|
Typo posted:Tsarist Russia in 1914 was a rapidly industrializing society which averaged annual growth approaching double digits before WWI happened. In all most of those things (barring maybe the militarization required to win WW2 because history would be so radically different without Oct.1917 that WW2 might not happen)was probably going to occur without Communism. Ultimately, we don't know which way Russia would have worked out, but ultimately it probably would have hit a bump in its developmental model (and to be honest you could say it already did in 1905) and it might have been stuck in a half developmental state. Remember, even if Russia was seeing very high growth because its urban areas and certain industrial regions were booming, but the vast majority of society was living in an existence that was in ways centuries behind. If anything one of the implicit reasons for the crises was that Tsarist Russia was how it was going to continue to develop with only limited exterior markets for goods while having a giant peasant population. Also, another revolution was likely going to happen at some point, the war might has hastened it a bit but Russia's economic system was completely unsustainable, and if anything even if the Tsar survived that he probably wouldn't have survived the Great Depression. Furthermore, without October 1917 and the Soviets, the move to a more reform capitalism becomes more cloudy and if anything there is the very real chance of the Great Depression leading to its own set of revolutions. quote:I mean, I guess I can't prove that the left-wing version of the tea party won't get oppressed by the bourgeois or w/e, and you can spend all day on the internet convincing yourselves that "overthrowing the system" is the only way. But the point is that you guys aren't even trying to use the tactics which worked for the other side, and of which is order of magnitude easier to do than fomenting the revolution or w/e. If you guys actually win a primary or two and then the rich stole the election from you then you'd have a point, but as things stand you guys just look like you don't want to do it because it takes more time/work and isn't as fun as protesting. You a bit issue with your plan is that those who joined Occupy already felt disenfranchised with the political system, and the fact the system really has no use or desire for a left-wing group that wants to challenge it. If you believe the system is fundamentally broken why would they re-embrace it for any reason? You think the system is still fixable, the people in OWS ultimately didn't. You can disagree with them but it is silly to lament they didn't adopt your way of thinking when you weren't even part of it. You know there has been attempts by third parties who do what you want (Green, Justice Party), and they barely get anywhere and usually they are a footnote in any election. One reason OWS started in the first place is because everyone knows the primary process is broken and isn't leading anyway especially for third parties. I really think OWS wouldn't even be something we would be talking about if they were more moderate and exclusionary from the get go. If the occupations or marches didn't happen there wouldn't have been any coverage and if its message was far softer and limited, if anything it is likely most people would have just moved on. Remember the "Coffee Party"? Yeah, thought so. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Apr 30, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
I'm not sure if I'd call OWS radical considering all the stuff that they did within the system e.g., buying debt and retiring it or organizing fundraising for Sandy victims. I think you're overestimating the socialist contingent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm not sure if I'd call OWS radical considering all the stuff that they did within the system e.g., buying debt and retiring it or organizing fundraising for Sandy victims. The people there were largely completely fed up with the political process even if they weren't all Marxists and Anarchists. It is trying to fit a block in square hole, you weren't going to get people fed up with the system go just give in and re-embrace it especially since the only reason they showed up was that OWS was at least different. OWS went the way it had to go, it was a heterogeneous protest movement that was largely the result of a political process that had alienated them, being part of the primary system wasn't seriously on the agenda for a reason and ultimately no one could agree on anything because they actually had radically different view points. Others have called for a "purge" of the leftists but you probably would have ended up mostly with libertarians, conspiracy nuts and a few milquetoast liberals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Here's a study that finds the opposite: This actually seems perfectly consistent with the Princeton Study. Princeton looked at the stated preferences of different classes, and then looked at the rate of policy adoption that met those stated preferences. They found that the preferences of the rich were disproportionately adopted as policy, and using multivariate regression they established a strong relationship between class preferences and adopted policy which skewed decisively towards the upper class. This Mizzou study finds that the bulk of donations come from individuals, as opposed to special interests, and that legislators' votes are largely determined by their preferences and ideology, and the ideology of their constituents. Unfortunately, legislators are pretty bad at gauging the actual ideologies of their voters (source), and legislators are by and large members of the top wealth-owning decile, the Upper Class. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the average net worth of US Senators and Representatives together is $7,537,000. The median net worth is $1,001,765. The median net worth is only slightly less than the median net worth of the top income decile as a whole. The median net worth of Legislators is also solidly in the Top 10% net worth decile. What this suggests to me is that the median legislator is solidly a member of the Upper Class. If Median Voter Theory is accurate (not saying it unequivocally is), and if legislators' votes are essentially determined by their preferences (according to the Mizzou study, they are), then it stands to reason that the policies most likely to be adopted by congress are those which reflect the preferences of the Upper Class. This logical conclusion is supported empirically by the Princeton study. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:You admitted that even if OWS did have one unified political platform, even something as simple as building a community center, it would not have been successful. quote:So therefore the criticism that it didn't is a canard. And, I mean, in this thread we are discussing whether or not capitalism is anti-democratic. So yeah of course if you use a pro-capital political process to push a pro-capital agenda, then you don't get hosed over, it's a question of what happens if popular opinion starts to swing against capital. And your rhetoric continues to be a good example of the way that propaganda is invariably deployed to delegitimize working-class movements, hence why there is a larger hump to get over than "just convince the majority of people to understand their class interest." Everyone who opposes my political opinions are "good example of the way that propaganda is invariably deployed to delegitimize working-class movements", the majority of people are simply dumb and if they were smart they'd be Marxists like me and realize their true "class interest" or whatever. It's an awfully lovely way of having a debate or trying to to actually achieve anything in politics. quote:If you think of the Tea Party as primarily a movement opposed to Wall Street then I'm not sure we can find common ground. Besides which, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion of the strategy of political movements, just to illustrate that different levels of class consciousness are not by themselves sufficient to explain a disparity in political power. Typo fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You know there has been attempts by third parties who do what you want (Green, Justice Party), and they barely get anywhere and usually they are a footnote in any election. One reason OWS started in the first place is because everyone knows the primary process is broken and isn't leading anyway especially for third parties. Typo fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Ultimately, we don't know which way Russia would have worked out, but ultimately it probably would have hit a bump in its developmental model (and to be honest you could say it already did in 1905) and it might have been stuck in a half developmental state. Remember, even if Russia was seeing very high growth because its urban areas and certain industrial regions were booming, but the vast majority of society was living in an existence that was in ways centuries behind. If anything one of the implicit reasons for the crises was that Tsarist Russia was how it was going to continue to develop with only limited exterior markets for goods while having a giant peasant population. I agree that we don't know for sure how Russia would have done. But really, urbanization and industrialization are the overwhelming trends of the 20th century and I don't think Russia would have being much different. Moving people into factories simply make too much sense and all over the world both left-wing and right-wing governments managed to achieve those trends over time. Remember even as late as the interbellum most of continental Europe had agrarian majorities so Russia isn't even -that- special in that regard. quote:Also, another revolution was likely going to happen at some point, the war might has hastened it a bit but Russia's economic system was completely unsustainable, and if anything even if the Tsar survived that he probably wouldn't have survived the Great Depression. My point is that people's impression pre-Oct 1917 Russia is simply wrong: it was never a choice between Lenin and the Tsar, or Communism or a forever backward peasant country. There's a fairly good chance for the Tsarist state industrialize, I simply don't buy the idea that Communism was necessary to industrialize Russia. Typo fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Typo posted:Yes, that's why I advocate 1) Voting Democrat in national elections instead of endless splitting the left vote by going for third parties which don't do anything and 2)Go to Democratic party primaries on a local level and vote in the candidates you want because in a good deal of congressional districts that's where the actual election occurs anyway. It is plainly evident to most people that it is largely hopeless, even if they push for their candidate all the way, it is remarkably remote they would actually do anything of much benefit. It isn't a surprise there is so much apathy. quote:I agree that we don't know for sure how Russia would have done. The problem was that the Soviets weren't trying to industrialized in a period of peace and prosperity, there were trying to industrialize in a period of 2 global wars, multiple revolutions (beyond just 1917) and at some point a giant depression. Russia was very far behind and it ultimately wasn't catching up nearly quick enough for many reasons, and the world nor the people of the empire would have waited around half a century for the government to get it straight. No one in the imperial government was interest in real change, Nicholas II could have died and nothing would have been different (also he was relatively healthy, so the chance of that is remote). Also, no 1905 and 1917 didn't happen "just" because of lost wars, the revolutions were an unleashing tremendous resentment against the system they felt rightfully was autocratic and didn't even remotely represent their interests. To be honest, if anything that is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard someone say about Russian history. Maybe Communism wasn't necessary but some sort of centralized control and massive capital was desperately needed to push industrialization even the Soviets were having trouble in the mid-1920s. As far as the Tsar versus Lenin, it ultimately came up to that because no one could offer a stable government, peace or any actual change. The provisional government and Kerensky failed for very good reasons. To get the outcome you want to you basically have to ignore pretty much everything and create a radically different dimension that had very little to do with our own. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Others have called for a "purge" of the leftists but you probably would have ended up mostly with libertarians, conspiracy nuts and a few milquetoast liberals. It always seems like Liberals first idea is to purge anyone further left than they are. Than when people on the left suggest we do things without liberals since they throw us under the bus the first chance they get, they act like were out of line and they don't need us anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:It always seems like Liberals first idea is to purge anyone further left than they are. Than when people on the left suggest we do things without liberals since they throw us under the bus the first chance they get, they act like were out of line and they don't need us anyway. Usually discussions of OWS get especially silly when you hear people complaining people should have worn suits and it was the drum circles that killed it. I think there is a realization that something is going wrong by some of them, but there is very chance of them coming up with new answers. OWS really wasn't fulfilling the desires of establishment liberals, it was a hodgepodge of random people going together to vent and experiment. Ultimately, most of the people were burnt out about what liberals had to offer in the first place, since it was clear that voting D including in primaries wasn't going to change a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Usually discussions of OWS get especially silly when you hear people complaining people should have worn suits and it was the drum circles that killed it. I think there is a realization that something is going wrong by some of them, but there is very chance of them coming up with new answers. It was worst than that because Occupy couldn't even field left-of-liberal candidates, of which there was no shortage. There were a lot of people who wanted to push Occupy policies in politics but found that Occupy was largely anti-political. What I mean, simply and clearly, is that there were candidates from the very far left that should have gained widespread approval, but Occupiers don't vote, wouldn't work on leftist campaigns, and didn't actually give a poo poo about political activism. Who can blame them? I agree that politics is a rigged game, but I also believe that you lose every game you don't play.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is plainly evident to most people that it is largely hopeless, even if they push for their candidate all the way, it is remarkably remote they would actually do anything of much benefit. It isn't a surprise there is so much apathy. But on a local level (wardship, city council, congressional primaries etc) the per person political power you have shoots up significantly and real, actual changes are much easier to initiate. And succeeding might catapult to the national stage anyway. quote:The problem was that the Soviets weren't trying to industrialized in a period of peace and prosperity, there were trying to industrialize in a period of 2 global wars, multiple revolutions (beyond just 1917) and at some point a giant depression. Russia was very far behind and it ultimately wasn't catching up nearly quick enough for many reasons, and the world nor the people of the empire would have waited around half a century for the government to get it straight. Multiple revolutions and WW2 were also pretty integrally caused by the Bolshevik revolution/Russian civil war in the first place of course. In many ways the industrial-military complex generated by Communism was the solution to problems generated by Communism in the first place. quote:No one in the imperial government was interest in real change, Nicholas II could have died and nothing would have been different (also he was relatively healthy, so the chance of that is remote). Also, no 1905 and 1917 didn't happen "just" because of lost wars, the revolutions were an unleashing tremendous resentment against the system they felt rightfully was autocratic and didn't even remotely represent their interests. To be honest, if anything that is one of the more ridiculous things I have heard someone say about Russian history. quote:Maybe Communism wasn't necessary but some sort of centralized control and massive capital was desperately needed to push industrialization even the Soviets were having trouble in the mid-1920s. As far as the Tsar versus Lenin, it ultimately came up to that because no one could offer a stable government, peace or any actual change. The provisional government and Kerensky failed for very good reasons. quote:Maybe Communism wasn't necessary but some sort of centralized control and massive capital was desperately needed to push industrialization even the Soviets were having trouble in the mid-1920s. Typo fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Usually discussions of OWS get especially silly when you hear people complaining people should have worn suits and it was the drum circles that killed it. I think there is a realization that something is going wrong by some of them, but there is very chance of them coming up with new answers. The way you present yourself to the public matter an awful lot more than who is correct in the endless ideological sectarianism amongst yourselves in actual politics and your failure to realize this doom yourself to further irrelevance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Typo posted:The way you present yourself to the public matter an awful lot more than who is correct in the endless ideological sectarianism amongst yourselves in actual politics and your failure to realize this doom yourself to further irrelevance. No movement will ever get off the ground if it is more important to alienate those inside of it than out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:No movement will ever get off the ground if it is more important to alienate those inside of it than out of it. Well actually try not to alienate people: period
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:Well actually try not to alienate people: period That is the entire issue, we are no longer in a period of consensus, contemporary politics will ultimately have to alienate someone (or more in fact).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
I think the root issue of capitalism is declaring all forms of wealth to be fundamentally equal and exchangeable. The example I like with regards to the political system is to imagine a person trying to push an initiative on a ballot. One way to get something up for vote would be to go around getting signatures on a petition. Signatures are basically a form of currency in this case: you do labor by going around and convincing people to sign your petition, and are paid for your labor in signatures. There's transparency in that those signatures you worked to gain can be exchanged for only one specific thing; people who paid you with their signatures know exactly where that currency is going. Alternatively, if you have money, you can lobby/support political candidates/whatever and basically buy signature-equivalents from people, regardless of how that money was acquired. While it's somewhat implicit in the way the system works now, it's doubtful a conscious decision of the consumer to give this person political currency. That money could have changed hands multiple times over via the crazy capitalist machine, and where that money ends up is ultimately unknown. That you can be removed from the initial act of wealth exchange by so many degrees and still reap the benefits of having access to a universally valid form of currency is what really gets me. There's no dialogue or understanding of what that wealth you gave up will ultimately be used for, and once it leaves your hands, it's basically fair game for anyone else to use for any purpose. Is it really fair that me buying a ham at the store could eventually result in a big bank gaining political leverage? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is the entire issue, we are no longer in a period of consensus, contemporary politics will ultimately have to alienate someone (or more in fact). We are talking the suggestion that your movement dress well to look good to the public which you are ultimately conducting a political dialogue with. This isn't some irreconcilable ideological issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:We are talking the suggestion that your movement dress well to look good to the public which you are ultimately conducting a political dialogue with. It really is one, because there is the assumption that you have to change who you are (or how you look) to appeal to some theoretical audience and no one in Occupy was even remotely interested in anything to that. You can blame them all you want for it, but it was nothing they were interested in ever doing or really made any real sense compared to what they were about. Also, having "well dressed" movements on its own is in fact a bit ify in itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It really is one, because there is the assumption that you have to change who you are (or how you look) to appeal to some theoretical audience and no one in Occupy was even remotely interested in anything to that. You can blame them all you want for it, but it was nothing they were interested in ever doing or really made any real sense compared to what they were about. How is everyone else in America a "theoretical audience"? There's something massively ridiculous about a movement simultaneously wanting to be 21st century revolutionaries to overthrow the liberal system but refuses to do something which would offend its members's fashion sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Typo posted:How is everyone else in America a "theoretical audience"? If you think it wouldn't have just been spun differently as "look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" with a bunch of people in suits, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Typo posted:How is everyone else in America a "theoretical audience"? The issue you entirely have no idea what Occupy was and can't quite grasp that it wasn't an organization, it was a very loose movement without even much of a real leadership and to be honest that has a lot of real support among people active in it. Then there is the issue that you think the Occupy was increased in the general American audience, it wasn't. Furthermore, you think instilling some type of dress code goes with revolution (and Occupy really wasn't revolutionary in that sense). There is a real disconnection happening here because wearing suits to impress conservative portions of middle America wasn't even without the same ball park as what Occupy was about. Btw, I don't think Occupy was this awesome revolutionary thing that changed the world, but it clearly was what it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If you think it wouldn't have just been spun differently as "look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" with a bunch of people in suits, I don't know what to tell you. "look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" sounds a lot less plausible and make your political opponent look worse (because even the beneficiaries of the system thinks its corrupt). It's a step up from dirty hobos screwing up central New York. Typo fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Apr 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue you entirely have no idea what Occupy was and can't quite grasp that it wasn't an organization, it was a very loose movement without even much of a real leadership and to be honest that has a lot of real support among people active in it. Then there is the issue that you think the Occupy was increased in the general American audience, it wasn't. The issue you can't grasp is that I don't give a poo poo about what OWS was "really' like. If it can't get its act together and adopt viable political tactics and organization to appeal to the broader public, it deserves to fail. If it can't get "real leadership" or a "political platform", then it has nothing to do with evil capitalists destroying democracy in America and everything to do with your own movement unable get itself to take part in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Typo posted:"look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" sounds a lot less plausible and make your political opponent look worse (because even the beneficiaries of the system thinks its corrupt). It's a step up from dirty hobos screwing up central New York. They were called hypocrites for owning telephones and wearing shoes. There's no outfit that will make a corporate broadcaster give good press to anticapitalist protest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Typo posted:No I didn't, if OWS had a simple platform like building a community center, or a bunch of community centers for the poor (and there are actual groups who do this), as its primary, stated goal, then it has a much better chance of succeeding. Typo posted:No, first of all, petitions are useless. The first goal you named is completely and utterly alien to most people in America (and probably in the movement too) and would fail fine without the upper class oppressing you or w/e, the second point is incredibly vague but might actually work as the basis for a political platform but nobody took up on that, the last one is something which is concrete enough, but you are better off trying to achieve it through means other than protests. Now, you may agree with any or all of those claims, I'm not trying here to convince you that you should join a squat in a park or join a union. I'm just trying to point out that existing power structures are self-reinforcing and that attempting to challenge them is not nearly as simple as a majority of Americans deciding that they'd like a change. Typo posted:And there you go again. This thread isn't about why Marxism is right, my intent is merely to use the treatment of Occupy by politicians and the media as a recent event that showcases the barriers to a leftist popular political movement over and above simply gaining support among the working class. quote:I actually don't think it's "primarily" a movement to oppose wall street, I think they are not the best group to represent the interests of the Republican business class because they were pissed off at certain members of said class and their obsession with religion and gays doesn't make money. And yet they ended up winning quite a bit of political influence anyway. How exactly does a movement that was created whole cloth by industrialists to fight for lower taxes on the rich (and lower spending on the poor) oppose the interests of the rich? It doesn't matter if they're "pissed off at certain members" of the upper class if their policy goals are made by and for those same aristocrats. Also, the Tea Party is not really the part of the Republican coalition dedicated to social issues, which is mainly a push from white evangelicals (source). If anything, the political alliance of Evangelicals with the Tea Party libertarians displays exactly how a "unified platform" is demanded from leftist groups like Occupy, while reactionaries get a free pass. Typo posted:"look at these trust fund babies protesting capitalism" sounds a lot less plausible and make your political opponent look worse (because even the beneficiaries of the system thinks its corrupt) Did you miss that this meme already existed? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Occupy wall street makes more sense in describing it as a movement that tried to get the already disenfranchised more interested and active politically than as a unified group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I bolded the part where you say that even an incredibly small-scale and non-threatening goal would have been opposed because of factors outside of whether or not Occupy had a "unified political platform". This is the point I am trying to make. Even if Occupy had changed to suit the narrative that was forced on it, the goalposts would have shifted, from "you don't even have a clear goal" to "well, you shouldn't use protests to achieve your goal" to maybe "it's foolish to work outside of the two-party system, just focus on voting for Democrats." Much like how the goalposts for unions shift from "they don't even do anything" to "striking isn't the right way to get what you want." You've got it backwards. The fact that existing power structures are self reinforcing means that it's really hard to change the mind of the majority of the population. This is true all the time in any system. But if you were to succeed at that, change would follow. In regards to OWS - the game is won if you're popular, if you don't do things to make yourself popular you've failed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I bolded the part where you say that even an incredibly small-scale and non-threatening goal would have been opposed because of factors outside of whether or not Occupy had a "unified political platform". This is the point I am trying to make. Even if Occupy had changed to suit the narrative that was forced on it, the goalposts would have shifted, from "you don't even have a clear goal" to "well, you shouldn't use protests to achieve your goal" to maybe "it's foolish to work outside of the two-party system, just focus on voting for Democrats." Much like how the goalposts for unions shift from "they don't even do anything" to "striking isn't the right way to get what you want." In the same vein, Habitat for Humanity does not protest against the lack of low-income housing, they go ahead do build it themselves. If OWS had a unified political platform to build community centers then its chances of succeeding in its goals go up even if protesting is sub-optimal. But not having one at all guarantees failure, it's simple as that. quote:Now, you may agree with any or all of those claims, I'm not trying here to convince you that you should join a squat in a park or join a union. I'm just trying to point out that existing power structures are self-reinforcing and that attempting to challenge them is not nearly as simple as a majority of Americans deciding that they'd like a change. quote:This thread isn't about why Marxism is right, my intent is merely to use the treatment of Occupy by politicians and the media as a recent event that showcases the barriers to a leftist popular political movement over and above simply gaining support among the working class. quote:How exactly does a movement that was created whole cloth by industrialists to fight for lower taxes on the rich (and lower spending on the poor) oppose the interests of the rich? It doesn't matter if they're "pissed off at certain members" of the upper class if their policy goals are made by and for those same aristocrats. quote:Also, the Tea Party is not really the part of the Republican coalition dedicated to social issues, which is mainly a push from white evangelicals (source). If anything, the political alliance of Evangelicals with the Tea Party libertarians displays exactly how a "unified platform" is demanded from leftist groups like Occupy, while reactionaries get a free pass. And there aren't even that separate, lots of tea party people are very religious and racist. quote:Did you miss that this meme already existed? Typo fucked around with this message at 00:27 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Typo posted:American political parties are designed to accommodate people with a wide variety of views and still get grab political power. I'm not entirely sure we're living in the same country
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
I don't see how you can spin OWS's lack of organization and goals as a positive. It takes hard work to thrash out a common set of objectives that appeal to members of a political movement and to develop a working leadership whether hierarchical or diffuse. OWS took the easy way out and abdicated any desire to go through that process. I'd argue that's the main reason why it failed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Honestly if you compared the Tea Party's knowledge of their "party's" political issues you'd probably find the same depth of knowledge as an OWS protester, except one of these parties managed public protests with barely any organization.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Typo posted:The issue you can't grasp is that I don't give a poo poo about what OWS was "really' like. If it can't get its act together and adopt viable political tactics and organization to appeal to the broader public, it deserves to fail. If it can't get "real leadership" or a "political platform", then it has nothing to do with evil capitalists destroying democracy in America and everything to do with your own movement unable get itself to take part in it. There goal was a place to spread interest and bring attention to an issue, while actually changing it was secondary because that in itself was a ridiculous fight. If anything a big part of the message was that the political process was completely hosed and if you want anything to get done you do it yourself. Occupy groups had some moderate success after that with various projects. Overall, for the most part they accomplished what they wanted, just not what you wanted. In addition, you can't accept that a movement could be ad hoc and thus not have a real structure in of itself, and also more or less brought to together as a temporary movement. Anyway, OWS was mostly internally focused because to be honest it was all about the people who showed up, and trying to pretend it was basically a party or organization that was just poorly led or had no media strategy was just fundamentally not getting what was going on. The Tea Party was obviously co-opted very early on and then had a organization because it was created for it and then the previous movement was carried along with it. That process wasn't going to happen with Occupy: the Democrats were wary of it, the people in Occupy didn't want it, and if anything it wouldn't have accomplished their goals. To be honest, I do the OWS did actually accomplish something by giving protesting and mass movements in the US some life where it had none and bringing critical awareness to what is happening in the US. Ultimately, there was a choice, either you have a concrete movement that is likely to fail in everything it does (it would have) or a temporary diffuse movement that at least could get some being interested for a while and maybe shift the narrative a bit. Occupy could have had much worse fates to be honest, and if you want to call it a failure, fine, but it minimized its failure as much as it was going to. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:34 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
It was far better for OWS to die in its crib than to creep on as merely another political party in the predatory system we find ourselves enshrouded in.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I think a lot of the traditional media's claim of "they don't know what they're protesting about" is that there was a bunch of things thrown out there and they were too lazy to go interview people.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You've got it backwards. The fact that existing power structures are self reinforcing means that it's really hard to change the mind of the majority of the population. This is true all the time in any system. But if you were to succeed at that, change would follow. My thesis is that the self-reinforcement operates on three levels: 1) making it difficult to change the mind of the population; 2) if the population does change its mind, making it difficult to organize and pursue change; and 3) if they do organize and pursue change, outright suppression. Typo posted:I never said protests as a political tactic is inevitably going to fail, I just don't think if your goal is to build a community center protesting is the way to do it. Ah, okay, well in that case could you suggest something that Occupy would not have been vilified and assaulted for pursuing, if only they gave it as a single unified goal? quote:Well, now you are the one goal shifting from "it's impossible to work within the system" to "it's not nearly as simple" It is impossible for the working class to attain power solely by operating within a system that was designed by the aristocracy in order to benefit the aristocracy. Also, pursuing a successful working class movement is not as simple as a majority of the country recognizing that they share a class interest, because it is also a non-trivial challenge to convince people that change is possible, to actually organize despite political pressure, and then to actually win victory in the face of violence. These two sentences are perfectly consistent and do not represent moving goalposts at all. quote:Well, Ardennes is saying OWS never cared about being a popular leftist movement. No, Ardennes is saying that OWS was disinterested in skin-deep appeals to conservative "respectability," any more than Tea Party members are concerned that Democrats think they're crazy people. Movements don't have to "care" about being popular, either they're centered on the public or they aren't.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:I think a lot of the traditional media's claim of "they don't know what they're protesting about" is that there was a bunch of things thrown out there and they were too lazy to go interview people. "too lazy" or paid to discredit the movement by its avowed enemies?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:I think a lot of the traditional media's claim of "they don't know what they're protesting about" is that there was a bunch of things thrown out there and they were too lazy to go interview people. For better or for worse, the leaderless format combined left traditional media with a problem in reporting the beliefs of OWS, because they were unable to figure out who could really represent the views of the protesters. They had the impression they gleaned from hearing a bunch of things thrown out there, but there was no apparent mechanism to filter whose interview would yield a reliable profile. The worst case scenario (and arguably the most likely one) is that they would have picked some random person and wound up effectively appointing them Occupier in Chief, which probably would have been fine for the movement overall if it had been someone whose core issues were bank deregulation and growing inequality or political corruption and an unresponsive system, but probably would have been pretty damaging if they picked Joe Chemtrail as the de facto spokesman. It's entirely possible I have the wrong impression, it's been quite a few years since the whole thing went down. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 01:44 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
This thread is not about OWS. If you want to kill the thread keep talking about OWS. Not only did OWS fail, it kills threads. Start a thread or something, but stop talking about it here.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:38 |
|
|
Pohl posted:This thread is not about OWS. OWS had some big issues with capitalism being potentially undemocratic.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 01:50
|
|