|
Nintendo Kid posted:This is loving bullshit because it was part of the 2008 presidential and congressional campaigns in a big way, 3 years before occupy. Oh man I am excited for this argument to happen again.
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Rime posted:Which highlights exactly why income inequality will remain a growing and unaddressed problem with no end in sight, regardless of how many Piketty's come out of the woodwork. Degrees of magnitude count. The fix is already in, but plutocracy still requires politicians' complicity and politicians still need votes. On the latter's basis, we can still agitate for a 'soft landing.'
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
upsciLLion posted:Not that this is necessarily indicative of anything, but the first big spike of Google searches for "income inequality" in the US corresponds to November 2011, two months after OWS began. Which is meaningless, because here's Barack Obama's inaugural address in 2009: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/ Badger of Basra posted:Oh man I am excited for this argument to happen again. There is no more an argument on the topic than there is an argument that evolution exists.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Gee, I wonder if there was some cataclysmic economic event over the past decade that might have gotten people keen on talking about income inequality. Well... Hello there.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which is meaningless, because here's Barack Obama's inaugural address in 2009: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/ Even if the President was mentioning it, from what I remember it wasn't as discussed as heavily in public discourse until Occupy
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Even if the President was mentioning it, from what I remember it wasn't as discussed as heavily in public discourse until Occupy Occupy changed the discourse dramatically. A week before Occupy the entire public discourse was about DEBT DEBT DEBT. After Occupy suddenly poverty mattered again. It was a massive, fundamental shift in American politics and one that should not be trivialized.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Which is meaningless, because here's Barack Obama's inaugural address in 2009: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/ That doesn't correspond to ANY kind of spike in Google Trends, shockingly enough. It really took off in 2011-2012 with the 99% vs 1%, and Romney's 47% comment. It had gotten minor press before but it was never a major issue, not even around the immediate aftermath of the crash.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Prior to Occupy (I forget who originally coined the term 99% but it was someone else) inequality was talked in hazy terms akin to waitresses and MY SECRETARY should not have to pay taxes higher than your capital gains rate, a lot of "give jus folks a fair shake in this great American system'. Which is a lot different from the current conversation which is more a fundamental questioning of maybe not capital C capitalism but definitely the idea that hard work doesnt pay off and youre hosed, enjoy working three jobs to make ends meet and jobs with a pension are akin to Unicorns. Basically what youd expect after seven years of poo poo economy, though I thought itd come sooner.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That doesn't correspond to ANY kind of spike in Google Trends Which is why trying to use google trends to prove the popularity of an idea is stupid as all hell. It was a huge theme in the 2008 election to the point that it was referred back to in the inaugural address and in 2010 the media was talking about how "obama's war on income inequality" was failing http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2010/12/obamas_war_on_inequality.html theblackw0lf posted:Even if the President was mentioning it, from what I remember it wasn't as discussed as heavily in public discourse until Occupy When occupy happened, the public discourse was "lol look at these dirty hippies" for months. The secret is you don't remember it being discussed because those days were twice as far away in time as Occupy!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Yay! Another fishmech derail! I'll try to side track this: sound the TFR horn because guns should be banned!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
One of the most successful working groups at any Occupy was Foreclosure Defense. Long after the camps dissolved, homeless outreach sputtered to a stop, and Food Not Bombs went back to wherever they came from, Foreclosure Defense was still moving from home to home confronting County Sheriffs and helping homeowners with legal paperwork.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
anonumos posted:One of the most successful working groups at any Occupy was Foreclosure Defense. Long after the camps dissolved, homeless outreach sputtered to a stop, and Food Not Bombs went back to wherever they came from, Foreclosure Defense was still moving from home to home confronting County Sheriffs and helping homeowners with legal paperwork. Pretty much this. Most core activists shifted their attention to foreclosure activities. Some pretty awesome heroics if you look into it. Though the only records you will find will be in self published commie rags.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
also Rolling Jubilee (http://rollingjubilee.org/) where Occupy activists buy discounted debt through donations in order to clear it has achieved $14M of debt clearance. For just random people who apply. I don't really know how much more concrete you want activism to be than that.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Are we really holding up Rolling Jubilee as an exemplar of OWS activism? It accepts the current financial framework as a given by buying debt on the market. Even OWS supporters understand that the Jubilee is more a bandaid than a solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Are we really holding up Rolling Jubilee as an exemplar of OWS activism? "Raising Awareness" also accepts the status quo as a given and just expects everyone else to do the hard work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
While I agree that there are people who settle for "raising awareness" as an end-all to activism who are slacktivists, and agree that "raising awareness" accepts the status quo, I disagree with the idea that it accepts the status quo as a given in perpetuity. It accepts that there is a status quo that exists now, and that in itself isn't useless. Inactive things like "raising awareness" is necessary if the environment for more active attempts at solutions just isn't there. You have to make sure there are enough people behind you before introduce your movement into the environment so it doesn't end up stillborn. You don't want to end up merely martyring yourself, getting dumped in an unmarked grave, and having your actions rendered completely inconsequential by history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:You don't want to end up merely martyring yourself, getting dumped in an unmarked grave, and having your actions rendered completely inconsequential by history. True, but raising awareness - while not leading to getting killed - still has your lack of action rendered inconsequential by history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Of course, but in one of those scenarios you get to live to potentially do actions another day/live to continue doing nothing while living in complete self-indulgence. (The former is pragmatism stopping a person from blowing their load too soon; the latter is motivated by concentrating more on personal fulfillment than the need for actions to have a purpose in the social whole--the kind of people for whom "it's not bad enough yet" that the personal costs from taking riskier actions are greater than perceived gains.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Cultural change, and make no mistake income inequality is a cultural problem, doesn't change quickly. It changes slowly over a long period of time, and with that in mind raising awareness is far more effective than...I'm not sure what the alternative being proposed is here. Violence? Violence tends to turn people against you really quickly and sets cultural movements back quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Yeah, violence has an awful track record when it comes to changing society for the better even if it does succeed which it rarely does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
I guess we must be posting from alternate universes but at least in my timeline, progressive movements in the States have been buttressed by violence or at least the threat of violence. Arguing that OWS analogues will succeed by virtue of "raising awareness" and incrementalism goes against everything we know as leftists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I guess we must be posting from alternate universes but at least in my timeline, progressive movements in the States have been buttressed by violence or at least the threat of violence. I don't think I agree with that. Progressive movements were buttressed with action and threats of action, or in many instances, threat of inaction, work stoppages. The violence and threats of violence usually came from the status quo attempting to thwart any progressive change. I don't doubt that the left was ready to protect themselves from violence or respond to it in kind but, in most instances, the violence was initiated by the existing power structures. I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
There's organized economic disruption, too. Like sit-ins, strikes and bus boycotts etc.. When a group is so disenfranchised that their attempts to raise awareness of mistreatment is routinely avoided by the media, problems become endemic to a segregated community. If members of that segregated community are discriminated against in such a way that they make up a separate lower economic class, then businesses aren't going to fear loss of dollars that the options of signing a petition or raising a general outcry of protest or calling for an unorganized individual boycott bring, because hell they don't have dollars (see the difference between the civil rights movement of lower class african americans and the marriage equality movement of middle class gays). Without purchasing power or a voice, the only options left to make the establishment even hear you much less do something is to make them fear for their continued existence, whether that be economically (strikes and boycotts that have salient effects on the bottom line will make one fear ruin) or bodily. May not be pleasant, but that's what happens when no one in charge gives a gently caress what happens to cuban or javanese or bangladeshi plantation/factory workers until they have to pay fifty cents more for a banana/they hear that a tide of dissidents is rolling close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
The civil rights movement for one thing. The establishment has managed to whitewash the entire struggle as a Disneyfied peaceful protest movement with MLK as the figurehead while deliberately overlooking the Malcom X side of things. It really underscores the "babby's first social consciousness" nature of OWS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:True, but raising awareness - while not leading to getting killed - still has your lack of action rendered inconsequential by history. In the case of OWS raising awareness was actually exactly the right move. One of the issues the American political system is running into right now is that relatively few people actually knew how far down the rabbit hole went. Most people just didn't realize how ludicrously unequal things had gotten and that they were getting worse. The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that it exists in the first place. OWS exposed a lot of poo poo and enough people took notice that the public conversation shifted, as did political opinions. Note that all of this marched in parallel with The Tea Party shenanigans ramping up to 11, the CIA and FBI getting all up in everything, and some very powerful people actively smearing OWS. It's easy to say "well raising awareness is useless and dumb" but really, OWS did a drat fine job of it and caused a fundamental shift in the nation's political discourse. While the right is doubling down on the crazy one interesting thing is that, despite all their dirty tactics, the right is ultimately failing. OWS is part of that in that more people realized just what the right has been up to and how deep the blood funnels belonging to the wealthy are digging. poo poo has a long way to go, sure, but it's ridiculous to say that OWS did nothing beyond "raise awareness." Even so, this is also a different era than previous ones. While in the past revolutions and change happened with guns or active resistance now the most important thing is information.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
The only choice OWS had on the table was "awareness" and bringing up the issues in the first place because frankly some random civilians aren't going to overthrow the government and violence is going to be cracked down on ridiculously hard. A girl from Occupy got 5 years for elbowing a cop, what did you think would have happened to her if she shot a bunch of cops? The internal security apparatus of the present-day US if anything is better armed and prepared then it was at the turn of the century. Cops rolling around with assault rifles and body armor aren't just for show. Anyway, as far as "baby's first" activism, fine but it is only that way because there was and since then really nothing else out-there. It is a literally a crawl versus run situation, their choice was "awareness" or jack poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
radical meme posted:I don't think I agree with that. Progressive movements were buttressed with action and threats of action, or in many instances, threat of inaction, work stoppages. The violence and threats of violence usually came from the status quo attempting to thwart any progressive change. I don't doubt that the left was ready to protect themselves from violence or respond to it in kind but, in most instances, the violence was initiated by the existing power structures. I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong about this. In a society that places more value on private property than the rights of its citizens to live in basic human decency, economic disruption is violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The only choice OWS had on the table was "awareness" and bringing up the issues in the first place because frankly some random civilians aren't going to overthrow the government and violence is going to be cracked down on ridiculously hard. A girl from Occupy got 5 years for elbowing a cop, what did you think would have happened to her if she shot a bunch of cops? She got 90 days minus time served and 5 years probation and admitted she hit the cop in the face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
You can pick any single face of the thousands who took part in Occupy to represent it. The movement as a whole still stands as a genuine "mad as hell" moment where people felt disturbed enough to actually leave their homes and gather in one place to express their anger. Of the few days I spent there, nearly all of it was spent talking to people about the myriad of reason why they were mad as hell, and yes, nearly all of it boiled down to income inequality effecting each individual uniquely. People realized they had much more in common than they thought, which ruffled a lot of just-world feathers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the issues the American political system is running into right now is that relatively few people actually knew how far down the rabbit hole went. Most people just didn't realize how ludicrously unequal things had gotten and that they were getting worse. The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging that it exists in the first place. I have a feeling things that are not true will have a harder and harder time appearing to be truthful in this new era of ours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Prior to Occupy (I forget who originally coined the term 99% but it was someone else) inequality was talked in hazy terms akin to waitresses and MY SECRETARY should not have to pay taxes higher than your capital gains rate, a lot of "give jus folks a fair shake in this great American system'. Al Gore was talking about income inequity in the 2000 election, especially around tax cuts. OWS certainly did change some of the language and shifted some of the debate to income inequality. However, OWS real problem came down in not being willing to work with anyone who could bring about change for fear of being "co-opted."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Al Gore was talking about income inequity in the 2000 election, especially around tax cuts. OWS certainly did change some of the language and shifted some of the debate to income inequality. However, OWS real problem came down in not being willing to work with anyone who could bring about change for fear of being "co-opted." And then at the end their message got co-opted by a neoliberal president to win re-election. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And then at the end their message got co-opted by a neoliberal president to win re-election. Who, if they had worked with (or members of his party) probably could of reached more of their goals of fighting income inequity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:35
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Who, if they had worked with (or members of his party) probably could of reached more of their goals of fighting income inequity. Yeah that's the problem leftists aren't willing to work with Obama
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Yeah that's the problem leftists aren't willing to work with [leftist city, state, and federal officials] there are a few
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
You do realize that leftist politicians (yes, those city, state and local officials you're all jazzed about) were heavily involved in Occupy, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Cultural change, and make no mistake income inequality is a cultural problem, doesn't change quickly. It changes slowly over a long period of time, and with that in mind raising awareness is far more effective than...I'm not sure what the alternative being proposed is here. The stuff that people who left Occupy to rot did, like continuing the rolling jubilee, and so on. Ardennes posted:The only choice OWS had on the table was "awareness"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:18
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The stuff that people who left Occupy to rot did, like continuing the rolling jubilee, and so on. Charity will not bring about social change Rolling jubilee is great, but it ain't going to accomplish jack all when it comes to raising political awareness of issues like economic inequality. Case and point: we're talking about Occupy still, not the rolling jubilee http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=income%20inequality Note how jack poo poo happens to that trend throughout Obama's presidency until Occupy happens. Then suddenly it becomes a part of national rhetoric. Not a coincidence. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
fierce defenders of the status quo like fischmech don't really want social change though
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:44 |
|
rscott posted:fierce defenders of the status quo like fischmech don't really want social change though Well of course, the same people who criticize occupy now were the same ones doing it when it happened. Hint: it wasn't the guys operating the debt jubilee program, who all still have good things to say about Occupy. Most criticisms of Occupy center around people disliking "hippies" or drum circles or whatever. Nobody really disputes that income/wealth inequality isn't an issue (that's why you don't see fishmech or ae or any of the other resident idiots trying to argue that), so they have to focus on stupid points like trying to redefine the goal so that it wasn't achieved, despite the resounding evidence (reality) that speaks to otherwise.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 17:24
|
|