The 99% Spring... Get ready for it... The previous antics were just a test for the big call

Originally posted by ANOK

What's the difference?

feigning obliviousness may be cute, but it's not very productive. If you're as educated in matters of socialism as you claim, you already know what the difference is. If you're not, then you have no business lecturing me on it.

No they were power hungry authoritarians who used socialism to trick they people into supporting them.
Do some research, learn some history other than what you're learning in school.

All socialists are power hungry authoritarians. They fear walking alone, since that will threaten their exercise of authority over others, which is why they tend to run in packs. They are fearful little men, who find refuge in crowds. They expect the weight of "the masses" to bend to their will.

I didn't learn about socialism in school. They didn't teach it when and where I went to school. I learned about it on the ground, beginning in the Central American Glorious People's Revolutions in the late seventies and eighties.

Nice try at attempting to belittle my "education". Which socialist revolutions have YOU witnessed from the ground as they happened? Instead of researching and learning history, get off your ass and march.

THEN you can try to educate me.

No. Just... no. No organization is possible without some form of governance. A government. Even ants do it. The very act of organizing creates a hierarchy. A Government.

Bull. You need to do some reading or something, get a clue from somewhere mate.

If you can only see the authoritarian form of organization you are very naive.

ONE of us is naive, that's for sure. You seem to be laboring under the illusion that organization can somehow be unorganized or disorganized. That appears to be the same mistake OWS made, yet you've not learned from that. Organization without a hierarchy or power structure is not an organization at all - it's a self-destructive mob.

You also have a very naive idea of what organizing is. Working within an organization does not take away your individuality, it gives you power against other organizations such as government. It is in the best interest of capitalists, and government, for you to be individuals with no power or control over what government does on behalf of the capitalists.

No one "works within" an organization. They work ON BEHALF of that organization. The organization (or, more properly the power structure within that organization) tells them what to do, and like obedient little lemmings, they run along and do it. In the very act of allying yourself with an organization, you give up some degree of your individuality and freedom of movement as dues for that alliance. Now, I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is. To call it otherwise is disingenuous.

Being in an organization does not, in any way, give YOU power against anything at all. It merely lays another layer of subjugation on you, in service to the organization, which is the direction the power REALLY flows. You can exist without them, but they cannot exist without you. Therefore, they bleed power from YOU to survive.

It's not the other way around.

BTW you seem to be against government because it's hierarchical, but you support capitalism which is also a hierarchical system, doesn't make sense mate.

All systems are hierarchical. that's what makes them systematic. It's a matter of how far you are willing to allow that system to extend it's tentacles over you. I'm not against government per se, I'm against a government that micromanages the individual and subjugates him unreasonably.

I support capitalism because it inherently allows for more individual freedom than socialism. The very nature of socialism requires the worker bee to contribute to the hive at his own expense, and the hive WILL enforce that, at which point you get the "power hungry authoritarians" you mentioned above as having somehow usurped socialism in the 20th century. It wasn't a "usurpation", it is the only way in which socialism can function and survive.

In capitalism, I can do what I want, or do nothing. Either way, the hive will not miss me. They have their own problems to attend to.

Without government capitalism would be even more hierarchical, think the industrial revolution in 1800's Europe. The only way to break down that hierarchy is if the workers owned the means to production.

I already own my means of production, such as they are. Socialism does not allow that, since that gets me out from under the thumb of the hive. You should check into that for yourself, and reconsider giving that ownership over to the hive. Once the hive owns those means, there is no difference at all for the common man from what is found in allowing Wall Street to own them. Either way, your fate and well-being is in the hands of another, rather than yourself.

reply to post by jibeho

It's no secret that the Occupy group has been realigning it's mission throughout the recent winter months. The camps were left behind and office space has since been leased and staffed. This is what they came up with.

Can't say you have not been warned. We heard the same rhetoric before the first movement and look at what happened across the nation.

The legions of willing ignorant are going to usher in greater civil unrest and spark Martial Law.

I’m afraid that’s been the plan for quite some time. Soros is good at collapsing societies.

It’s sad that so many people won’t wake up in time to walk away from this mess before it’s too late.

Originally posted by seabag

The legions of willing ignorant are going to usher in greater civil unrest and spark Martial Law.

I’m afraid that’s been the plan for quite some time. Soros is good at collapsing societies.

It’s sad that so many people won’t wake up in time to walk away from this mess before it’s too late.

I believe you are absolutely right, that is the plan. It's a plan straight out of the playbook of Che and Mao. The objective is to get the government to crack down on "the masses", on the theory that the masses will react by allying themselves with the provocateurs and against the government.

Consider the playbooks, and you will know the sources.

There is a third option that they haven't thought of, but will learn if they proceed. We don't have to support EITHER of those imaginary sides against the other. We can instead support the people against BOTH, if that's the way they want to play.

ETA: That is likely why they are trying to portray themselves as "non-violent", so that when they provoke enough, the violence can be blamed on the government. They should have learned that it doesn't always work that way last fall. It wasn't all that hard to see where the provocation was coming from, and where the reaction was coming from, in spite of the spurious claims of some sort of nebulous "provocateurs" whom they claim infiltrated their ranks.

Here's a tip - if you police your own ranks, there will be no provocateurs. If you allow them in, you can't blame any one other than yourselves for the ensuing mayhem. There will be none of the old ruse of tapping a shoulder and then looking in another direction with a "who, me?" expression.

Originally posted by nenothtu
feigning obliviousness may be cute, but it's not very productive. If you're as educated in matters of socialism as you claim, you already know what the difference is. If you're not, then you have no business lecturing me on it.

I wasn't feigning anything, there is no difference between leftist and lefty.

All socialists are power hungry authoritarians. They fear walking alone, since that will threaten their exercise of authority over others, which is why they tend to run in packs. They are fearful little men, who find refuge in crowds. They expect the weight of "the masses" to bend to their will.

What a load of nonsense. I'm not sure how to even reply to such paranoid nonsense.

I didn't learn about socialism in school. They didn't teach it when and where I went to school. I learned about it on the ground, beginning in the Central American Glorious People's Revolutions in the late seventies and eighties.

The problems in Central America had nothing to do with the workers ownership of the means of production. What they call socialism has nothing to do with the traditional socialism I am talking about.

You have to learn to look at socialism as an economic system outside of all the BS that has been attached to it due to failed political systems over the years. Socialism is not the problem, it's when it is violently apposed by forces greater than itself that causes the failure. Socialism, anarcho-socialism actually, was working very well in Spain, it was the fascist right that caused it to fail because it's them that wanted ultimate power and control.

When the workers own the means of production, it would be very difficult for a single authority to gain ultimate control.

Nice try at attempting to belittle my "education". Which socialist revolutions have YOU witnessed from the ground as they happened? Instead of researching and learning history, get off your ass and march.

THEN you can try to educate me.

I apologise for the school comment.

Again, what you went through is not what I am talking about. Revolution is not a requirement for socialism. Capitalism is far more violent, and has killed far more people than anything that can be incorrectly associated with socialism. From the obvious, wars in the ME, property crime, starving in Africa, to the not so obvious like millions of industrial accidents. The list is long, but you can probably justify them, can't you?

ONE of us is naive, that's for sure. You seem to be laboring under the illusion that organization can somehow be unorganized or disorganized. That appears to be the same mistake OWS made, yet you've not learned from that. Organization without a hierarchy of power structure is not an organization at all - it's a self-destructive mob.

Rubbish. You can't use OWS as an example when we have years of examples that prove you completely wrong.
Central to anarchist thought is that we can organise without top down authority. Obviously they didn't listen you.

Central to anarchism is the belief that people can organize themselves to efficiently meet their needs, without top-down hierarchies, coercion, or rewards and punishments. People will make mistakes, because we are imperfect, but we can learn from our mistakes and improve over time. This is the belief in freedom. Anarchism is usually presented as the most extreme form of a belief in freedom. It has often been said that anarchism is a synthesis of classical liberalism — carried to its extreme — and socialism. Another historical name for anarchism (and antistatist Marxism) is “libertarian socialism.”

theanarchistlibrary.org...

You only think like that because that is what you've been taught (conditioned) to believe. Freedom under capitalism is a privilege of the wealthy capitalist owners, not 'we the people'.

Continued...

No one "works within" an organization. They work ON BEHALF of that organization. The organization (or, more properly the power structure within that organization) tell them what to do, and like obedient little lemmings, they run along and do it. In the very act of allying yourself with an organization, you give up some degree of your individuality and freedom of movement as dues for that alliance. Now, I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is. To call it otherwise is disingenuous.

Being in an organization does not, in any way, give YOU power against anything at all. It merely lays another layer of subjugation on you, in service to the organization, which is the direction the power REALLY flows. You can exist without them, but they cannot exist without you. Therefore, they bleed power from YOU to survive.

It's not the other way around.

Yes in capitalist organizations. Socialism is a different way of organising that is directly democratic, it doesn't work on the same principles capitalist organisations do. All true left wing ideology is based on bottom-up organisation as apposed to top-down.

It sounds more like you should be apposed to capitalism not socialism. Maybe my comment about your education wasn't so far off...

I already own my means of production, such as they are. Socialism does not allow that, since that gets me out from under the thumb of the hive. You should check into that for yourself, and reconsider giving that ownership over to the hive. Once the hive owns those means, there is no difference at all for the common man from what is found in allowing Wall Street to own them. Either way, your fate and well-being is in the hands of another, rather than yours.

Again you are misunderstanding what socialism is. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. It's not a hive. It's not state control. It comes in many forms from state controlled, Marxism, to libertarian, anarchism. You can't just look at one political system, and claim that is socialism. Workers have to organise in order to have a collective voice against the collective voice of capitalism. Doing it by yourself is the capitalist approach that excludes the community and is inherently self serving. There is nothing moral in being a staunch individualist, it's nothing but narcissism out of control perpetuated by the system that it benefits.

Second, global corporations disdain civil society. They've created a culture of organizational narcissism, where workers pledge allegiance to the enterprise. Corporate employees live in a bubble, where they log obscene hours and then vacation with their co-workers. Multinationals develop their own code of ethics and worldview separate from that of any national state. Corporate executives don't care about the success or failure of any particular country, only the growth and profitability of their global corporation. (Many large corporations pay no U.S. income tax; in 2009 Exxon Mobil actually got a $156 M rebate.)

5 Reasons Capitalism Has Failed

Maybe this Spring we'll see those FEMA camps finally getting some use!

I think the intent is good but the outcome may not be worth it. We're nothing.