The "Occupy are Socialists," Megathread

Originally posted by petrus4

I think one of the main things I've been trying to figure out, is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other. My opinion recently has gradually become that both of these ideologies were designed by psychopaths for psychopaths; and were intended for use by said psychopaths, as a form of rationalisation for their rule, that the non-psychopathic majority would be prepared to accept.

I'm sorry I didn't read this before making my last post. This is exactly how they keep themselves in power and the rest of us out. It's the old right/left - good/evil - republican/democrat duality that they use to define both our systems and our political beliefs even though the possibilities for social organization are endless. It keeps things simple and consequently limits our thought patterns along the same lines.

Yes, it does keep the psychopaths in power.

ETA - The Luddites led the first Occupy movement in the 19th century textile mills of England. They locked out the owners and threatened to destroy the machinery to keep their jobs (and families fed)

Originally posted by petrus4

I think one of the main things I've been trying to figure out, is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other. My opinion recently has gradually become that both of these ideologies were designed by psychopaths for psychopaths; and were intended for use by said psychopaths, as a form of rationalisation for their rule, that the non-psychopathic majority would be prepared to accept.

Yeah this is worth another comment on.

Both terms have been propagandized for obvious reasons.

Capitalism has turned into 'free-markets', Socialism/communism has turned into 'more government control'.

Both are wrong. Both terms meanings have been twisted in order to control your thoughts. The very same reason some countries used the term communism, or socialism, when in practice they were neither. Russia for example was not communist, it was a republic, just like the USA. What made their economy bad was isolationism, overbearing government authority, culture.

The only reason the USA, and the UK particularly, became so wealthy is because they did a better job of exploiting third world nations, India, Africa, China etc. than Russia did. All countries are capitalist, even the so called socialist countries in Europe. National health care doesn't make a country socialist.

Governments didn't create those terms, working class socialists in Europe did. But governments took those terms, and put their own meaning to them, in order to control dissent. This all started after the Spanish Revolution, when the people became a serious threat to capitalist power and control. This lead directly to WWII, the history you don't learn in school. The Nazis were bombing Spain, they succeeded in helping the military take over that installed Franco the fascist dictator. Because true socialism works, and was working well in Spain.
It was starting to spread, people from all over the world went to Spain to participate. It was the most 'awake' the people have been in modern times. WWII decimated the working class, and any ideas of socialist revolution were killed. The working class were reduced to simply surviving, and any revolutionary ideas forgotten. The left never fully recovered, and simply became a more liberal version of the right.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Just because OWS use the anti establishment rhetoric of the left does not mean they all want communism, imo. It's just the slogans and rhetoric are traditionally more anti establishment.

Why wouldn't they?

They're smart people, they know something is not right, they are taking radical steps, so I would say most of them understand what socialism/communism really is.

The establishment are the capitalists. To get rid of the establishment you need to get rid of capitalism. Capitalism is why we have establishment.

As I said before at OWS where I live they hand out Socialist literature such as 'Revolution'...

rwor.org...

reply to post by petrus4

I think one of the main things I've been trying to figure out, is why Capitalism and Communism, as ideologies, are the only two that people seem to talk about having; if you're not one, you're the other. My opinion recently has gradually become that both of these ideologies were designed by psychopaths for psychopaths; and were intended for use by said psychopaths, as a form of rationalisation for their rule, that the non-psychopathic majority would be prepared to accept.

Nicely stated. Star (and flag and quote and reply, for what it's worth).....

My opinion is that there is no reason for excessive wealth at the expense of millions of people. No one needs more than a supply of 'wealth' that will benefit their children and the future of the generation. I simply do not understand why those who are rolling in riches feel entitled and special while there are others starving, dying, toiling, and struggling.

Where is the 'right' to do that?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by petrus4
....and what it means in general.

OK, you asked for it. I'll try to keep this short, but to be honest to really explain it all would take a book, or two.
I can't really talk about socialism, without also talking about capitalism, as to understand the first you have to understand the later in context. I'll start with socialism.

Replying to this post is going to be very difficult, because it went over the 5k limit. I might have to do it over a couple of posts myself, and hope I don't get busted for spamming. I appreciate your response to this thread, ANOK; and now that I'm on a computer in a slightly more peaceful environment than when I first saw it, I will try to give it the response of my own that it deserves. I think this is a subject which, as I said in the original post, needs to be discussed very thoroughly on this forum; primarily because while I will not disagree in the slightest with the idea that Capitalism (at least in its' current form) is clearly not working for the majority, I have not yet made a hard decision in my own mind, as to what it should be replaced with. Socialism may end up being that answer for me, but it also may not. I'm not completely sure yet.

I think I should have been a little clearer, when I initially expressed ambivalence where socialism is concerned. Altruistic or compassionate behaviour, as ideals, are something I completely believe in. What I am gravely concerned about, however, is the idea of involving myself in a collectivist movement which implicitly assumes that I agree with every element of its' ideology, as a matter of course. One of the things which former Nazis mentioned was the idea of being swept along by emotional group dynamics. I am not suggesting that I advocate the surrender of personal responsibility; but at the same time, I feel that said group dynamics can be genuinely dangerous.

On this theme, I have noticed that the Socialist Alliance do seem to very quickly make the assumption that any protest they come across, is going to implicitly support their position entirely, whether that is genuinely the case or not, and then attempt to co-opt it. This, for me, is probably the single most concerning element of their observed behaviour.

So to summarise, even though I am going to respond to your other points in a couple of other posts, I will say that while I do feel some genuine empathy towards socialist principles as you have described them, I am extremely distrustful of the idea of getting directly involved with a large collective of virtually any kind. I am currently peripherally involved with the Permaculture Research Institute here in Australia; but they are a relatively small group, and the concern of collective subversion of my individual will is therefore somewhat minimised.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by petrus4
....and what it means in general.

Socialism is defined by socialists as 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. It's a term that covers many different economic and political ideas. In other words instead of a private owner, or owners, the workers themselves would own their place of employment.

About a week and a half ago, I found two books at Project Gutenberg, called Looking Backward, and Equality, written by a man named Edward Bellamy. The first one was written in 1887, and the second ten years later. They described a centrally planned, apparently socialist society, set in the year 2000. While it sounded exceptionally positive and appealing, I am strongly convinced that a society of that nature could only practically exist, if it were not for the existence of psychopaths.

I do not know whether you are aware of the existence of the psychopaths. There is a book called Political Ponerology, which describes a demographic of 4-7% of the human population, who are neurologically devoid of the capacity for empathy or compassion, and whose only means of deriving any form of psychological gratification comes from experiencing elitism; or specifically, a form of anti-egalitarianism which favours them.

I read some of your links about the failure of the pseudo-Communist experiment under Stalin in Russia, and it made me realise that once again, the Bolsheviki were an example of a group that had been either co-opted, or even originally founded and run by psychopaths. As a result, they tried to maintain the deception that the society would be egalitarian, in order to persuade non-psychopaths to accept it, while in reality ensuring that it would still be stratified and elitist, in their own favour.

All of my own research in the areas of politics, economics, and psychology, have led me to the same conclusion that John Lennon expressed before he died; namely, that it really does not matter what type of governmental or economic system we try to implement; Capitalism, socialism, monarchy, democracy, or whatever else. We inevitably end up with a scenario where the psychopaths subvert it and end up at the head of it, and create an anti-egalitarian or non-equal situation, which favours themselves.

I have also come to the conclusion, that non-equality is only a condition which is favoured by psychopaths; but that as long as said condition does not imply poverty or coercion, equality is a state which non-psychopaths tend to either explicitly want, or at least do not feel genuine aversion to. I have observed psychopaths in the past who insisted on elitism for its' own sake; but that was not because they wanted more money, possessions, food, or anything material than others. It was because the only way they could experience anything close to psychological equilibrium, was by having some justification for viewing themselves as being superior to others, and they needed something physically measurable by which they could achieve that.

The majority of the non-psychopaths that I have observed, conversely, have not displayed a visible need to be better than others, for its' own sake. They want enough to be able to live with a good level of material comfort, yes; but they only tend to care about how much other people have, if they themselves do not have what they feel they need, in order to survive. In other words, for non-psychopaths, survival and the gratification of genuine needs is the goal, rather than elitism and narcissistic supply for their own sake, as in the case of the psychopaths.

First off thanx for reading my reply, and for authoring this thread.

Originally posted by petrus4
Replying to this post is going to be very difficult, because it went over the 5k limit. I might have to do it over a couple of posts myself, and hope I don't get busted for spamming. I appreciate your response to this thread, ANOK; and now that I'm on a computer in a slightly more peaceful environment than when I first saw it, I will try to give it the response of my own that it deserves. I think this is a subject which, as I said in the original post, needs to be discussed very thoroughly on this forum; primarily because while I will not disagree in the slightest with the idea that Capitalism (at least in its' current form) is clearly not working for the majority, I have not yet made a hard decision in my own mind, as to what it should be replaced with. Socialism may end up being that answer for me, but it also may not. I'm not completely sure yet.

I agree we need more discussion of this subject on ATS, so many people are confused because there is so much BS out there. We are at a time in history that could turn out bad for us. Capitalists have no morals, they go where they can make the most profit. No amount of government oversight is going to stop that.

Capitalism is freedom for those who own capital, the majority doesn't and only have their labour to sell.
Socialism simply removes the capitalist ownership, and the workers become their own boss in a sense. Even though obvioulsy there will still be supervisors and stuff, but it's the workers who get to ultimately decide who is going to supervise them, full on direct democracy. This would be far more motivating for workers who under capitalism are motivated to do the least possible for their wage. If your income is directly related to profits then you will be motivated to work harder. Under capitalism the worker becomes a lazy slob with not much motivation to give 100%.

This was proven in practice during the Spanish revolution...

“With every passing day the city increasingly fell under the control of the working class. Public transport functioned, the factories were producing, the stores were open, the supply of necessities was unabated, the telephones worked, the utilities operated as usual, everything was organized and run, to a greater or lesser extent, by the workers themselves. Who was responsible for this? The leading committees of the CNT had not issued any orders of the kind” (Ronald Fraser, Op. Cit., Vol. I, p. 187).

“It was incredible, it was the practical proof of what one knew from theory: the power and the force of the masses when they take to the streets. All their doubts quickly dissipated, doubts about how to go about organizing the working class and the masses, about how they can make the revolution without being organized. Suddenly you feel their creative power. You cannot imagine how quickly the masses are capable of organizing. They invent forms of organization that go far beyond anything you have ever heard about or read in books. What was needed now was to seize the initiative, channel it, give it form” (Ronald Fraser, Op. Cit., Vol. I, p. 188).

“In Catalonia, where I found myself, I saw a war industry created as if by magic . . . . [the proletariat] was ready to perform this miracle, one that peoples enjoying adequate economic means take years to accomplish during peacetime, and it did so, furthermore, without any engineers in the factories, with only two or three engineers on the War Industries Commission, and these factories and workshops, which had been so rapidly and completely transformed, functioned admirably, unexpectedly increasing production rates every day, manufacturing the most complicated industrial products, thanks to the remarkable initiative of the Catalan workers” (Felipe Díaz Sandino, Personal Diary, p. 182).

I think I should have been a little clearer, when I initially expressed ambivalence where socialism is concerned. Altruistic or compassionate behaviour, as ideals, are something I completely believe in. What I am gravely concerned about, however, is the idea of involving myself in a collectivist movement which implicitly assumes that I agree with every element of its' ideology, as a matter of course. One of the things which former Nazis mentioned was the idea of being swept along by emotional group dynamics. I am not suggesting that I advocate the surrender of personal responsibility; but at the same time, I feel that said group dynamics can be genuinely dangerous.

Sorry these are going to be long posts, continued...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by petrus4
....and what it means in general.

Capitalism is the system that replaced feudalism. The laws changed to allow land owners, the Nobility to sell parcels of land, which came with a deed giving the owner the right to bar access to their land, thus denying it's use to the commoners.

This is extremely interesting, and I will admit that I did not know it. My own current state of semi-homelessness (as well as, of course, that of an increasing number of people, even in the industrialised world) had led me to conclusion that the land title system was dysfunctional, but I was not aware of the explicit rationale behind it. I was, however, aware of Marx' statement about individual ownership of the means of production. As someone else pointed out here, given that I have been a computer user for 25 of my 35 years of life, I have in fact had extensive personal experience of such, although again, the distinction has been largely unconscious until this point.

This forced the commoners, who had always been self sufficient living off the land, into 'jobs' in cities.

I had noticed that this tended to be one of the first effects of neo-colonialism observed within the Third World. Most Asian countries seemed to be primarily rural in focus before their British or American subjugation; urban occupations only really seemed to become prominent after that point. Again, you are providing me with some more missing pieces of the puzzle, here.

Capitalism is the system that allows private owners of capital to use that capital to exploit labour.

As Gordon Gekko said; "I create nothing! I own!"

This, of course, would seem to be the basis of the false concept of intellectual property, as well. Given my degree of personal experience with file sharing over the years, I well know of the deception that has been engaged in, on that score.

Those who do not own capital have to work for a private owner. The worker has to produce more than they are paid for, in order for the capitalist to make profit. Labour should be treated like any commodity in a free market, and the worker should earn the full amount for their labour. The worker is being robbed.

This brings to mind a particularly cruel practice that I read about, engaged in by the British East India Company, after their invasion of India. Indian farmers would be required to produce rice for the Company, which was then shipped back to Britain for processing. When a minority of the product returned to India, the Indians were then required to pay for purchasing it back from the Company, which they of course could not do...with the result that they then starved.

Free-markets is not the definition of capitalism, it is a claim, and not an honest one. We can have free-markets without capitalism. Capitalism, socialism, is who controls the means of production for the market, not the market itself. People control the market, and socialism allows all of us to do that, not just the lucky few who own capital.

I think the real issue here, is ensuring a scenario that each individual is able to own a form of capital, or some means of production. The means of production that I am most familiar with, of course, is the computer; which can be used, among other ways, as a more modern and flexible form of the printing press. This, of course, goes back to the psychopathic need for a state of non-equality, or elitism. Because their sadistic psychological composition requires inequality, they will never allow every individual to have their own truly unfettered means of production; because that would mean that every individual could potentially provide for themselves, which would be a threat to their elitism.

reply to post by petrus4

The majority of the non-psychopaths that I have observed, conversely, have not displayed a visible need to be better than others, for its' own sake. They want enough to be able to live with a good level of material comfort, yes; but they only tend to care about how much other people have, if they themselves do not have what they feel they need, in order to survive. In other words, for non-psychopaths, survival and the gratification of genuine needs is the goal, rather than elitism and narcissistic supply for their own sake, as in the case of the psychopaths.

Again, I agree.
Totally on board with you here.

but they only tend to care about how much other people have, if they themselves do not have what they feel they need,

The way you worded this is ambiguous.
"They only" ....meaning 'they alone'?
"if they themselves do not have what they feel they need"
The first 'they' here being 'they' the socialists? And the second 'they' being the carers, or the sufferers?

"they themselves do not have what they feel they need..."

Here, I think, you are talking about the 'they' who are suffering in both uses of 'they'. Correct?

Socialism is not necessarily altruistic or compassionate, it's just another way to organize the economy.
It is a direct democratic system. All voices will be heard, and will be allowed to voice their dissent until all parties are satisfied with the decision. Everything is voluntary, no one is forced to accept anyone elses ideology. That is why socialism has so many different idea of how to implement it. There is no fixed ideology.

As long as the workers own the means of production it's socialism. Government or no government.

There are really only two ways the economy can be organized, by top down control by private entities, or bottom up control by the people. Capitalism or socialism. We don't want feudalism, and mercantilism is just another form of capitalism and is practiced side by side. Corporatism is also capitalist.

We have to have some kind of organization, there are too many people to simply have anarchism without socialism. And socialism without anarchism could turn into totalitarianism. But then it is no longer socialism. That is what happened in Russia and revolution failed.

"Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin.

[of course liberty in this context means anarchism]

In other words if we don't have socialism the only people who have liberty are the capitalists, and the rest of us are under their control. Socialism for the rich, wage slavery for us. Yes capitalism is socialism for those who make their living from their capital by exploiting labour.

On this theme, I have noticed that the Socialist Alliance do seem to very quickly make the assumption that any protest they come across, is going to implicitly support their position entirely, whether that is genuinely the case or not, and then attempt to co-opt it. This, for me, is probably the single most concerning element of their observed behaviour.

Well I don't know anything about the Socialist Alliance so I can't comment on their methods. As I said there are many ways to implement socialism, and you don't have to agree with all socialists to be one yourself. Put a bunch of socialists, or anarchists, together and wait for the debate to get very heated, because ideas are so varied, and should never be written in stone. We should be able to change our ideas if necessary, and when warranted, the only thing we all agree on is workers should own the means of production. Some socialists want government, some want anarchism, and all the varied ways to implement both. You just have to find what socialism you feel comfortable with, but don't get too dogmatic and be willing to look at other ideas.

So to summarise, even though I am going to respond to your other points in a couple of other posts, I will say that while I do feel some genuine empathy towards socialist principles as you have described them, I am extremely distrustful of the idea of getting directly involved with a large collective of virtually any kind. I am currently peripherally involved with the Permaculture Research Institute here in Australia; but they are a relatively small group, and the concern of collective subversion of my individual will is therefore somewhat minimised.

Collective is just a term to describe people working together to accomplish a goal. It doesn't mean you stop being an individual, and have to abide by others rules. The term is used to differentiate it from the top down control of the owner, boss, worker. It's another term for cooperative. People who work at worker-coops are far happier and get better pay generally than a private company. Don't confuse it with none-profit coops, cause that is something else.

Permaculture is interesting and could be a good model for society.

OWS was created by the Left to stir up the vote for the Democrats. They are nothing more than a tool to be used and paraded about to show that the Right is corrupt. They are controlled by Soros and their actions are scripted to show the difference between the haves and the have nots. They will be paraded before the Democratic convention and President Obama will sympathize with them.

At the peak of their unrest (scripted of course), President Obama will calm them and bring order back to our troubled Republic. He will use them to show the difference in the classes and he will be swept into office. It will be the OWS turning out in droves to cast their votes for a better America!

December 2012 will be the end of the world...Ooops, thinking about Nibiru...

December 2012 will be the end of the OWS as they will no longer be needed. They will be tossed aside, their tents quietly torn down and their members dispersed. But they will know they won, they beat the system and ended the corruption of government because President Obama was reelected and the Democrats will have regained control of the House and Senate! Huzzah, OWS, Huzzah!

Originally posted by ANOK
Some people will try to tell you Hitler was a socialist for example. If you understand the history you will understand what is what.

I felt that Hitler being socialist, was true only to the extent that his answer for rebuilding the German economy, (which I will admit that I actually thought was quite astute, aside from its' ultimately malevolent application) was primarily to induct as large a percentage as possible of the German population, into the army. As it has been said elsewhere, conventional military forces exist as state run, socialist entities by definition. A soldier receives everything he needs to survive from the state; food, clothing, accommodation, medical care. He may receive a wage in addition to this, but it typically is not large, simply because he does not need it to be.

NIKE: Nike Shoes and Child Labor in Pakistan

Although I am unaware of child labour specifically being involved, I was aware that in the case of one industry which was relevant to my interests for many years, (the computer game development industry) sweatshop or at least extreme overtime labour practices were engaged in, as a matter of course. Torturous overtime was considered traditional within the industry, and as far as I know, still is; even by the workers themselves.

My parents were both English boarding school educated, and I was not raised to view myself as a member of the proletariat. My level of alienation towards them (or what in the Hindu caste system would be referred to as the Sudra) increased, after living in northwestern Melbourne for 14 years, when I came close to being murdered by them on two occasions. I viewed them as being violent, brutish to the point of barely seeming human, racist, and needlessly and inexplicably anti-intellectual.

My own more recent experiences with relative poverty, however, have compelled me to greatly eradicate such prejudice, and to realise that fundamentally, we are all human beings. I still do not condone violence, and I also believe that every human being has a responsibility to maximise his or her intelligence and level of education to the highest level possible; but I now believe that rather than hating individuals who have not had the opportunity for such, my moral obligation is to attempt to assist them in doing so.

Originally posted by petrus4
I felt that Hitler being socialist

Hitler was never a socialist. Remember what I wrote about government using left wing terms to garner support from the people?

Hitler was a right wing fascist. Socialist by name only.

Socialism has nothing to do with governments, it was a system created by the working class industrial workers in the 1800's.

This is a great discussion on this subject, finally, but gotta go rest my back I'll reply more later...

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by petrus4

 

but they only tend to care about how much other people have, if they themselves do not have what they feel they need,

The way you worded this is ambiguous.
"They only" ....meaning 'they alone'?
"if they themselves do not have what they feel they need"
The first 'they' here being 'they' the socialists? And the second 'they' being the carers, or the sufferers?

"They," being non-psychopaths; which in the current scenario, usually does imply people who are suffering, yes. Psychopaths need there to be a demographic who suffer, in order for themselves to feel superior to said group who are suffering.

This is also the reason why the population reduction agenda exists. Currently, there are generally five psychopaths in the population, for every hundred non-psychopaths. The non-psychopathic numerical difference, is literally the only advantage against them that we have. They want to change that ratio to one psychopath for every two non-psychopaths. The psychopaths still need a non-psychopathic population for them to exploit and feel superior to, but they also want the non-psychopathic population to become sufficiently small, that they can control us much more easily. At the moment, our numbers are too large compared to theirs, for them to be able to do that.

Originally posted by ANOK
Socialism is not necessarily altruistic or compassionate, it's just another way to organize the economy.
It is a direct democratic system. All voices will be heard, and will be allowed to voice their dissent until all parties are satisfied with the decision. Everything is voluntary, no one is forced to accept anyone elses ideology. That is why socialism has so many different idea of how to implement it. There is no fixed ideology.

Which would be great, if the psychopaths were going to let us have it. The problem is that they won't.

That was the conclusion I drew after reading Bellamy's novels; that a socialist scenario could truly work gloriously, but only if the psychopaths did not exist. The fact that they do, is the spanner in the works.

We need to develop a system for definitively identifying the psychopaths, and then we need to figure out what to do with them, that minimises their potential for harm to non-psychopathic society. I do not necessarily advocate either eugenics or capital punishment, but the reality is that we do need to figure out some way of preventing the psychopaths from doing the amount of damage that they have traditionally, so far. If we don't figure out how to do that, they are going to render all of us extinct.

[of course liberty in this context means anarchism]

One of the things which Edward Bellamy's second book helped me to figure out, was that the definition of liberty, as advocated by people like Milton Friedman, was the liberty of a single individual to theoretically acquire literally all of the property on the planet. The only problem with that scenario is, if one person literally owns everything, what happens to the other 6 billion+ of us?

If nothing else, I have realised that the game of Monopoly is not a positive model for running the world. It isn't even really desirable as a board game, for similar reasons as to why people don't want their children playing Grand Theft Auto. I don't advocate anything which teaches or encourages psychopathic behaviour.

We should be able to change our ideas if necessary, and when warranted, the only thing we all agree on is workers should own the means of production. Some socialists want government, some want anarchism, and all the varied ways to implement both. You just have to find what socialism you feel comfortable with, but don't get too dogmatic and be willing to look at other ideas.

I personally do not advocate the size of groups being large; ideally no more than 50-100 people at the very most. Beyond that, I feel that accountability becomes impossible. I also, as mentioned, do not advocate any form of legislature, which makes binding decisions for anyone who is not physically present in the room.

I do instinctively want a high level of personal freedom; but my definition of freedom does not include me having everything, and everyone else around me having nothing. Truthfully I've been very reclusive for most of my life, and that is mainly because people fairly consistently tend to bully me if I am around them. That is the main reason why I do not like joining groups, for the most part.

One thing that Marx and I have in common, is that I read he was never employed. I have temporarily had some telemarketing jobs, and also some freelance web design, but for the most part, I've been unemployed. The main reason why I have never got a job, is because I found out at high school that I am a berserker, and I did not want to go to jail if I ended up killing a psychopathic employer.

Permaculture is interesting and could be a good model for society.

Permaculture includes equality as one of their principles; although they refer to it via the term "fair share." Bill Mollison did to some extent espouse a social model, but there isn't really a lot there, and what is there, does not get talked about anywhere near enough, in my view. Most people just want to study Permaculture in order to more effectively grow vegetables, and not to generally live in a different way.

Originally posted by Feltrick
OWS was created by the Left to stir up the vote for the Democrats.

That's probably true. The only problem, as far as the cabal is concerned, is that their activities have also served to stimulate some legitimate discussion about how to change things.

That doesn't mean that I'm advocating necessarily that we all become carbon copies of Hugo Chavez or Chi Guevera. It does, however, mean that I want to put literally every possible alternative to the current situation that I can find, on the table; and dissect it, digest it, analyze it, and otherwise go over it with a fine toothed comb...in order to hopefully, eventually find a genuine solution to the problems that the cabal are causing.

One way or another, things can't stay the way they are right now. Whether that means Socialism, von Misen Capitalism, or the Venus Project, in and of itself, is not the point. The point is that you'll notice, that irrespective of our political or economic perspective, the one thing we virtually all agree on right now, is that something is terribly wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Feltrick
OWS was created by the Left to stir up the vote for the Democrats.

That's probably true. The only problem, as far as the cabal is concerned, is that their activities have also served to stimulate some legitimate discussion about how to change things.

I have yet to hear anything resembling a "legitimate discussion" about how to change, I've only heard a disjointed message of "We Need Change." Hmmm, where have I heard that message before? Just like the Tea Partiers were used to further the goals of the Right, the OWS is being used to further the goals of the Left.

If they are truly an arm of the Left, then you will see the violence escalate during the Republican Convention and peak a few days before the Democratic Convention. Prior to the Conventions, the OWS will march on DC and a "leader" will emerge. This "leader" will be invited to speak at the Democratic Convention and will, of course, endorse President Obama. "Change we can believe in" will be touted again. The "violence" will turn to annoying phone calls and door to door campaigning. This once disjointed group will have a purpose, they will be gathering voters far and wide, they will create change by supporting the only candidate that will change the political establishment in DC.

I could be wrong, Lord knows I've been wrong many times before, but in this case I don't think I am. We'll just have to wait and see. No, they're not socialists, they're just a political arm of the Democrats. They are no more "grassroots" than the Tea Partiers.

Originally posted by Feltrick

I could be wrong, Lord knows I've been wrong many times before, but in this case I don't think I am. We'll just have to wait and see. No, they're not socialists, they're just a political arm of the Democrats. They are no more "grassroots" than the Tea Partiers.

Can you post here if it does happen? I try and keep in touch with all of the news about them, but sometimes I miss things. I'd like to know if this does turn out the way you think.

reply to post by petrus4


Will do! Should be a fun election year no matter what happens.

Right before this OWS got started, I remember a pundit talking about how the Dems lost the youth vote and how the Republicans have the Tea Party. All of a sudden, up springs the OWS. Just seems convenient, especially with the Arab Spring.

Do you really think the so-called Birthers really believe that the President was born in Kenya? No, that was the Right's first attempt to create a "grassroots" effort and it failed to catch on. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are those out there who truly think he was born in Kenya and in some ways I guess the plan worked, but it didn't catch on. Not like the Tea Party, that was pure genius!

Remember, the goal of both parties is simple: Remain in power at all costs.

Originally posted by petrus4
Although I am unaware of child labour specifically being involved, I was aware that in the case of one industry which was relevant to my interests for many years, (the computer game development industry) sweatshop or at least extreme overtime labour practices were engaged in, as a matter of course. Torturous overtime was considered traditional within the industry, and as far as I know, still is; even by the workers themselves.

My parents were both English boarding school educated, and I was not raised to view myself as a member of the proletariat. My level of alienation towards them (or what in the Hindu caste system would be referred to as the Sudra) increased, after living in northwestern Melbourne for 14 years, when I came close to being murdered by them on two occasions. I viewed them as being violent, brutish to the point of barely seeming human, racist, and needlessly and inexplicably anti-intellectual.

My own more recent experiences with relative poverty, however, have compelled me to greatly eradicate such prejudice, and to realise that fundamentally, we are all human beings. I still do not condone violence, and I also believe that every human being has a responsibility to maximise his or her intelligence and level of education to the highest level possible; but I now believe that rather than hating individuals who have not had the opportunity for such, my moral obligation is to attempt to assist them in doing so.

I really enjoyed reading what you said here.

I remember my first ever job in the optical industry, in the UK, and we were always coerced to work unpaid overtime constantly. They only got away with it because of the scarcity of jobs. In a country that has laws against that so I can only imagine what it's like in third world countries.

When 'jobs' are scarce the workers has less rights, or is coerced to accept less rights. If 'jobs' were in abundance the worker would have more power, as they could easily find replacement work if they were not happy. The employer would be more reluctant to lose anyone, if they would have difficulty finding a replacement. So the worker has more power to demand better pay and conditions. There will always be unemployment because of that. It's capitalists keeping labour in storage in case of need.

"They hate you if you're clever, and they despise a fool" John Lennon.