I'm a "minority" so it is all that much worse, economically speaking. It's just my experience, as valid as the ones that would deny it.
Firstly, it's not YOUR money, it's EVERYONE'S money. When we think about tax revenue as a whole rather than a sum of parts, it becomes quite impossible to be self righteous and indignant about one's own contribution as it is hardly a drop in the ocean. Not all of us begrudge paying a section of our wages for public services. It kind of takes the wind out of your individualistic rhetoric doesn't it? The "But it's MY money" motto might have a tiny bit of credence if you've never used hospitals, schools, public roads, emergency services? I'm guessing you have at some point in your life so.... Your views on ultimate responsibility for life outcomes resting solely with the individual is hugely right wing. I cannot think of anything more right wing than this principle, so the joke is on you if you think arron89's observation was hilarious. You could always teach The American Dream 101 to 5 year olds. The rest of us know a bit about how the world works though, unfortunately. *Keep chuckling*
Some opportunities you can take, they don't need any special requirements. For others you have to work for so you could be able to take them. You make it possible to take them. But even if you make it possible it is not certain they will present themselves to you, or that you even see them. Opportunity is something that is 100% sure you'll get if you take it? If so it is rather dumb to use that word, word choice is much better. Everyone makes their choices - some turn out well, others don't. Sometimes good things just happen and it also applies to bad things. Governments use money paid by people however they like, and they tend to use some of it in a way that payers wouldn't like it spent. They waste a lot of it. Would be nice if much more of it got spent on science and education, and on keeping people healthier for longer. The governments expect people to be stupid and obedient, so they wouldn't ask any questions, so they would just do what they are told. If people are treated like that no wonder there are protests. The ones in power want things done their way and for themselves, without seeing the full scope of their actions over decades and even centuries and millenniums. The way humanity is built up is idiotic. People are stupid, greedy, they want power and money, they don't care about others as long as they themselves are ok. Others want that too, but they don't know how to get it, what to do so things would start changing for the better, they want it all right now this moment. Instead of understanding or seeing what exactly is wrong, what should be done so things would start changing, they make these ridiculous protests which in fact make things even worse. I wonder how long will it take for humanity to become smarter, stop all this crap, and start going in the right direction. If things continue the way they are now, that time will never come.
That's a little naive, don't you think? It's not like there's one "smart" way to build a society, to create and manage an economy, to run a government. If that was the case, there'd be no need for protest, there'd be no disagreement about how to run a government, anything like that. But the fact is, people do have different, and often equally good (or at least equally viable) ideas about how things should be structured. You want more money spent on science, I want more money spent on the arts, etc...ask ten people how they would like to see tax money spent and you'll get 10 different answers, and because we're generally democratic people, we have to accept all of those priorities and factor them in. It's easy to sit a distance and say "this is how the government should be run", but in reality it's infinitely more difficult, which, to return to the topic of the occupy movement, is why these protests exist. It's not about formulating answers or entering into a dialogue with the economy or the political system, but simply about calling attention to the fact that these problems exist and are being ignored.
I know there are many ways of building a society, but the way things currently are is wrong. I have thought about humanity and how it's built up quite a lot and I see what is wrong with it. And if you see what is wrong, it can't be that difficult to understand what could be done to change things. I didn't mean that there wouldn't be any disagreements, there would still be people with different desires, people who want things differently, but they would also know that its better if things were the way they are. Still, one person knowing all that doesn't make a difference, most of humanity should understand. But that won't happen anytime soon, it will probably take centuries if not more, but we'll most likely die out before that. I don't mean any offense, but spending more money on arts? I just don't understand how you can spend money there. More to schools that teach it, one possibility... but I included education. And that's it, I'm out of ideas. You either can do art or you can't, you can improve your skills but if you don't have it you just don't have it. Asking ten people, what if those ten happen to give exactly the same answer? Or what if those ten are all criminals, or even better, psychopathic serial killers? We accept even their priorities? It is not infinitely more difficult, people are accustomed with what is now, they were born into it, they lived and live in it, and is all they know, they lack the capability to think outside of it. Even if they somehow manage they throw it aside as something evil, wrong, and very bad, because it is not the world they know. The protesters want current world where they can simply have more for themselves.
See, your answer just proves that such an ideal is impossible to achieve. You're still presuming that there is a one-size-fits-all solution, even while you acknowledge that the way you structure things is not the way I would ideally structure things. You also fail to account for all the practical aspects of government, mundane but important things like setting the cash rate, not to mention vastly more important and more divisive things like public health care, public housing, funding for education. Obviously I think most people would agree that a good education system is important, but tax money is limited and so the way we prioritise spending is going to differ depending on the agenda of the person deciding it. You seem to think that people make certain choices knowing that there is a better way to do it and ignoring that, which is kinda ridiculous. I also think you severely misunderstand the premise of the Occupy movement...the protesters are trying to put an end to corporate greed in order to redistribute the wealth to create a more egalitarian society. It has nothing to do with them wanting it all for themselves, it's about making sure that everyone has good opportunities, good education, good jobs. What you think they represent is in fact exactly what they're fighting against...
My answer does not prove that it is impossible to achieve, I guess you simply misunderstood. How is it humanity is where it is? Through blood and greed... I don't fail to account for anything, just didn't mention everything I had in mind. Don't want to make my comments too long, since there are very many details. There would still be cash rate, health care, funding education, public housing in a way, plus other aspects. I didn't say that I think that people make certain choices knowing there is a better way. I said the protesters want MORE for themselves not ALL for themselves, there is a huge difference between more and all. And I know exactly what they represent and what they want. Its the way they want to get it, by making signs and yelling and talking, that just won't work. They want to end corporate greed. Then why not drop signs and pick up weapons, they could end the greed fast and hard. So many misunderstandings from your side... Or did I explain myself too poorly? In my life I have basically had no influence of any kind on my judgment, those few that were there I threw aside to be able think for myself. Everything I consider right and wrong has come from within myself, while most of humanity has had a lot of external influence (beliefs, religions, schools and many others). What I am saying with this is that I see humanity for what it really is. Not all hope is lost, it just takes some very tough decisions. My last comment in this thread. Before it goes way too far.
You seem to misunderstand again....it's not enough to say "there will be cash rate, there will be public health systems"...for instance, what's better, a 2% OCR or a 4% OCR? They both have different effects on the economy, both good and bad, so it's impossible to set an "ideal" in that regard. Same thing with public health--should abortions be included? Should it be mandatory to buy insurance? Should all health care be funded by tax? Should hospitals be privatised? How strictly should drug companies be regulated? etc, etc. Everyone will have a different perspective on these issues, and in many cases, it's entirely possible for society to function well in a variety of different ways. Every different system has it's pros and cons, and there will always be people who can't agree on things--that's the basis of democracy. What you are describing is some impossible utopia where everyone agrees on one supposedly enlightened way of organising society, and, in case it's still not clear to you, that's never going to happen, and I'm glad of it.
I would think more of the right wing would have more sympathy to the OWSers. In a very real sense they are protesting socialism--socialism for the rich. Wall St. blew it big time and they wiggled out of paying the price--that's a perversion of capitalist principles. Moreover, not only did they not fail financially, they have avoided prosecution for rampant fraud--that's a corruption of the rule of law. The right purports to care about deeply about these things. But they don't. Resisting a more equitable distribution of wealth is more important than upholding capitalist principles or the rule of law. Typically, they give moral arguments--basically wealth and poverty reflect merit. There is a modicum of truth in this--talent and hard work do count. But there is overwhelming evidence that that isn't even remotely the whole story--the financial crisis itself demonstrates the truth of the saying that the race is not always to the swift etc but time and chance (and connections) happens to everyone. In the crisis the foolish fraudsters got wealthier, and unemployment shot up. (Presumably the newly unemployed suddenly became lazy and undeserving.) Of course, if they really were concerned about a meritocracy they would become implacable opponents of child poverty and inherited wealth and tireless advocates of universal health care, and affordable education.
I don't understand the confusion. If you don't _approve_ of spending money on the arts, that's one thing, but are you saying that you don't understand where the money could possibly go? It costs money to put on a play or a concert, to create a statue or painting or mosaic, to make a movie, to open and run and heat and light a museum or a concert hall or a playhouse. When the government helps to pay for those things, that's spending money on the arts. ChickenFreak
Yes, but the wealth that they are trying to distribute wouldn't exist in the first place if the corporations, shareholders, taxpayers etc hadn't generated it, and it would not have grown without speculation, investment etc. So they have quite a nerve if they think they have some kind of 'right' to 'demand' this wealth (which they happily reaped the benefits of when times were good). And that levelling society stuff has been done, it's nothing new. Within a few decades the people with a head for business and dealing always rise to the top again, it's basic human nature which I don't think will ever change--although you can do is harness/limit it, which generally leads to a poorer business environment aka socialist/communist experiments. Unfortunately. Anyone who has lived in a country heaving with social unrest and economic instability brought about by mass protests knows that it is a miserable experience. It ends up with very little benefits being gained by those who need them most, and often the worst people in power. The idea-makers tend to be terrible long-time leaders, generally speaking. I really think the developed western countries should quit bickering and moaning and realise just how easy they have it in comparison to the other half of humanity.
You're right that a great deal of wealth is theoretically generated by taxes on the profits of large corporations and their wealthy CEOS, as well as many other rich finance industry execs. The problem is that in practice, that isn't the case. I'm sure I don't need to dredge up links to the countless articles that have appeared over the past five years about corporations paying zero tax, CEOs defrauding the government and shareholders, croney capitalism costing billions, etc, etc. If these people behaved in a fair way, there would be no need for protest, we wouldn't be facing unilateral budget cuts while the super-rich are pandered to with further tax breaks and huge bailouts while no jobs are available and the "trickledown effect" the right wing love so much completely fails. It seems like you imagine that people lose their jobs and suddenly become mooching, lazy free-loaders, which is ridiculous. These people protesting are victims of the failures of capitalism, not those responsible for its collapse. As much as it may inconvenience you, who has the security of an institutional job and a comfortable living situation, these people are fighting for their lives and their children's futures. They don't deserve any of the resentment or condescension they receive, regardless of whether or not you agree with their message. This is democracy in action; if you don't like it, I'm sure there's a dictator somewhere who'd love to have you.
The system can generate as much wealth as it likes, but if the vast majority of people in this system aren't getting a share of it, why should they care? Productivity per worker has increased approx. 80% since 1970. Wages have been stagnant. The top 1% have gobbled up all the generated wealth. If workers had seen the benefit, the average salary would be somewhere in the 90 ks, I believe. If memory serves, that increase in generated wealth has translated into a 240% increase in the 1%'s share of the pie. (There are many ways to react to the above facts. My wife said, "Wow! We are paying a 40k tax to have a class of super-rich!" I suppose a right-winger would argue that the workers only increased their productivity because the wealthy made it possible so the wealthy deserve to hoover it all up. I say no wonder consumer demand is a problem and the economy is stalling.) People are talking about a more equitable distribution of wealth. To say that that will lead the US down the path to communism or will wreck wealth-creation is just stupid. In America's post-war economic golden age, the top tax bracket hovered around 90% and capitalism prospered and great fortunes were made. The more equitable distribution of wealth kept demand robust, and high tax rates meant that businesses hesitated to take money out of the business as profit, but would grow the business instead--more plants, employees, r and d, and newer, better equipment. The elitest assumption that what is good for the wealthy is good for the economy is false. Hell, corporations are sitting on around 2 trillion of cash now, wealth inequality has never been greater, and the economy is sputtering.
Sorry? I didn't say anything about people losing their jobs and becoming freeloaders. I'm really not following you at all. I'm saying that people protesting either have jobs or some means of financial support and are really not that badly off; causing social unrest through illegal demonstrations instead of working to find a solution will, however, make them more badly off in the long run. This is not democracy in action at all--no one voted on the advisability of taking this action, and the protesters don't have majority support. Until they do, this is anti-democratic. And as I said, the worst type of leaders, such as dictators, are just those who rise to power after the kind of free-for-all you are supporting. And FYI, I work in a private institution where my tenure is reviewed yearly--about as insecure a job as you could think of. Also, there are no lavish benefits in Turkey so the future for myself and my husband is work and more work if I want my kids to have a comfortable future and myself to have a reasonably comfortable old age. The only things we are scared of a) illness which would prevent us from working b) another economic crisis which would bring our achievements to zero again after already being brought to bancruptcy once c) a natural disaster like the 1999 earthquake.
I think the demonstraters are mostly students and the young, there are some homeless as well. Some Good News today in the fact that the legal action to remove demonstrators at St Pauls has been halted, for how long though.
^That is the best argument I have read so far in regards to the current situation. I was about to respond in something like the same manner until I read your post, as well as the one below that. I think the case has been stated quite insightfully here in terms of what is really going on and what should be done about it. The bottom line is, if we really want unfettered capitalism to reign supreme in American society, this will only lead to greater poverty for the masses and greater inequality and injustice in society for all of us. We need to tax the rich, especially the super mega rich. If that means they will move to another country and change their citizenship, then so be it. A truly good and fair society does not and would not want such mean avaricious people ruling over everyone else anyway. We need to seriously cut down on military spending, which is absolutely out of control. I mean, if you look at what happened in WW2, it will show you what a relatively non-militarized USA can do if threatened by foreign powers (the standing army number was 19th in the world at the time), therefore, a huge standing military was clearly proven to be completely unnecessary. Take out most of the overbloated military budget, and your medicare, medicaid, and social security funding issues are solved. Bang. It's as simple as that.
So now we have the protestors in Oakland breaking into buildings, lighting fires, and painting anarchy symbols. Good example of why the movement is going nowhere and has no mainstream support. They just confirmed the viewpoint of people who have been saying that you are dealing largely with a bunch of agitators and thugs out to cause problems, even if at its core it started in a principled fashion. They either don't know how to acquire popular support or they don't care.
^People who engage in these kinds of activities are almost by definition the poor, starving, needy and fed-up masses who are desperate for work, opportunity, and some hope for a better future. They are being denied all of those things, so of course they will react in such a way. They have fundamentally valid concerns and issues. Most of this country's wealth has been squandered away by dynasties of wealth, affluence, and inherited priveleges. The "little guys" make up at least 75% of the US population (those who do not have financial security, are vulnerable to losing their jobs and have trouble paying the bills), so how else do you expect people in such a state to respond? They do not have any access to any real redress of their grievences and concerns, so they act out in this way because they have no other options. The lawyers are all working for the opposite side, on the payroll for the trust fund babies that rule America today. This movement is continuing to grow. There doesn't seem to be any end in sight, at least at present times, it is only getting bigger and people are getting angrier.
Yeah, it is easy enough to get a poll like that, but the majority of people who answered that way aren't going to be showing up at a protest any time soon.
I don't agree. The majority of people who behave like this are opportunists who show up to these sorts of events to cause problems. Even the Occupy people have distanced themselves from these people, saying they are not representative of the group. And I do not think most of the people showing up at these protests are starving, needy masses. At least not the ones I've been seeing. There was a cartoon that had an Occupy protestor with a sign sharing "share the wealth," and behind him was a homeless person asking if he could have the protestor's iPad. That's closer to what I'm seeing than the idea of poor, starving masses coming together. The people I know who go to these things take their smart phones with them, and when it is over they blog about it and/or post to facebook, and maybe play some games on the xbox 360 while discussing how socially aware they are. They're completely immersed in the trappings of capitalism on a daily basis and don't see the irony.
