Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on October 13, 2011, 09:28:54 pm
-
I'm one happy degree of separation away from having been maced! And she was just walking by, she doesn't even have a problem with cops! PIGS (most of the NYC cops are actually pretty cool, she did some level headed blog posts and interviews and **** about it)
As the finer souls of this forum have already elucidated income inequality seems to be a major driver of recessions and thus seems a rationally sensible target for protest
but it remains to be seen whether the nascent Occupy **** movement will translate into real political action -- and whether the movement's intentionally decentralized ideology will be able to isolate the problem of corrupt or counterproductive business practices from the obvious benefits large corporations provide. In order to make their point, the protests desperately need to avoid being pigeonholed as neo-Marxist anti-corporate generalists.
****posters please queue behind the yellow line, the rest of you give me your thoughts: will we have a Tea Party counterweight come election season or is this an unsustainable outburst without any coherent agenda or ideology?
-
remains to be seen. don't think the movement will get organized enough to be a counterpoint for the tea party. I think that's one of the appeals of the movement. I could see the movement being co-opted by somebody else and taken in a direction which was not originally intended.
-
The Tea Party movement was quietly assimilated by political interests very early in its lifetime, but it wasn't apparent to the general public. Setting aside the ****ty conspiracy theories that will inevitably be posted, I wonder who's attempting to compromise Occupy Crap right now? Who would benefit from having the movement as an asset for astroturfing?
There are a number of agents provocateur pretty apparent in the crowds, either agitating, looking for **** to narc on, or blocking meetings by exploiting the communal rules. Pretty interesting power dynamics at play.
ed: i am dyslexic
-
you sound rather angry. where do you think it will go? also i remember reading about a televangelist, Al something? maybe. he was there giving a speech and it I was left wondering what connection he had to the movement at all. some people are using it just for publicity but that's true of most things. the accusations of the demonstration being a means of "class warfare" are rather irritating though. while the statement is slightly true in the sense that one socioeconomic class is railing against another one.
-
you sound rather angry.
Nope this is pretty much ordinary conversational
-
scary :p
-
the company I work for is bidding on making a social media site with Micheal More related to this.
-
an unsustainable outburst without any coherent agenda or ideology?
i'm gonna go with that one.
-
Tea Partiers are politically organized and motivated. We're not seeing that level of decentralized-but-present control in this group (which is unfortunate).
That, and the political left in the US is a desolate wasteland, so I don't see an entrenched political movement ready to take up the cause.
-
It's a good idea but Wall Street is too nebulous and broad to go after, in my opinion. I'd suggest occupying the Federal Reserve instead seeing as they're in charge of the monetary policy for the USA. I also notice political organizations trying to co-opt Occupy, MoveOn.org for instance. I am more interested in the wider Occupy movement across the world, I wonder what may come from this aside from sending a message that people seem to have had enough.
It's similar to the Tea Party, started by the Ron Paul campaign and grassroots, now mostly co-opted and changed, some for the better, some for the worse. (Herman Cain as a tea partier, for instance, is a little strange being a Federal Reserve chairman (?) in the 1990s).
No movement starts and solves things in one night though, politics is like a game of subterfuge, so we'll see what the end results will be.
-
Haven't really been following this issue as of late. I DO recall reading that the Occupy Dallas protest ran into trouble with the local authorities, something to do with ....I want to say permits, almost.
Spending 7 hours today on a Heat Transfer assignment (roughly indicative of current workload) pretty effectively blocks serious analysis, but on the surface, the "Occupy ______" movement appears viral in nature, feeding on a long-festering agitation among the "ordinary folk" of the US. [/obviousness]
However, preliminary observations (and how preliminary they are) suggest no substantial conclusions as of yet- this could easily snowball into a strong political movement with sufficient organization, could potentially cascade into violence with the correct rhetoric and catalyst, or it could implode with an embarrassing whimper.
Things are too early and I'm not really tuned in enough at the moment to make a real guess, so I'll leave that to the more informed commenters of the Hard Light Hivemind.
-
Haven't really been following this issue as of late. I DO recall reading that the Occupy Dallas protest ran into trouble with the local authorities, something to do with ....I want to say permits, almost.
Spending 7 hours today on a Heat Transfer assignment (roughly indicative of current workload) pretty effectively blocks serious analysis, but on the surface, the "Occupy ______" movement appears viral in nature, feeding on a long-festering agitation among the "ordinary folk" of the US. [/obviousness]
However, preliminary observations (and how preliminary they are) suggest no substantial conclusions as of yet- this could easily snowball into a strong political movement with sufficient organization, could potentially cascade into violence with the correct rhetoric and catalyst, or it could implode with an embarrassing whimper.
Things are too early and I'm not really tuned in enough at the moment to make a real guess, so I'll leave that to the more informed commenters of the Hard Light Hivemind.
Yeah, there's a lot of possible directions this thing could go in. I'm gonna invoke Godwin's Law, although with some actual justification this time. The conditions in the U.S. right now aren't too far off from Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Inflation and poverty mixed with distrust of the system and the government paved the way for a particularly charismatic figure to seize causes and organize the sentiments into a fairly coherent (at least in the early years) sociopolitical movement.
Sociology isn't my area of expertise, of course, but I can see the parallels and recognize the possibility of something similar happening - although it doesn't necessarily have to be a coup with a ranting lunatic at the helm. If someone with strong leadership skills shows up, they could turn the amorphous discontent into a focused resistance. I don't really foresee a second revolution or anything quite that drastic, but this has the potential to drive reform if it's harnessed correctly by the right person. We just have to be exceedingly careful.
-
no level of protest can beat good old fashioned violence.
-
Winter is Coming...
-
Yeah, there's a lot of possible directions this thing could go in. I'm gonna invoke Godwin's Law, although with some actual justification this time. The conditions in the U.S. right now aren't too far off from Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Inflation and poverty mixed with distrust of the system and the government paved the way for a particularly charismatic figure to seize causes and organize the sentiments into a fairly coherent (at least in the early years) sociopolitical movement.
I'm no history expert, but I'm pretty sure that things in the US are not even remotely as bad as they were for Germany in the 20s. IMO things need to be quite a bit worse before any sort of sweeping movement can gain real momentum.
I won't speculate on whether such a change would be for the better or for the worse.
-
but I'm pretty sure that things in the US are not even remotely as bad as they were for Germany in the 20s.
To clarify: The bread price leaped up into the thousands (and beyond). Germany was dependant on the USA for money, and for obvious reasons the USA did not have any money anymore, and the French seized Germany's major industries because Germany could not pay their ridiciously high 'repairment payments'. Unless the Taliban starts occupying Detroit and a sandwich costs millions, then we are talking about a similar situation.
-
You have to keep in mind that the average person is also much more spoiled than people were back then, and it's their perception that matters, not the actual reality of things. I don't think the perception is that pessimistic yet, but we're getting there.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Here's a good reference on why people are angry.
-
This Occupy Wall street thing actually has spreaded to NL as well now.
You have to keep in mind that the average person is also much more spoiled than people were back then, and it's their perception that matters, not the actual reality of things. I don't think the perception is that pessimistic yet, but we're getting there.
Fair point. I think the world has been a lot more wealthy due to the baby boomers. Now that those baby boomers and hte economic benifits they gave are getting old, there's suddenly a whole lot less money available. So we all have to settle for... the meagre years (although it could be worse).
Then again, that is no reason not to complain about people who pulled a lot of money out of financial bubbles...
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
Here's a good reference on why people are angry.
Great reference there. Since (the) 2008 (bailouts) it seems every negative chart has been going up enormously. I wonder if there's a causation in that correlation.
Furthermore, I do think it's better to compare it to Germany just after WW1, having enormous debts to pay off and it's economy in ruin from a long war. I think people are also very upset and protest because it's -becoming- like 1929. No one wants a repeat of that.
-
Stuff is gonna get worse before anyone feels the need to do about it. Right now it's not worth risking one's life for, for the vast majority of people.
-
Theres an "Occupy Nova Scotia" protest going on now... we'll see how it goes.
-
Theres an "Occupy Nova Scotia" protest going on now... we'll see how it goes.
A few sprung up around the country this weekend; Toronto, Vancouver, and Edmonton all have them (despite the fact that Toronto is the only one of the three with actual banking executives).
-
I visited the one here in Rochester, talked to a few people. I'm hoping to make it to the general assembly tomorrow. I'm pushing for the movement to become more locally focused and politically active, instead of just protesting in the streets.
-
As the finer souls of this forum have already elucidated income inequality seems to be a major driver of recessions and thus seems a rationally sensible target for protest
I nearly shat my paints in the penis size thread, if that's what you're talking about, old Batoots. If you read the case studies in the IMF paper it looks like they referred mainly to extremely poor countries that were brought down by either social unrest, or unsustainable debts resulting from income redistribution policies, and conclusions drawn are not necessarily generalizable to industrialized countries or the Republican agenda. Then again, I need to shut up now, lest I contradict any of the bold statements I have made in a previous account-life.
The penis stronger than the sword.
Perhaps, but the thread topic has been discussed to death on fourchan. Suffice it to say that there are not enough liberal arts majors in the country to turn OWS into a viable movement. The protest still hasn't topped the teabagger gatherings in attendance and attention. I don't think anything will come of it. What's more concerning, for me at least, is the effect of endocrine disruptors and environmental estrogen on American penis size, testicular volume and sperm count what will happen when New Yorkers trying to commute to work in downtown Manhattan finally snap.
-
it might not match tea party in attendance, but they've already got FAR more attention. I only ever saw a very few stories or headlines about the tea party. one of them was when they were crying 'racist' at that one guy. all of them were during election time. ever since this occupy thing started, it's been the first story on my homepage almost every day. it's in the scrolling headlines of every news site every day.
-
it might not match tea party in attendance, but they've already got FAR more attention.
You're right, I think. They do have a decent amount of recognition now. In fact their initial spike in popularity was much more rapid than that of the teabaggers, we'll see if it can be maintained.
****posters please queue behind the yellow line, the rest of you give me your thoughts: will we have a Tea Party counterweight come election season or is this an unsustainable outburst without any coherent agenda or ideology?
Sort of. This is not an unplanned outburst. /b/ oldfags have been behind it all along and they're not just going to give up once people get bored of protesting in New York. Something resembling OWS will remain in the news for the next few years, but I don't think it will be a real counterweight to the tea party simply because Obama is the incumbent. If the economy sucks, he gets blamed, if it suddenly makes a rapid recovery then capitalism will not look so bad anymore. Lose-lose for the neckbeards.
-
Could someone link to some general info about this movement, what its objectives are, what they're doing, etc.?
-
Could someone link to some general info about this movement, what its objectives are, what they're doing, etc.?
It's supposed to be a fairly apolitical mass protest of income inequality -- the fact that an increasingly tiny portion of the country controls an increasingly huge share (90%+) of the wealth, mostly through byzantine legal and commercial tactics rather than hard work. This is nearly incontrovertibly A Bad Thing, as centralization of wealth stratifies the nation, kills the mass public's ability to participate in democracy, and leads to greater economic instability.
In practice, of course, its rhetoric and aims will inevitably be polarized and pushed towards one end (the left end) of the partisan spectrum.
-
what they're doing is camping out in parks and on the streets. what their objectives are, your guess is as good as theirs. but here's one idiot's ideas that caught on with the less intelligent of the crowds, and had to be quickly disowned by the "collective." note the opportunity taken to blame fox news.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ (http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/)
let me edit this so I come off as less of a troll. batt's post above is a nicely worded description of what the protest ideally represents. my remarks are about what it really seems to boil down to, in my opinion based off of what I have read/seen of the protests.
-
I'd prefer resurrecting the monumental bad ass that was Teddy Roosevelt and letting him loose on the country.
-
I'd prefer resurrecting the monumental bad ass that was Teddy Roosevelt and letting him loose on the country.
+1; good plan
EDIT: And who is the pinko commie that came up with http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/ (http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/)
THAT???
United Socialist States of America, anyone??
-
I went multiple times to the Chicago branch of this protest near the Chicago board of trade. Many people were holding signs addressing various issues.
Tax the rich, no more bailouts for millionaires, we are the 99%, live simply so that others may simply live, just to name a few.
One guy held up a sign with a picture of the monopoly guy on it gritting his teeth. The sign read: This is not a game! Go directly to jail! I regret not filming that one.
To say the protest is not organized would be missing a lot. There were unions, groups of local college students handing out water drawing signs handing out flyers etc., and a group of people with foreclosed homes who called themselves 'Action Now'. The overall message may be somewhat decentralized, but there is a lot of political clout behind it.
I took a small video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y070S7upnSU&feature=channel_video_title) of the protest, but I'm no videographer, actually I don't think the video is much of anything special, but at least it will give you a sense of what's going on in Chicago. It's from last Monday. The protest goes around the corner to the right into the front entrance of the Chicago board of trade. The protest has grown in number since. The night after this video was filmed, I heard on the news that the protest spilled into the street and closed it down.
One thing I would like to see come out of this movement is some serious campaign finance reform in the form of regulations on corporate lobbying of elected officials. It would be hard to push any policy of economic fairness otherwise. It's too early to be able to predict exactly what may come out of the OWS, but I hope it will at least be a goal.
-
Now that they've avoided being pigeon-holed as some Neo-Marxist whackos, time for the Neo-Marxists to step up to the plate :D
-
Funny thing not too long ago
Someone interviewed the organizer for the Vancouver Occupation. What did he say?
"Once we get every together, we'll figure out what we're protesting"
I mean, really? REALLY?
On a similar note, I don't see these 'occupations' doing much of anything other than being a waste of time
-
the ones smart enough to actually have a purpose also realize that standing on a corner and shouting isn't likely to help.
-
What I've noticed so far is that most people seem informed and really want a stop to 'crony capitalism' and corporatism. Some groups are socialists, marxists, even anarchists, but most seem to be above average intelligent and decently aware of what the real problems are. The movement spread all across the world, since it seems decentralized there's no way to call the entire movement under one name. Seems it's turning out better than I thought so far. In the end, we'll see what happens, but I would very much enjoy to see all these people gather around the 12 Federal Reserve banks in the USA, preferably with the proverbial torches and pitchforks, as they're at the center of the bailouts and monetary and financial problems.
One purpose that the whole Occupy shows is that there are many many people very discontent and unhappy with what's been going on. Not everyone may know what -exactly- is wrong but that's why people need to be educated by those that do know more on the issues.
-
When they produce some candidates I can actually vote for, let me know. Until then, I can't see how this actually accomplishes anything, however much I may agree with the sentiments being expressed.
-
One purpose that the whole Occupy shows is that there are many many people very discontent and unhappy with what's been going on
People are always unhappy and discontent with what's been going on. Even more so when someone else says they're unhappy with what's been going on, rallies some people up, and waits for group mentality to set in
-
One purpose that the whole Occupy shows is that there are many many people very discontent and unhappy with what's been going on
People are always unhappy and discontent with what's been going on. Even more so when someone else says they're unhappy with what's been going on, rallies some people up, and waits for group mentality to set in
Yeah but in this case there's actually a quantifiable problem. I'm a big advocate of the idea that our current social and economic systems work very well and will continue to work well and improve themselves, but I think that movements like Occupy Wall Street are an important corrective force and a crucial part of that self-improvement.
-
Unfortunately, you have groups from WSWS talking about complete worldwide revolution over these occupations. Some don't follow that same self-improvement thought, but rather a total overhaul.
-
I'm no history expert, but I'm pretty sure that things in the US are not even remotely as bad as they were for Germany in the 20s.
Well if you listen to the rhetoric from the activists...
The Nazis claimed that the politicians and the banks are corrupt, working for their own profit instead for the benefit of THE PEOPLE.
They also claimed that the majority of the Germans demands a government that works for the people, not for big business, and that the majority of THE PEOPLE standing behind Hitler, a strong leader who works for THE PEOPLE.
So I'm a little bit sacred if a large group of persons claim they are representing 99% of THE PEOPLE... that left not much room for dissidents.
Could become pretty nasty, for the remaining 1% or those who are declared to be that 1% ( did they have a name for them yet, like "Enemies of THE PEOPLE ?" ;) )
A lot of the early Nazi-Propaganda was very anti capitalistic.
During the 90s a lot of discussion was going around inside the left Scene in Germany about the dangers of simplified anti-capitalism as a fuel for a right - or left - populist movement.
One signal for that simplified anti-capitalism is the use of moralistic rhetoric like "greedy banksters" . This critic doesn't target the economic rules of capitalism, it targets a person as moral inferior.
It's like calling a prostitute "slutty" and don't try to understand the economic background that is forcing her to sell her body.
While this simplified critic won't help you to understand or solve a problem, it gives you the good feeling to be moral superior compared to the greedy bankster or the slutty prostitute.
And isn't that feeling good enough ? ;)
-
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l77/Aardwolf001/Funny%20Stuff/tumblr_lt4b07zvoS1qcbo9lo1_500.jpg)
(thought I'd inject some humor)
-
HAHA
Nice one. That made my day wolf
-
Unfortunately, you have groups from WSWS talking about complete worldwide revolution over these occupations. Some don't follow that same self-improvement thought, but rather a total overhaul.
The presence of crazy extremists in any group of people is pretty much a given, not a cause for panic. Protesters could stand to dress up nice though.
-
but I would very much enjoy to see all these people gather around the 12 Federal Reserve banks in the USA, preferably with the proverbial torches and pitchforks, as they're at the center of the bailouts and monetary and financial problems.
FED has a lot of stabilizing influence. rather than a destructive one. they're also one of the few government institutions to turn a profit in this downturn. I keep seeing a lot of hate for them in general. yet it is arguable that we are better off with them than without. and things could have been worse without the bailout
the monetary financial problems are not caused/centered around the FED, but rather a large debt caused by a war that we arent/havent been paying for. among other things
-
(http://209.85.48.8/10072/112/emo/doh.gif)
:banghead:
-
FED has a lot of stabilizing influence. rather than a destructive one. they're also one of the few government institutions to turn a profit in this downturn. I keep seeing a lot of hate for them in general. yet it is arguable that we are better off with them than without. and things could have been worse without the bailout
Free banking was better, less capacity over utilization/inflation. Also, the bailout created its own moral hazard problems and there is little evidence that it helped. You can read John Taylor's black swan stuff on it. But to each his own. On an unrelated note, Black Swan was a very good movie with a nice lezzie scene.
Yeah but in this case there's actually a quantifiable problem. I'm a big advocate of the idea that our current social and economic systems work very well and will continue to work well and improve themselves, but I think that movements like Occupy Wall Street are an important corrective force and a crucial part of that self-improvement.
I don't want to say liberal circlejerk again. But seeing this kind of consensus thread after thread almost makes me want to post breastfeeding goats at a woman's teat just to spur some kind of discussion.
The direction these protests and movements are going is not a productive one. I'm going to go off a slippery slope if you don't mind, but Wagner's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner%27s_law) is at work. 'Murka will be communist some day; all the right wing can do is hold off the rabble and delay them a bit.
-
Yet another man who doesn't get communism?
-
You can read John Taylor's black swan stuff on it. But to each his own. On an unrelated note, Black Swan was a very good movie with a nice lezzie scene.
classy
Yeah but in this case there's actually a quantifiable problem. I'm a big advocate of the idea that our current social and economic systems work very well and will continue to work well and improve themselves, but I think that movements like Occupy Wall Street are an important corrective force and a crucial part of that self-improvement.
I don't want to say liberal circlejerk again. But seeing this kind of consensus thread after thread almost makes me want to post breastfeeding goats at a woman's teat just to spur some kind of discussion.
The direction these protests and movements are going is not a productive one.
If 'ending wage stagnation that's lasted decades' is unproductive I'm not really sure what is
-
If 'ending wage stagnation that's lasted decades' is unproductive I'm not really sure what is
Higher wages means less profits, and that means less investment. So to an anal retentive Chipotle mexican jumping bean in my anus retainer GDP fascist like me, yes, thats unproductive.
At risk of making people take me too seriously, I'll put things in simple terms. The USA is still a less-**** version of Europe, let's keep it that way.
-
Higher wages means less profits, and that means less investment.
Noooo they don't you silly man
e: Unless CEO salaries are 'profits'
So to an anal retentive Chipotle mexican jumping bean in my anus retainer GDP fascist like me, yes, thats unproductive.
You said anus twice!
-
That's an empirical question, with a Google answer.
Hirsch (1991a) provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of union effects on investment, both in physical and intangible capital. He is also distinguishes between the "direct" and "indirect" effects of unions on investment. The direct effect, as discussed above, stems from the union tax on the returns to long-lived and relation-specific capital, leading firms to cut back on investment so as to equate the marginal post-tax rate of return with the marginal financing cost. The indirect effect of unions on investment arises from the higher financing costs owing to reduced profits (and, thus, internal funding of investment) among union firms.
Because I'm doubly retentive.
-
Investment isn't an end in and of itself. If the dividends of investment are concentrated it's not getting anything done!
-
I say. Your argument rests on the assumption that dividends destroy the capital that investment created, which makes about as much sense as a sighting of Elvis riding a unicorn.
edit: Unless you're advocating equality as a desirable thing, which would be irrational, subjectivist and anti-mind.
-
Whoa, pointy-headed ungulate.
GDP and economic growth are not an end unto themselves. There is a reason that the US consistently ranks below less-capitalist countries in quality of life indicies, and it is virtually always a derivative of the fact that wealth and opportunity are consolidated strongly within the control of a very select few individuals.
The returns on investment and growth in the United States are not benefiting large proportions of the population in the slightest. In fact, one could argue that reduced investment actually leads to higher quality of life for workers at the lower end of the scale. Economic growth is meaningless without a human-benefit measure factored in, because otherwise the growth has no context. Growth realized by the top 20% of earners does not necessarily translate into increased human-benefit measures for anyone else. Yeah, it's nice that CEO could afford a second yacht.
And the study you just cited is 20 years old and therefore absolutely irrelevant to the current financial state of the United States. All the data on that page references conclusions drawn in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which were a very different economic world than we live in now. If you'd like to perhaps look at some real disparities now in terms of what's happened since 1991, I'd suggest following this link and clicking "H1 - All Races": http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html (Further breakdown is provided in each of the other H - All Races" categories).
The numbers speak for themselves. Greater growth in the top 5% has not translated into greater gains for employed persons in the US as a whole.
-
Dem overpayed CEO's! Curse you all for being successful!
-
Dem overpayed CEO's! Curse you all for being successful!
What are they doing that warrents them being payed many times as much as any number of other components in society. I could see a CEO getting payed ten or twenty times what an average worker makes, but it goes way beyond that at this point, and for CEOs that can only keep their companies together because the tax-payers bailed them out.
-
I know. I never said they were smart did I?
-
Sorry, I mistook you for a Ayn Rand style libertarian charging up.
-
Wait what? You can't resolve a misunderstanding that quickly around here. This is HLP! I demand you argue bitterly back and forth about it for five pages, with epic tl;dr posts in which you quote and dissect each post point by point, both using incredibly shady sources and taking every opportunity to berate the other poster and anyone who agrees with him. :p
-
Sorry, I mistook you for a Ayn Rand style libertarian charging up.
One might imagine that "Ayn Rand" the person who made Alan Greenspan realize that Capitalism is not just efficient and practical, but also ethical ( :)) may not be the most popular person right now.
Course they too had their falling out by now... but still. ;)
-
My best friend is a firm believer in Randism, and we drive everyone bonkers with how much we argue about it. Unfortunately that's resulted in me seeing extreme libertarians where there aren't any.
-
My best friend is a firm believer in Randism, and we drive everyone bonkers with how much we argue about it. Unfortunately that's resulted in me seeing extreme libertarians where there aren't any.
Libertarianism, as with most things in life, is best only in moderation ;)
-
Don't apologize! It's a sign of weakness Mars! You're supposed to be the God of War! BE MORE GODLIKE FOOL
Back on topic:
It is working people who produce the wealth which wall street squanders, while their politicians in the white house tell us there's "no money" for social security, health care, education, and a decent standard of living. They spend trillions on criminal wars and barely give us crumbs of the spoils. Whatever party is in the white house, it is Wall Street which truly owns and runs this country. Nowadays, the multi billionaires on wall street are not rich because they created industrial empires, unlike Ford etc in the 1900s. They get rich by destroying those industrial empires, closing factories down, and outsourcing labor. I don't care what you believe, NO ONE should have that much money. You don't need it. There are people who are starving because 500 people have OBSCENE amounts of wealth just rotting away in a bank account. **** that. Whatever you believe, the majority of people will not let it stand. That's what this movement is all about. It is the beginning of the overthrow of capitalism. Get used to it.
Report this post
dude, actually, protesting on wall street amounts to pressuring the powers that be to make reforms. It won't actually do anything. The real revolution begins inside the factories throughout the country and the world.
No matter what, you will continue to doubt the revolutionary potential of the working class, because you are disconnected from it and demoralized based on your petty-bourgeois position. people could be openly calling for a socialist revolution and you would still be doubting it. the governments could be overthrown and you would still be doubting it. why even live if you are not even going to take part in these historical times?
WSWS guy I mentioned earlier. That's his take on this
-
Thinking about taking a short trip to New York to see this occupation for myself... would make an interesting first trip to NYC for me.
Note: I skipped every page 'cept the first.
-
Since IMO Battuta's initial response wasn't thorough enough...
Higher wages means less profits
Profit = Income - Expenses
Wages, salaries, stipends, and any other way of paying money to your employees, are all in that "expenses" category.
-
Since IMO Battuta's initial response wasn't thorough enough...
Higher wages means less profits
Profit = Income - Expenses
Wages, salaries, stipends, and any other way of paying money to your employees, are all in that "expenses" category.
Yes... and don't forget taxes...although whether a company would re-invest additional profit from lower taxes into employee wages is questionable..
-
Since IMO Battuta's initial response wasn't thorough enough...
Higher wages means less profits
Profit = Income - Expenses
Wages, salaries, stipends, and any other way of paying money to your employees, are all in that "expenses" category.
Yes... and don't forget taxes...although whether a company would re-invest additional profit from lower taxes into employee wages is questionable..
Except we tried that, and they didn't. Nothing has trickled down.
-
Oh something trickled down. It just wasn't money. :p
-
for informational purposes only, not trying to make a statement on the protests one way or another.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/18/poll-49-of-occupy-wall-street (http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/18/poll-49-of-occupy-wall-street)
-
The bailouts absolutely were pretty necessary, but what the banks have done since then has actually been a little questionable -- rather than increasing investment (as they were supposed to), they've bunkered down and raked in a lot of cash. Here's a decently non-****ty overview of the facts behind a lot of the common refrains you'll hear from the street. (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1)
-
Nice link, thanks GB.
EDIT: So has anyone been involved with any of these? I went to the one in my local area (as a curious citizen, not a participant). The people there seemed generally nice and well meaning. I got to talk to several different individuals, including the police officer standing guard; I remember this conversation the most distinctly. He agreed with a lot of the notions the protesters were putting forth, and we also talked a lot about the responsibility of an officer in America.
People in the protest itself seemed to be happy to be out and doing something more political than simply voting. There was a large variety of signs, talking about everything from corporate greed to environmental issues. I would say 99% of the people there gave me a good vibe; there was one individual shouting, though I believe he left halfway through and he appeared to be intoxicated. Another individual, an elderly man in a wheelchair, did indeed start by proclaiming peace, but it ended with me finding him out through his own words that he advocated violence.
I did find another individual who had a sign saying how oil subsidies should be stopped; I talked to her about how Europe lacks oil subsidies and the resultant high prices of their gas. She was very open and receptive to being given information that conflicted with her chosen statement, something that I was happy with.
As I was leaving, I talked with on more person who agreed with my notion that the 99% vs 1% idea might be too conflicting; I proposed that it automatically sets up a system that relies on conflict between two groups, rather than a singular movement towards a shared common goal.
I've heard the general assembly meetings are still pretty disorganized. I'm hoping to get there this Sunday and see if I can help out. There was a small protest on my campus the other day, held by the students that were a part of the ISO. We discussed some things, but like many of the occupations they lack clarity of focus. Hopefully they will be able to find it; I have a friend in that group who might be able to help.
How about you folks? Made it down to your local Occupation?
-
I would totally go, but I have work :-(
There's an Occupy Raleigh and everything, I just can't make it out during the day, even on the weekend. Damn you Crunch!
-
As I said, I might take a trip over just see what the heck is happening for myself. I'll get back to guys if I do.
-
Can't say I really have any interest in going myself. It's interesting to watch, though.
-
Have been, have had friends maced
-
Tangentially related, but seems like as good a time as any to throw this in:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops)
-
The cops are actually mostly respectful and doing their jobs with great professionalism and courtesy, it's just the exceptions that make the news.
-
Tangentially related, but seems like as good a time as any to throw this in:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops)
whoever wrote that is a moron with a grudge.
-
Tangentially related, but seems like as good a time as any to throw this in:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops (http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops)
whoever wrote that is a moron with a grudge.
Eh, take it with a grain of salt. ...or several, as it were. Maddox hates pretty much everything.
-
Occupy Perth had less than 200 people, and will fizzle over the summer - seriously, the Australian climate makes protesting difficult. It's always too bloody hot, and he you're out and about on the weekend, you might as well go to the beach, especially since there's a lot less wrong here than in other places.
Worldwide, well, mobilizing the left has historically been pretty damned hard since the sixties... I could see this having an impact on some upcoming elections like in France, but I doubt it'll be enough to save Obama next year.
-
The republican line up might be. :doubt:
-
Damn hippies murdered social progression. I still don't really see this as a leftist movement though; I see it as a very general one.
I'm interested to see how long these "Occupations" last once winter hits.
-
The republican line up might be. :doubt:
Yeah, all these endless debates have really exposed is the fact that this is the party of idiots. :sigh:
-
The republican line up might be. :doubt:
Yeah, all these endless debates have really exposed is the fact that this is the party of idiots. :sigh:
I hope you're not suggesting debating makes one a idiot ;) That spells a lot of trouble for forum goers across the world.
I think the GOP debates, if that's what you mean, are very entertaining and bring up some serious issues at last. At the start it was a total dog and pony show, that was painful to watch. "What's your favorite sports team" and stuff.
Back to Occupy, the problem that occurs when people protest their lost jobs, cut wages and the many layoffs, is that they do not have much of an answer themselves. Many people that have gathered simply want things to improve. This is dangerous when people that take a leadership position 'speaking for the crowd' uses the energy and desire of the crowd to gain power or some kind of agenda that only benefits a few. The calls for global governance, socialism, marxism, and so on are, I believe, caused by this occurring.
When people start to understand that they themselves have to be leaders and individually start to look for answers, come up with a plan and then meet with like minded individuals to protest or come with a well made counter offer, that I believe this will work better.
At this moment though it can lead to a mob rule kind of thing, where 51% of the crowd votes to tax the other 49% or something.
Not sure what will happen at the end of all this. I do commend that people are actually in the streets now, even if they don't know what is truly wrong and how to fix it.
-
The republican line up might be. :doubt:
Yeah, all these endless debates have really exposed is the fact that this is the party of idiots. :sigh:
I hope you're not suggesting debating makes one a idiot ;) That spells a lot of trouble for forum goers across the world.
I think the GOP debates, if that's what you mean, are very entertaining and bring up some serious issues at last. At the start it was a total dog and pony show, that was painful to watch. "What's your favorite sports team" and stuff.
Back to Occupy, the problem that occurs when people protest their lost jobs, cut wages and the many layoffs, is that they do not have much of an answer themselves. Many people that have gathered simply want things to improve. This is dangerous when people that take a leadership position 'speaking for the crowd' uses the energy and desire of the crowd to gain power or some kind of agenda that only benefits a few. The calls for global governance, socialism, marxism, and so on are, I believe, caused by this occurring.
When people start to understand that they themselves have to be leaders and individually start to look for answers, come up with a plan and then meet with like minded individuals to protest or come with a well made counter offer, that I believe this will work better.
At this moment though it can lead to a mob rule kind of thing, where 51% of the crowd votes to tax the other 49% or something.
Not sure what will happen at the end of all this. I do commend that people are actually in the streets now, even if they don't know what is truly wrong and how to fix it.
No. He was suggesting that the Republican party (particularly the leadership) is full of swindlers and nicompoops.
No, the point of the movement is not to have an answer, it's to starkly announce that something was intolerable. If the world worked in such a way that people needed to have a fully thought out answer to call out something as unjust, we wouldn't have a supreme court for example. The point of congress is to represent the people, those people are making the statment that their interests, and in fact, the vast majorities interests, are not being represented. Congress is SUPPOSED to be there to work out the details of fixing that.
Tell me JDNC, what would happen if we became a <GASP> 'socialist' social democracy that hasn't happened as a country that's run off of nearly pure, capitalist pigfat?
-
Yes but how is the Occupy movement actually making that statement when say the tea party or even the KKK could join their protest without actually saying anything contrary to their stated goals?
-
The republican line up might be. :doubt:
Yeah, all these endless debates have really exposed is the fact that this is the party of idiots. :sigh:
I hope you're not suggesting debating makes one a idiot ;) That spells a lot of trouble for forum goers across the world.
I think the GOP debates, if that's what you mean, are very entertaining and bring up some serious issues at last. At the start it was a total dog and pony show, that was painful to watch. "What's your favorite sports team" and stuff.
Back to Occupy, the problem that occurs when people protest their lost jobs, cut wages and the many layoffs, is that they do not have much of an answer themselves. Many people that have gathered simply want things to improve. This is dangerous when people that take a leadership position 'speaking for the crowd' uses the energy and desire of the crowd to gain power or some kind of agenda that only benefits a few. The calls for global governance, socialism, marxism, and so on are, I believe, caused by this occurring.
When people start to understand that they themselves have to be leaders and individually start to look for answers, come up with a plan and then meet with like minded individuals to protest or come with a well made counter offer, that I believe this will work better.
At this moment though it can lead to a mob rule kind of thing, where 51% of the crowd votes to tax the other 49% or something.
Not sure what will happen at the end of all this. I do commend that people are actually in the streets now, even if they don't know what is truly wrong and how to fix it.
No. He was suggesting that the Republican party (particularly the leadership) is full of swindlers and nicompoops.
No, the point of the movement is not to have an answer, it's to starkly announce that something was intolerable. If the world worked in such a way that people needed to have a fully thought out answer to call out something as unjust, we wouldn't have a supreme court for example. The point of congress is to represent the people, those people are making the statment that their interests, and in fact, the vast majorities interests, are not being represented. Congress is SUPPOSED to be there to work out the details of fixing that.
Tell me JDNC, what would happen if we became a <GASP> 'socialist' social democracy that hasn't happened as a country that's run off of nearly pure, capitalist pigfat?
I agree with you on most accounts, especially the explanation about the Republican party being swindlers and nicompoops.
It's that the risk of people's anger and disillusion towards the establishment could be co-opted and abused by those with less honorable intentions because of the herd mentality kicking in.
As such it's hard to say if any mass-movement will be able to do much more than send a particular message, which Occupy indeed has done really well, and I enjoy seeing that. the Tea Party is similar in that regards.
However, I don't think it's so much pure capitalism that's the problem, rather than crony capitalism mixed with corporatism, to the point that corporations almost become the government with their lobbying powers (recent establishment of the 'Super Congress' may make that worse). Pure capitalism and free market is something that hasn't been practised for a long time now (if at all?).
Socialism is not bad per say but the kind that's been called for means a massive redistribution of wealth and possibly the destruction of the middle class rather than the expected idea of billionaires being taxed (Most are off-shore anyway). That's the type I disagree with. It may work well when you're not in the middle of a recession/doubledip recession/depression (according to some) with a massive deficit to deal with.
In the end I suppose it's best to wait and see what will happen.
-
However, I don't think it's so much pure capitalism that's the problem, rather than crony capitalism mixed with corporatism, to the point that corporations almost become the government with their lobbying powers (recent establishment of the 'Super Congress' may make that worse). Pure capitalism and free market is something that hasn't been practised for a long time now (if at all?).
I think you do not know what capitalism is.
-
I think you do not know what capitalism is.
Socialism is not bad per say but the kind that's been called for means a massive redistribution of wealth and possibly the destruction of the middle class rather than the expected idea of billionaires being taxed (Most are off-shore anyway). That's the type I disagree with. It may work well when you're not in the middle of a recession/doubledip recession/depression (according to some) with a massive deficit to deal with.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what socialism is, either.
-
Back to Occupy, the problem that occurs when people protest their lost jobs, cut wages and the many layoffs, is that they do not have much of an answer themselves. Many people that have gathered simply want things to improve. This is dangerous when people that take a leadership position 'speaking for the crowd' uses the energy and desire of the crowd to gain power or some kind of agenda that only benefits a few. The calls for global governance, socialism, marxism, and so on are, I believe, caused by this occurring.
But so are the calls to ****ing everything. Including the calls for less goverment etc. The entire tea party is based on what you just said.
When people start to understand that they themselves have to be leaders and individually start to look for answers, come up with a plan and then meet with like minded individuals to protest or come with a well made counter offer, that I believe this will work better.
Nothing new here - But not that it is going to work in the US with its current party system.
At this moment though it can lead to a mob rule kind of thing, where 51% of the crowd votes to tax the other 49% or something.
I am pretty sure that JCDN does not understand how democracy works 0_o.
Not sure what will happen at the end of all this. I do commend that people are actually in the streets now, even if they don't know what is truly wrong and how to fix it.
Its probably due to poor education.
-
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Socialism
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Democracy
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
I'm not really saying much, I just saw a whole bunch of "you don't know what x is" so I felt compelled to post definitions
-
Socialism
A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the people, or the state
You left out the end of that definition. Something like this, ya?
-
Not to mention including that transitional state bollocks. :rolleyes:
-
Socialism: "an ideology the rejects individualism, private ownership,and private profits in favor of a system based on economic collectivism, governmental, societal, or industrial-group ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, and social responsibility." Hayek, Friedrich. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956 - Definition used in Understanding Politics, Eight Edition, though it's clearly from an anti-socialist source, the definition is pretty sound.
"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" “socialism” Merriam Webster, accessed October 20th, 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Not to mention including that transitional state bollocks. :rolleyes:
"a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done" Merriam Webster, accessed October 20th, 2011, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
-
Yes but it also implies that a socialist state can't be stable. Just cause Marx said it, doesn't mean it is correct. :p
Besides, the labels mean very little anyway except to people incapable of understanding them. America is a socialist state in many ways (medicare, welfare, etc) and pretty much every communist state has always been capitalist to some degree.
Whenever someone talks about how communism, capitalism or socialism is evil, you can be sure they don't have a clue what it actually is.
-
Yes but it also implies that a socialist state can't be stable. Just cause Marx said it, doesn't mean it is correct. :p
Besides, the labels mean very little anyway except to people incapable of understanding them. America is a socialist state in many ways (medicare, welfare, etc) and pretty much every communist state has always been capitalist to some degree.
Whenever someone talks about how communism, capitalism or socialism is evil, you can be sure they don't have a clue what it actually is.
This is actually quite true from my understanding, and labels are really convenient things for people to either worship or despise. I think everyone is guilty of that to some degree; I dislike Ayn Rand's philosophies without actually reading any of her work, simply as a reaction to how I see her ideology represented in people I know. I am making an unfounded assumption there, and when I think about it I know that, but I still speak without thinking sometimes.
-
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
You forgot... "Which, if unchecked, tends to continually redistribute wealth to the top until it allows the people on the top to wield enough power to marginalize whatever political system is in place". ;)
Many people simply overlook that a capitalistic economic system is not stable, but rather continually evolves... and the end result of that evolution is always a concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands until a very few "players" have defacto unlimited power over the rest of the "participants" in the system.
I.e.: the problem that so many Americans just don't get (or deliberately ignore) in a nutshell: Unregulated Capitalism is quite detrimental to Democracy.
With both capitalism and democracy being rooted in core American values this leads us to the hilarious paradox that no matter where you stand in the discussion you can always call whoever disagrees with you "Anti American!". ;)
-
Americans are anti-American! :eek:
-
Capitalism
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
You forgot... "Which, if unchecked, tends to continually redistribute wealth to the top until it allows the people on the top to wield enough power to marginalize whatever political system is in place". ;)
Many people simply overlook that a capitalistic economic system is not stable, but rather continually evolves... and the end result of that evolution is always a concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands until a very few "players" have defacto unlimited power over the rest of the "participants" in the system.
Well, death is a stable state ;)
Or the communism, according to Karl Marx. If a society reaches communism, there is no further need for (social) evolution. History has reached it's End.
And it's the great thing about Marxism that it's the only science that is able to predict the future ;)
The vision of a concentration of all the wealth and power to a few is deeply connected to Marx idea of a de-terminated future.
Power and Wealth are relative. The CEO of a Big Corporation has much more power than any stockholder of that Corporation (at least until the stockholders agree to fired him). He can Boss around employees, if he makes a call the senator will answer it, he can decide how the company will invest...
A poor man in an industrialized country has a higher living standard as many workers in the developing countries. Wealth is not a number at your bank account, it's a state of living ( but big positive numbers on your bank account aren't bad for your wealth ;) )
But Power is also an illusion. Ask your boss how much power he really has. Does always everything goes as he wishes ?
Most CEO and other members of the upper Management knew that their actual power is very limited, and especially in bigger corporations the staff is able to ignore orders from above by simply evading or delaying them.
Even if power is not an illusion and relative, how wise is it to concentrate all power in one strong institution, to avoid that a few reach to much power ?
Replacing a bunch of sharks with one big Leviathan ?
The sharks are easier to control...
That many protesters IMHO don't understand is the fact that they are also capitalists, providing the economy capital that's needed in form of their contributions for insurance policies or pension funds.
You don't like that the company does with the money you gave them ?
Take it away and give it to an other company.
You don't like the policy of the CEO ?
Go to the stockholders annual meeting, try to convince others, build an alliance and fire him.
Hell, even if your alliance isn't strong enough to fire him he still has to listen.
Both is capitalistic and democratic.
It's more democratic than calling for big brother to control the evil capitalists more, and gives you much more power ( but it is also more work than waving a sing with a slogan ).
-
And it's the great thing about Marxism that it's the only science that is able to predict the future ;)
Marxism is an ideology, not a science. No [credible] person familiar with Marx's writing has ever claimed it was.
The issue is not so much CEOs actual power and control. The issue is the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few, and the separation of capital (and power) from the people that produce it. I know, I sound like a good little Marxist - the trouble is that Marx and Foucault got so much about the way society ticks right in their writing.
Democracy doesn't function properly when there is a power imbalance. There is a power imbalance because free-market capitalist society does not reward people according to their ability or their production; it might if everyone began with equal footing, but the free-market capitalism applied in industrialized nations over roughly the last century-and-a-half has bred a financial aristocracy of inherited wealth (which I'll point out that people like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson even vehemently disagreed with) rather than historical privilege. Net effect is the same, however; one class of the citizenry ends up with far better opportunities and a disproportional amount of both wealth and power than the remainder.
The whole concept of the American dream is that someone can start with nothing and become something - but the system has become such that it really isn't possible (except for a tiny fraction of exceptions). Without opportunities to be able to afford good health care, grow up in safe communities, have the support of the people raising you, a life free from violence inflicted on you by others, and the financial means (through a job with meaningful pay) to get an education and be able to work yourself, prospects are pretty dim. And the number of people for whom that is reality far outweighs the number of people who wield meaningful power, privilege, and wealth. I posted the US census data a little while back on HLP - people should actually take a good hard look at what the various percentiles of wealth are (hint: lowest 20% make under $20,000 per year. Highest 5% make in excess of $180,000.)
There's this great perception that buying power influences corporations, but the reality is that these corporations make literally billions of dollars a year, are beholden to only a small number of the shareholders that wield any power in the company, and even an organized boycott is never going to have 100% participation. Notwithstanding that fact, the consumer power of the hardest-hit fractions of society is much less than the relatively-indifferent-but-shrinking middle-class. So, the power of a single individual to confront a corporation is essentially nil.
-
I find it odd that the idea of capital isn't been discussed (much) here, in a discussion of capitalism.
-
The whole concept of the American dream is that someone can start with nothing and become something - but the system has become such that it really isn't possible (except for a tiny fraction of exceptions).
Has this ever really not been the case?
I'm pretty sure that framing the "American Dream" this way is mostly wishful thinking rather than any sort of reality.
-
If I recall correctly, immigrants had this delusion, not so much the denizens of America
-
The main point is that it was much less of a "delusion" several (or even a couple) decades ago than it is now.
-
I pulled into the pump the other day just as an H2 was leaving. That dude's gas bill was something like $1,000,000. As he drove away, I caught sight of an American flag on his bumper and felt a tear come to my eye. I dunno about you guys, but the American Dream touched me that moment. You could even say, it fondled me.
Wait what
-
If I recall correctly, immigrants had this delusion, not so much the denizens of America
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-
Has this ever really not been the case?
Sure. Lots of times. Whenever technology or territory has opened up and people could get in first it's been SOP.
-
The main point is that it was much less of a "delusion" several (or even a couple) decades ago than it is now.
Got any evidence to back that up?
-
The main point is that it was much less of a "delusion" several (or even a couple) decades ago than it is now.
Got any evidence to back that up?
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
-
The main point is that it was much less of a "delusion" several (or even a couple) decades ago than it is now.
Got any evidence to back that up?
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
The relevant (to my question) graph:
(http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcbdbb7f8b9acb194a0300-547/and-by-the-way-few-people-would-have-a-problem-with-inequality-if-the-american-dream-were-still-fully-intactif-it-were-easy-to-work-your-way-into-that-top-1-but-unfortunately-social-mobility-in-this-country-is-also-near-an-all-time-low.jpg)
I haven't been able to find the original source for the graph, so I'm just guessing based on the labels, but it looks like it's talking about mobility between the top 60% and the bottom 40%. While it weakly supports the assertion that social mobility is at an all time low, it's hardly the "1% vs 99%" scenario that generally gets talked about. It would also be nice to see the graph before 1940 so we eliminate the massive outlier that is WWII.
-
The 1% vs 99% distribution has to do with control of wealth and financial assets.
-
Step 1: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html
Step 2: Click on H1 All Races.
Step 3: Look at the trends. You don't even need statistical analysis software to see what's going on.
Migration between classes was more common in the past because there was less of a gap between them.
-
And it's the great thing about Marxism that it's the only science that is able to predict the future ;)
Marxism is an ideology, not a science. No [credible] person familiar with Marx's writing has ever claimed it was.
Marxism-Leninsm and Historic Materialism was a regular science at each university in the former Socialist Block.
Be sure that those guys have been very familiar with Marx's writings ;)
The issue is not so much CEOs actual power and control. The issue is the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few, and the separation of capital (and power) from the people that produce it. I know, I sound like a good little Marxist - the trouble is that Marx and Foucault got so much about the way society ticks right in their writing.
Democracy doesn't function properly when there is a power imbalance. There is a power imbalance because free-market capitalist society does not reward people according to their ability or their production; it might if everyone began with equal footing, but the free-market capitalism applied in industrialized nations over roughly the last century-and-a-half has bred a financial aristocracy of inherited wealth (which I'll point out that people like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson even vehemently disagreed with) rather than historical privilege. Net effect is the same, however; one class of the citizenry ends up with far better opportunities and a disproportional amount of both wealth and power than the remainder.
But the free market capitalism has done an other thing in the past 150 years:
The creation of a broad middle class.
If you take a look a the society of 1860: How much persons have had a college education ? The biggest class was the working class, and that means blue collar jobs and hard physical work.
Nowadays most western countries have a broad middle class. Few blue collar jobs, many jobs there you need a good professional education or even a degree from a college or university.
Modern Free Market Capitalism won't work without a broad middle class.
It still needs a lot of manpower in the middle management, a lot of engineers and a lot of skilled workers.
And while not everyone becomes the chief of a department, a CEO, a top engineer in R&D and makes a lot of money its still possible.
All those "smart" traders with big boni ? Middle Class
Steve Jobs, Wonziak ? Middle Class
Yes, there is a crisis of the middle class, but is not triggered by unequal distribution of wealth or missing democratic opportunities.
One reason of the crisis are the huge numbers of children of the middle class.
If almost everyone goes to college not anyone of them has the chance to get a good careerer - or even a good job.
All those books about the Generation X during the 90s ( Fight Club, Microserfs ) are circling around the problem:
Being an engineer or a MBA was nothing special any more and no more a guarantee for happiness and wealth. Go berserk or get over it.
But since the 90s the situation has become worse: A lot of jobs haven been outsourced to countries of the former socialist block.
First the jobs of the working class like manufacturing of simple goods (Cloths, Shoes, Toys).
No reason for the children of the middle class to riot or protest - no one cares about the remains of the working class.
But not their wealth is affected, and now they protest.
The whole concept of the American dream is that someone can start with nothing and become something - but the system has become such that it really isn't possible (except for a tiny fraction of exceptions). Without opportunities to be able to afford good health care, grow up in safe communities, have the support of the people raising you, a life free from violence inflicted on you by others, and the financial means (through a job with meaningful pay) to get an education and be able to work yourself, prospects are pretty dim.
Was the American dream not the dream of immigrants ?
I'm quite sure that all those Mexicans crossing the border of the USA by night still are attracted by the American Dream.
And they still found all those things: a better health care, safe communities, the possibility to send money back to the parents, less violence and even a better future for their children... ... compared to Mexico.
And the number of people for whom that is reality far outweighs the number of people who wield meaningful power, privilege, and wealth...
There's this great perception that buying power influences corporations, but the reality is that these corporations make literally billions of dollars a year, are beholden to only a small number of the shareholders that wield any power in the company, and even an organized boycott is never going to have 100% participation. Notwithstanding that fact, the consumer power of the hardest-hit fractions of society is much less than the relatively-indifferent-but-shrinking middle-class. So, the power of a single individual to confront a corporation is essentially nil.
Well, the power of a single individual is also nil in a democracy. One vote does nothing, if millions of others also have the right to vote.
-
But the free market capitalism has done an other thing in the past 150 years:
The creation of a broad middle class.
If you take a look a the society of 1860: How much persons have had a college education ? The biggest class was the working class, and that means blue collar jobs and hard physical work.
Nowadays most western countries have a broad middle class. Few blue collar jobs, many jobs there you need a good professional education or even a degree from a college or university.
The problem is that the middle class is shrinking.
Yes, there is a crisis of the middle class, but is not triggered by unequal distribution of wealth or missing democratic opportunities.
One reason of the crisis are the huge numbers of children of the middle class.
This requires significant substantiation. You are asserting that the crisis of the middle class was not at all caused by disparity in wealth, but was caused by other factors, including too many children in the middle class. You require evidence to make that claim, especially because:
http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7#83-percent-of-all-us-stocks-are-in-the-hands-of-1-percent-of-the-people-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/22-statistics-that-prove-the-middle-class-is-being-systematically-wiped-out-of-existence-in-america-2010-7#83-percent-of-all-us-stocks-are-in-the-hands-of-1-percent-of-the-people-1) If it's shrinking, than probably not many people are being born into it.
If almost everyone goes to college not anyone of them has the chance to get a good careerer - or even a good job.
All those books about the Generation X during the 90s ( Fight Club, Microserfs ) are circling around the problem:
Being an engineer or a MBA was nothing special any more and no more a guarantee for happiness and wealth. Go berserk or get over it.
Fictional works are not evidence.
But since the 90s the situation has become worse: A lot of jobs haven been outsourced to countries of the former socialist block.
First the jobs of the working class like manufacturing of simple goods (Cloths, Shoes, Toys).
No reason for the children of the middle class to riot or protest - no one cares about the remains of the working class.
But not their wealth is affected, and now they protest.
I'm pretty sure that the former Soviet Bloc is not who's taking the jobs, nor are most of the jobs being outsourced Middle Class jobs (though some of them are.) The vast majority are manufacturing jobs.
Was the American dream not the dream of immigrants ?
I'm quite sure that all those Mexicans crossing the border of the USA by night still are attracted by the American Dream.
And they still found all those things: a better health care, safe communities, the possibility to send money back to the parents, less violence and even a better future for their children... ... compared to Mexico.
That's less the American dream and more "they have money and a working government, we don't." I believe. Unless that is synonymous with the American dream?
Well, the power of a single individual is also nil in a democracy. One vote does nothing, if millions of others also have the right to vote.
Except that in this case it's as though one person gets 356 votes, and another gets 1.
-
Marxism-Leninsm and Historic Materialism was a regular science at each university in the former Socialist Block.
Be sure that those guys have been very familiar with Marx's writings ;)
The fact that a bunch of people who clearly didn't read Marx very well (seeing as the Eastern European "Communist" countries bore no resemblance to Communism/Socialism as described by Marx and probably had him turning in his grave in rage) viewed it as a science does not make it one. Marxism is an ideology. Period.
But the free market capitalism has done an other thing in the past 150 years:
The creation of a broad middle class.
If you take a look a the society of 1860: How much persons have had a college education ? The biggest class was the working class, and that means blue collar jobs and hard physical work.
Nowadays most western countries have a broad middle class. Few blue collar jobs, many jobs there you need a good professional education or even a degree from a college or university.
Modern Free Market Capitalism won't work without a broad middle class.
It still needs a lot of manpower in the middle management, a lot of engineers and a lot of skilled workers.
And while not everyone becomes the chief of a department, a CEO, a top engineer in R&D and makes a lot of money its still possible.
All those "smart" traders with big boni ? Middle Class
Steve Jobs, Wonziak ? Middle Class
Actually, the middle class was less the result of free-market capitalism and more the result of democratization efforts in the West following the second World War. It only really came into existence in post-Industrial Revolution wartime economies, and was largely the result of the changing demographics of the work force that resulted following the war. Britain in particular only experienced a large creation of the middle-class demographic after World War 2 (and it's a good benchmark, having a much more hierarchical class-based society than North America). The US always had a more flexible class distribution, but it really took the combined influence of women entering the workforce, large numbers of births, and a huge demographic boom to push the real creation of the middle class even in the States. Frankly, what we call the middle class is a phenomenon born in the latter half of the 20th century, and was driven primarily by demographic influences on global economics.
As for modern free-market capitalism not functioning without the middle class, the issue is not so much its eradiction as its erosion - clawing back of benefits and wage gains realized in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s while the top tier sees soaring gains in their compensation packages. The middle class essentially pays for a country's social and state programs, but the past 10 years in particular have seen huge losses in both the size and relative wealth of that class that make this funding model unsustainable.
Yes, there is a crisis of the middle class, but is not triggered by unequal distribution of wealth or missing democratic opportunities.
One reason of the crisis are the huge numbers of children of the middle class.
If almost everyone goes to college not anyone of them has the chance to get a good careerer - or even a good job.
All those books about the Generation X during the 90s ( Fight Club, Microserfs ) are circling around the problem:
Being an engineer or a MBA was nothing special any more and no more a guarantee for happiness and wealth. Go berserk or get over it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Birth rates in the middle class have tanked - lower than at any point in demographic history. This is due to the fact that children in developed countries are an economic liability, whereas children in developing nations are typically viewed as an economic asset (this valuation difference is visible in some class structures as well).
The crisis in the middle class is due to unequal relative gains in compensation as compared to other classes; the lower class tends to remain flatlined, but the top percentiles are taking greater and greater relative gains compared to quite literally everyone else. How many times to I have to tell you people to go LOOK AT THE US CENSUS DATA WHICH I HAVE NOW LINKED TO TWICE IN THIS THREAD.
Was the American dream not the dream of immigrants ?
I'm quite sure that all those Mexicans crossing the border of the USA by night still are attracted by the American Dream.
And they still found all those things: a better health care, safe communities, the possibility to send money back to the parents, less violence and even a better future for their children... ... compared to Mexico.
The so-called "American Dream" is the rags-to-riches narrative popularized in media - the idea that anyone can improve their station in life simply through hard work. That quite clearly is not true - there are a lot of social barriers, and the American Dream story is an infrequent exception to those barriers which is realized by only a select few individuals.
Well, the power of a single individual is also nil in a democracy. One vote does nothing, if millions of others also have the right to vote.
Power in a Western democracy is not determined by the votes you wield in an election, but by the balance in your bank account. It's an unfortunate reality that the most powerful individuals in any society are also the wealthiest. This is what people talk about when referring to unequal distribution of power due to wealth.