Occupy: A point we possibly need to move on from

So I've been reading several of Kali's responses in the Occupy related threads here, recently; and I've noticed that the conversation on all sides, is starting to boil down to a single, predictable routine.

Kali: WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. COMMUNISTS!



Conservatives of ATS: Are too.



Kali: ARE NOT!

ATS Conservatives: Are too.

(Et cetera, et cetera)

I'm starting to wonder, at this point, how productive this exchange is. I think we simply need to concede the point, that as much as some of us might want it, a confession is not going to be forthcoming.

So I'd maybe like to move the overall discussion regarding Occupy in a slightly different direction. Whether we consider the movement Communist or not, one question that I haven't seen answered by conservatives here, is do we think that the movement is still able to do something genuinely useful, in terms of corporate greed, or not?

The film that Kali linked recently, American Autumn, showed some police violence; if the movement are completely ineffectual, why do people think that the police respond to them the way they do?

One area where I've also noticed that Occupy do seem to be doing some genuine good, is their campaign against housing foreclosures. Dennis mentioned that in the film, as well.

So, to summarise. I know that the usual conservative opinion is that they're just a bunch of smelly hippies who need to get jobs, and possibly also the Red Peril 2.0, but is it maybe possible, that they could still manage to do some real good, despite that?

Civil disobedience can and does work.

Its so funny how all these cries against Occupy mirror the cries against the civil rights movement.

Many of the leaders backed then where tracked by the government as "communist sympathizers" during the whole red scare...

Seems thats the go to move for those in power when dealing with the cry for social justice from the masses.

If anything the responses to Occupy say alot about the person responding and not the actual movement.

Personally I believe Civil disobedience work, that combined with actually using our wallets to state our beliefs could have a bigger impact than anything.

What would happen if Americans simply stopped patronage of all these HUGE banks that constantly screw us over and put the money into local business and credit unions.

We need to stop calling our fellow Americans names, and falling for the division tactics that get used against us, it will take all Americans working together to solve the problems that face America.

reply to post by petrus4


Let me restate the closing argument on the debate thread that I had with XPLodER. It should frame my stance on the whole issue.

"We decide what we want or need. We also create the engine to supply those wants and needs. Not banks, not government, not unions, not special interest groups.

To place blame on outside entities for personal failures is an abdication of responsibility.
To place the responsibility of fiscal security, personal health, education in the hands of a central authority (government) is a loss of freedom."

I think the idea is that OWS is asking for more and more government regulation on the economics of the country and they are demanding that they want to make everything "fair". OWS argues that its not fair that some people have so much while they have so little.
While communism took Russia in a revolution pretty quickly, OWS is trying to get more government regulation of the economics on a slower pace. Im not saying that they are communists but asking for more regulation is more of a step in the direction of communism than it is for a free market.

reply to post by petrus4

Well Petrus, here is an ATS Conservative who was also a full Occupy Member, as some may recall. I sure haven't called them all Communists, because I know better. Occupy HAS communists, sure...and sadly, some of those are in key positions of control and leadership within the national structure. Get them OUT and heck, the overall movement could flourish and work again toward the critical goal of the support of the public this is all supposed to be for.

On Occupy members though? Heck, I met Commies, Anarchists, Liberals out my ears of course...but I also met a couple Combat vets from the current wars, a former Deputy Sheriff who was my direct supervisor on security at the St Louis Camp while I was with them as well as a variety of others.

Occupy is as America is...a little bit of everything and everyone with what everyone can see IS a hard left lean...but that sure doesn't mean everyone in it is left, They aren't. I was there and this isn't guess work or assumptions.

Just get the friggen criminals and anti-American anarchists out of anything that smells remotely like Policy making or leadership positions...and hell, Occupy COULD do a lot. The Average people out here have largely forgot Occupy exists. A month and a half away from ATS reminded me of that when anywhere I mentioned it I got a look like I was talking about an Elvis sighting or something. It COULD be used as a clean slate ..kinda...opportunity if major internal change were to ever happen.

Hmmmmm......




Source:

www.theatlantic.com...



Source

www.blacklistednews.com...

I'd like to recycle my post from another thread that applies here too. I'll hammer this point every chance I get.

I would like to reach back into the dustbin of history and take a polshing cloth to a well known ( and very applicable to present day) early 20th century word.

Bolshevism....

Word History: The word Bolshevik, an emotionally charged term in English, is derived from an ordinary word in Russian, bol'she, "bigger, more," the comparative form of bol'sho, "big." The plural form Bol'sheviki was the name given to the majority faction at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party in 1903 (the term is first recorded in English in 1907). The smaller faction was known as Men'sheviki, from men'she, "less, smaller," the comparative of maly, "little, few." The Bol'sheviki, who sided with Lenin in the split that followed the Congress, subsequently became the Russian Communist Party. In 1952 the word Bol'shevik was dropped as an official term in the Soviet Union, but it had long since passed into other languages, including English.

And we all know know what that led to.

I submit that the OWS movement is nothing more than a modern day Bolshevist movement/attempt with very much the same goal as the original.

I'm sure that the Bolshevics were not ALL communists either.

reply to post by petrus4

I'm starting to wonder, at this point, how productive this exchange is. I think we simply need to concede the point, that as much as some of us might want it, a confession is not going to be forthcoming.

Could that be because there is nothing to confess to? A person being a Communist is not a crime nor anything to be ashamed of, it isn't something you admit... it is something you state.

There are Communists among us, it's not a dirty little secret that we are trying to hide. That doesn't make Occupy a Communist movement. Furthermore, Communism does not mean everything left of liberal.



Take a good look at that chart, it's pretty accurate in my opinion. The chart shows two very different forms of Communism, Authoritarian and Libertarian... our Communist comrades are way down on the Libertarian Left. NONE are interested in Statist Communism or State anything. Speaking personally though my thinking seems to be very similar to fellow Occupiers... anything above the middle line, anything authoritarian ends up being a horrible mess.

In the US the only ideologies that have representation are in the top and mostly in the right side box including most of our Liberals.

Most of us feel we should be moving more down on that chart than necessarily left on it. Personally I'm all over that lower left box but predominantly in the green blob... ideologically, anyway. However, I think we need to live along the Libertarian center for a while and let the smoke clear.

Anyway... my whole point is, if you want the discussion to move beyond "yes they are/no we're not" perhaps you should stop trying to place labels, stop trying to catch us "red" handed... the gist of your OP ended up being a wink and a nod to the Righties. Worse than that it was an appeal to cronies. "They say they're not but we know better eh fella's" it's disgusting.

And that is your pattern, I see right through you. You play up one side trying to fit in then something happens and you flip and start playing up the other.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4

 

Anyway... my whole point is, if you want the discussion to move beyond "yes they are/no we're not" perhaps you should stop trying to place labels, stop trying to catch us "red" handed... the gist of your OP ended up being a wink and a nod to the Righties. Worse than that it was an appeal to cronies. "They say they're not but we know better eh fella's" it's disgusting.

I've also said before, that part of my motivation in becoming a member on this forum, was an attempt to at least begin engaging in communication with the Right. No secrets there.

Also, if it was an appeal to cronies, it would be an unsuccessful one. The conservatives here don't seem to view me as being much of a friend of theirs. They consider me just as much the enemy as the Leftists do; because I refuse to polarise to either side.

reply to post by petrus4


It's not your refusal to pick a side, it's your accusations.

Occupy is not a political party or movement. It is a social/cultural movement and therefore it is inaccurate to define us as left or right. We are trying to affect positive change in society as a whole by starting to address the underlying issues in our culture that we have.been.born and raised into believing. It just so happens that those in seats of political power are the ones actually drilling this stuff into our heads via mainstream media outlets (tv, radio, advertising, etc). We have to change on a sociocultrual (is that word?lol) level if we're going to see our nations and the world change. As the late great michael jackson once said, if you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and a make that change.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4

 

It's not your refusal to pick a side, it's your accusations.

That's why I started this thread in the first place. The point was to suggest that not only I, but the various other people who are doing it, stop. I then went on to attempt to begin a discussion about whether or not people think Occupy might be capable of producing positive ends, irrespective of what their political affiliation is. I apologise if you were sufficiently busy trying to demonise me, that you missed that part.

As for the videos, it's called humour. You might want to try it sometime. It could lower your stress level.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4

 

It's not your refusal to pick a side, it's your accusations.

That's why I started this thread in the first place. The point was to suggest that not only I, but the various other people who are doing it, stop. I then went on to attempt to begin a discussion about whether or not people think Occupy might be capable of producing positive ends, irrespective of what their political affiliation is. I apologise if you were sufficiently busy trying to demonise me, that you missed that part.

As for the videos, it's called humour. You might want to try it sometime. It could lower your stress level.

edit on 13-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

You make a good point and apologize for my previous off talk post. As for ows being capable of positive ends I would assert that the movement has already done several postive things such as bring communities together for various things like foreclosure defense, sustainable farming/agriculture, and fighting institutionalized racism and classism and a ishton of other isms. And I doubt that this will stop no matter how much we're clubbed or sprayed

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by petrus4

 

Take a good look at that chart, it's pretty accurate in my opinion. The chart shows two very different forms of Communism, Authoritarian and Libertarian... our Communist comrades are way down on the Libertarian Left. NONE are interested in Statist Communism or State anything. Speaking personally though my thinking seems to be very similar to fellow Occupiers... anything above the middle line, anything authoritarian ends up being a horrible mess.

(Emphasis mine)

I want to answer this in a little more detail, because it's very important. You've hit on the reason why I dismissed Left anarchism, and why I'm gradually moving away from the lower left quadrant of that graphic in general.

The problem is that "Libertarian Socialism," is a deathtrap. The psychopaths are not going to let you have that. They never do. Go and look at every last Leftist revolution in history, that has happened so far. It always ends up with a dictator running things, and the people standing around wondering what happened. I've never seen a single revolutionary Communist yet, who has been able to provide a truly robust solution for said revolution being betrayed.

It always happens. Look at what happened with the Paris commune, as one example; this was back when Marx was still alive. The French there were apparently shocked to find out, that he had actually advocated a central government all along.

It's a fraud, Kali. The whole thing is a giant swindle. Communism was invented by the Rothschilds, as I've said before. The plan was to invent both that and Capitalism, and play them off against each other. Capitalism was to be the foil; it was designed to fail, and the reason why Marx was able to give such a great structural analysis of its' problems, is because he got his information about it from its' very architects.

The point was that after Capitalism as a system began to crash, the people would demand an alternative, and would begin to gravitate towards Communism automatically, because they wouldn't be able to see any alternative.

Capitalism's international colonialism was set up for the very purpose, in the long term, of giving Marx's rhetoric about "universal oppression," validity; which would again, cause people to believe that "solidarity," was the only rational response, which would in turn lead people to psychological preparation for, and ultimately even demand of, world government. Checkmate.

Originally posted by jacktherer
As for ows being capable of positive ends I would assert that the movement has already done several postive things such as bring communities together for various things like foreclosure defense, sustainable farming/agriculture, and fighting institutionalized racism and classism and a ishton of other isms. And I doubt that this will stop no matter how much we're clubbed or sprayed

Forclosure defense, okay, I get that. Sustainable farming/ag? Okay, I like that.

Fighting institutionalised racism? Groovy.

Fighting classism? What the frack?

How can you fight classism when you initiate it by defining yourself as the 99% vs the 1%?

Seems to me that you're enhancing the divide.

My biggest problem with the Occupy movement was the lack of a coherent message... from one city or protest to the next, I could sense the anger and passion, but what was the overall message? That the rich have it better than everyone else (they always have)? I just never found a good, solid, overaching statement that tied it all together

So Petrus, could you tell me what Occupy was trying to get across to people like myself who are in the middle between the 'haves and have nots"?

Honest question, not meant to be sarcastic or underhanded in any way (gotta love how many times intent gets misconstrued by the Internet).

Thanks.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by jacktherer
Forclosure defense, okay, I get that. Sustainable farming/ag? Okay, I like that.

Fighting institutionalised racism? Groovy.

I like these as well. Occupy Our Homes has been doing some great things.

Fighting classism? What the frack?

How can you fight classism when you initiate it by defining yourself as the 99% vs the 1%?

Seems to me that you're enhancing the divide.

Agreed. The Marxist victim complex is an enormous problem.

Originally posted by Dreine
So Petrus, could you tell me what Occupy was trying to get across to people like myself who are in the middle between the 'haves and have nots"?

I'd actually invite you to watch Dennis Trainor's movie, American Autumn, on this score.

However, another thing to point out, would be to say that, if you've got a roof over your head, Occupy most likely wouldn't view you as being in the middle. You'd be seen as one of the "haves," to use your own term above.

The single major issue, I think, is concern over corporate greed, to the point where it is believed that at some point, senior corporate executives could likely end up being the only people who are literally able to survive at all. Although the formal figure on American unemployment is 9%, I've seen estimates as high as 35-40%.

Another major issue is the environment. I've read projections that we are probably ten years away from causing a non-recoverable disruption, in the systemic chain reaction which this planet utilises, to provide an environment that is inhabitable for human beings.

To put this in more simple terms, in order to provide the four things (air, water, food, and liveable climate) which humans and other animals need to biologically survive, the Earth at a sufficient broad scale, can be said to have a cyclic chain reaction, which is just like the engine of your car. This is what differentiates the Earth, from the surface of Mars.

In other words, purification of these resources, and regulation of the environment, happens during each iteration of the engine, or rev, to use the car analogy. The problem is that like the engine of a car, the engine of a planet's biosphere requires a large number of inter-related parts. If you cause a sufficient amount of damage, to a sufficiently large number of said parts, eventually the engine will cut out and cease to run. In the case of a car engine, you could think of cutting the fan belt, or the radiator tank getting a hole in it.

These are both, of course, traditional or stereotypical Leftist issues. A number of people within the Left, mind you, are now claiming that the environmental problem is about to become everyone's issue, or really already has.

reply to post by petrus4


I have no interest in demonizing you or anyone else. I don't care whether you or anyone else supports the movement or not. I care about pigeon-holing and I care about mis/disinformation. You would do well to not take any disagreement with you as a personal attack. If I attack you, you'll know it. I'm calling you on the first statement you made in the thread which amounts to "they say they're not a communist movement, wink wink."

Also I paint targets on my back well enough on my own, I don't need any help.

reply to post by petrus4
In my Tea Party group, we have very simple issues.
Smaller government, personal responsibility, self-determination. . . yadda-yadda-yadda, (you've heard this from me before).

The point is, there may be people in my group that want;
All vegan airline food
Abortion
No fur
No religion
Forced tatoos
Topless tuesdays

Whatever.

The point is, we agree on a central theme. We keep it simple. That way, there is no mixed message.

Maybe Occupy can take a lesson.