Support NeoGAF

[aronnov reborn]

I don't know anyone who 'likes' capitalism, I know many people who tolerate it, but noone from my parents, family, work colleagues, friends who would say they 'liked' capitalism. What is there to like about it?

you must live in a socialist bubble.

 

[Jenga]

I don't know anyone who 'likes' capitalism, I know many people who tolerate it, but noone from my parents, family, work colleagues, friends who would say they 'liked' capitalism. What is there to like about it?

have they lived under any other economic system to really care about it?

honestly your average person doesn't really question something they take for granted

 

[travisbickle]

have they lived under any other economic system to really care about it?

honestly your average person doesn't really question something they take for granted

I would say studying different economic systems would be enough to make an informed decision, but I do have friends who have lived under communism/socialism in various forms.

In general we are all rational people that can see the pros and cons of things and living under a system that has allowed the disparity of wealth we see today, and allowed the detrimental effects of corporations upon society/environment we should question it.

 

[bob page]

What an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_2ZmoYwaH1s

 

[empty vessel]

you must live in a socialist bubble.

No, even ardent capitalists, if they know anything about it, would describe it as a necessary evil. Only ignorant people champion it as a virtue in itself. It's a doctrine that explicitly rewards idle power over work.

 

[aronnov reborn]

What an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_2ZmoYwaH1s

thought his message was great and really touched home to the true 99% that think the <1% protesting are idiots.

 

[bob page]

thought his message was great and really touched home to the true 99% that think the <1% protesting are idiots.

"An October Quinnipiac University poll of New York City voters found that 67 percent of New Yorkers approved of the movement with 23 percent disapproving. The results also found 87 percent of New Yorkers find it OK that they are protesting."

67% of 8 million = 5,360,000 people who approve of the Occupy movement in NYC alone (which is more than 1% of the US)

 

[Slayven]

What an idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_2ZmoYwaH1s

Humor? How does it work?

 

[aronnov reborn]

"An October Quinnipiac University poll of New York City voters found that 67 percent of New Yorkers approved of the movement with 23 percent disapproving. The results also found 87 percent of New Yorkers find it OK that they are protesting."

67% of 8 million = 5,360,000 people who approve of the Occupy movement in NYC alone (which is more than 1% of the US)

I could do a poll in New York and get the same results in my favor.

 

[Jenga]

I would say studying different economic systems would be enough to make an informed decision, but I do have friends who have lived under communism/socialism in various forms.

In general we are all rational people that can see the pros and cons of things and living under a system that has allowed the disparity of wealth we see today, and allowed the detrimental effects of corporations upon society/environment we should question it.

How is the disparity of wealth in capitalism compared to other forms of communism/socialism?

 

[nib95]

Let me get this straight, one side (Occupy) is fighting for the future of&#65279; the US against corporate domination of Government, corruption, inequality of wealth, lack of accountability of billion dollar corporate criminals etc.

Whilst the opposition, is complaining about toilets, dirtying up parks and the general nuisance to their otherwise cozy lives?

Wake the fuck up America. Also, recent polls show only 13.1% of the Occupy movement is unemployed, not far off the National average, so corporate and Right Wing media needs to find another misinformed piece of propaganda to use as an attack against the movement.

 

[bob page]

I could do a poll in New York and get the same results in my favor.

Unlikely, since NYC isn't a conservative city historically.

Even polls from the NY Post (right wing, owned by News Corp) show 45% OWS favorability among New Yorkers (which is still more than 3 million people, more than 1% of the US in NYC alone).

Simple math and logic prove that your statement fails.

 

[Slayven]

Let me get this straight, one side (Occupy) is fighting for the future of&#65279; the US against corporate domination of Government, corruption, inequality of wealth, lack of accountability of billion dollar corporate criminals etc.

Whilst the opposition, is complaining about toilets, dirtying up parks and the general nuisance to their otherwise cozy lives?

Wake the fuck up America. Also, recent polls show only 13.1% of the Occupy movement is unemployed, not far off the National average, so corporate and Right Wing media needs to find another misinformed piece of propaganda to use as an attack against the movement.

Interesting definition of "fighting".

 

[WARCOCK]

You enjoy the buttrape that is a Capitalist recession? or the fact that moral/common sense/ethics are absolutely put aside?

Capitalism looks good on paper. Not so much applied.

I have a very strong communist leaning myself, or at least a very strong marxist leaning as opposed to marxist-leninism( or any form of stalinism). Unfortunately i don't believe traditional marxism is applicable or has been developed in such a way that it can be implemented even in the most progressive of modern societies, in some form or another. I don't really buy the whole incompatibility with human nature stuff(at least in any absolute sense), i just think we're not ready for that sort of thing, as condescending as that might sound. I honestly think most leftists should aim for something similar to social democracy instead of full on socialism or communism.

That being said i think marxist theory should be part of the discussion, I feel its critiques on capitalism are relevant as demonstrated by the countless recessions in the span of capitalism's history. Being critical of our system is healthy, believing in its integrity and infallibility despite many failures... is not. We need to talk and think, a lot.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Unlikely, since NYC isn't a conservative city historically.

Even polls from the NY Post (right wing, owned by News Corp) show 45% OWS favorability among New Yorkers (which is still more than 3 million people, more than 1% of the US in NYC alone).

Simple math and logic prove that your statement fails.

You're talking to the guy who thinks red blooded real Americans should get down to their local Occupy site and start swinging.

 

[chaostrophy]

Adam Cadre, a writer/blogger I follow (who has done some great interactive fiction work btw) has posted a piece on the Occupy movement:

One meme that the right has tried to spread about the Occupy movement is that it isn't about anything. These protesters — what do they want? Where is their list of goals? How do they expect to negotiate for whatever it is they want to achieve without a leader? Underlying these questions is the assumption that the Occupiers are even talking to their adversaries right now. It seems to me that much of the success of Occupy — and it's been successful enough in changing the conversation to issues of economic inequality that we've already reached the "then they fight you" phase — has been in talking, not to the top 1% and demanding anything, but to the other 99% and comparing notes. On the broadest level, this exchange boils down to: "This sucks, right?" "Oh, you think so too?" Which is basic, even embryonic — but very, very important.

For another meme that the right has been pushing for the past thirty years is that it's Morning in America; that as right-wing policies have been put into force, life has gotten better and better; and if yours hasn't, it demonstrates that you must be fundamentally defective in some way. This last part used to be left as an implication, but with each standard bearer on the right more proudly simple-minded than the last, they're now just blurting it out. The message of Occupy is that if you feel like the rising tide of prosperity has left you treading water — or drowning — you are not some contemptible aberration. Not only are you not alone, you're in the majority. Only a small coterie have seen their yachts lifted — and not because they've contributed so much more to the world than did their counterparts in the mid-20th century, but for systemic reasons. They've used their influence to get tax policy rewritten in their favor, checks on corporate power removed, and their grip on society strengthened. And, yes, eventually specific legislation will be needed if this societal divide is ever to be remedied. But that can wait until more people have recognized that there is a societal divide, and on which side of it they stand. You've seen the sign at various Occupy assemblies declaring that "They only call it class warfare when we fight back"? Well, a necessary step to fighting back is realizing that it's not just you who's struggling — that you are part of a class. And that the system is rigged against our class, that this sucks, and that life can be better for us if we work together.

This is the recognition that the Occupy opponents want to head off. Pop over to any big news site and the comments section will be full of people sneering, "You want life to be better for you? Then stop whining and get a job!" But there are at least three problems with this line of argument:

One, a big part of what people are upset about is how difficult it is to get a job. Unemployment has been hovering near 10% for years now, a level that was considered catastrophic not long ago; now those with the power to do something about it just shrug and pass it off as the new normal.

Two, jobs aren't always the solution to the problem — all too often they are the problem. To have to spend most of your waking hours on this earth doing something you hate, in order to earn the privilege of supporting yourself for another day so you can wake up and do it again, worrying all the while that at any moment even that might be taken away from you... is that not itself something to protest? See, right-wing rhetoric notwithstanding, I don't think there are that many people out there hellbent on kicking back and collecting government benefits for nothing. In my experience, people tend to be pretty content with their lot if they can get interesting work, paid at a fair wage, that gives them the satisfaction of contributing to the world in some way. To say that protesters should just go out and get jobs like these is merely a less tasty version of "let them eat cake"; to say that they should go get the soul-destroying kind is sadism.

Three — and this is the important one — "get a job" deliberately misses the point of what "we want life to be better for us" means. It doesn't mean that I want life to be better for me, and she wants life to be better for her, and he wants life to be better for him. It means that he wants life to be better for us, and she wants life to be better for us, and I want life to be better for us. So even if I were currently in need of one, my getting a job, even a great one, would only get us one three-hundred-millionth of the way to solving that problem. As the Occupy movement has highlighted, economic injustice is a collective problem, and solving collective problems requires collective action.

So when multibillionaire Warren Buffett calls for a rule that CEOs be required to pay taxes at a rate at least as high as that of their secretaries, or a group of millionaires goes to Capitol Hill to lobby for millionaires' tax breaks to be reversed, detractors such as Grover Norquist and Gregg Easterbook are being willfully obtuse when they reply that nothing is stopping anyone from paying more than they owe. Again: "we think we should pay higher taxes" does not mean that I think I should pay higher taxes, and he thinks he should pay higher taxes, and she thinks she should pay higher taxes. It means that she thinks we should pay higher taxes, and he thinks we should pay higher taxes, and I think we should pay higher taxes. It's that whole collective action thing again. And as numbers are the key advantage the 99% hold over the 1%, naturally the defenders of the status quo are going to use rhetorical tricks to pretend collective action doesn't exist.

If forced to confront it, those of Norquist's stripe tend to argue that this kind of collective decision-making is illegitimate because no group has the right to impose a choice upon an individual who disagrees. Except, of course, that libertarianism does just that, as I've talked about before and as Norquist himself admits. Eric Schoenberg, a professor at Columbia Business School, recently confronted Norquist and asked whether, if he's so determined to do away with taxation, he would opt out of the government services that taxes pay for. Norquist said he would. Schoenberg asked why Norquist didn't just move to Somalia, where no taxes are collected and no services are provided; Norquist, in a cutesy bit of sophistry, replied that Somalia's problem wasn't too little government but too much — "competing governments" (i.e., militias) who "compete to be in charge of pushing you around." But that's the whole point of the Somalia argument! The problem with being free to do whatever you want is that there are other people in the world, and if they are also free to do whatever they want, one of the things they might want to do is make you do what they say and kill you if you don't. You can try to defend yourself, but there's only so much armament one person can pack. If enough people band together against you, you will eventually find yourself outgunned. So if you want any kind of quality of life, you have to be part of a collective as well and submit to collective decision-making.

As noted, Norquist doesn't deny this. "I think government, up to a certain point, advances human liberty," he has said, citing the usefulness of a police force and judicial system "to prevent people from stealing stuff out of your car, out of your house." This focus on "stuff" is typical, as the chief way that libertarians differ from anarchists is in their obsession with property rights. The irony is that while the word "social" is anathema to libertarians in economic contexts, property is itself a social construct. There's nothing intrinsic to my stuff that makes it mine, and there have been cultures that would have been perplexed by the notion that I had any right to keep others away from an object I wasn't using. In ours, we have a social contract that we can each claim stuff, usually by paying for it — money being a social construct as well — and I'll respect your right to keep me away from the stuff we collectively define as yours if you respect my right to keep you away from the stuff we collectively define as mine. If you say, "I never agreed to that! You all don't get to collectively decide what we're going to do! I'll opt out of my property rights if it means I don't have to respect yours!" and burgle my apartment, there's a reasonable chance that some people who don't know either of us will capture you and put you in jail, in order to enforce the collective agreement that frees us from having to spend all our time at home guarding our stuff. And libertarians are fine with this. In fact, they insist on it.

The ironic thing about all those posts on the bottom half of the Internet demanding that Occupy protesters stick to individual action to improve their individual lives, rather than collective action to improve the lives of their class, is that making such a post is itself a collective action. Each of those messages was typed on a computer designed and built by other people, processed by software thought up and implemented by other people, transmitted by electrical lines laid by other people, written in a language developed over the course of centuries by other people... and you can say that about virtually everything we do. Everything one accomplishes is really an achievement of multitudes. So if we contend that some of the income from those accomplishments must be shared with one's network of collaborators, i.e., the rest of society — if we point out how absurd it is to think that 1% of the population could be responsible for, and therefore deserve, 40% of the common wealth — if we say that our current lopsided distribution of that wealth is therefore indicative of serious systemic problems that need to be fixed — then, sure, a libertarian can try to argue against us. But what he can't do is say that it's somehow illegitimate to make these kinds of decisions for anyone other than oneself. If it's legitimate to collectively invent the notion of property and decide on rules about it that apply to all of us, then it's equally legitimate to change those rules via the same method.

He brings up several points that seem completely obvious to me, but don't seem to be touched upon much in more mainstream media or even the blogosphere. I mean, of course money and property are collectively created social constructs. Why does so much of our society treat them as intrinsic and universal?

 

[nib95]

Adam Cadre, a writer/blogger I follow (who has done some great interactive fiction work btw) has posted a piece on the Occupy movement:


He brings up several points that seem completely obvious to me, but don't seem to be touched upon much in more mainstream media or even the blogosphere. I mean, of course money and property are collectively created social constructs. Why does so much of our society treat them as intrinsic and universal?

Huge thanks for posting this link. Fascinating and thought provoking read. A lot of important points brought forward indeed.

 

[cooljeanius]

No, even ardent capitalists, if they know anything about it, would describe it as a necessary evil.

Would they? Make this "ardent capitalist's" argument for me.

 

[XMonkey]

OWS paid far too much attention to the Tea Party. The lesson OWS decided to learn from the Tea Party was that by becoming a political movement, they allowed themselves to get co-opted by the Republican Party and hence become irrelevant. Thus OWS is making every effort it can not to be co-opted by the Democratic Party. Which, in my opinion, is preventing it from having any sort of real effect. My narrative for why this is happening is because OWS is actually made up of people who were part of the Tea Party before they got co-opted, and decided to re-brand themselves by moving to the left, with the vow that this time, they won't get co-opted.

What could make you think this?? It couldn't be further from the truth, going by most accounts of the groups and types of people who organized the early stages of OWS (pre-Sept 17th with the New York General Assembly)

 

[cooljeanius]

What could make you think this?? It couldn't be further from the truth, going by most accounts of the groups and types of people who organized the early stages of OWS (pre-Sept 17th with the New York General Assembly)

My experience in the Occupy New Hampshire Facebook group (which seems to have disappeared). All the Ron Paul supporters in Occupy. Also just the tone of some comments and posts on /r/occupywallstreet

 

[jorma]

Adam Cadre, a writer/blogger I follow (who has done some great interactive fiction work btw) has posted a piece on the Occupy movement:



He brings up several points that seem completely obvious to me, but don't seem to be touched upon much in more mainstream media or even the blogosphere. I mean, of course money and property are collectively created social constructs. Why does so much of our society treat them as intrinsic and universal?

that was a great read, thanks

 

[kame-sennin]

Adam Cadre, a writer/blogger I follow (who has done some great interactive fiction work btw) has posted a piece on the Occupy movement:



He brings up several points that seem completely obvious to me, but don't seem to be touched upon much in more mainstream media or even the blogosphere. I mean, of course money and property are collectively created social constructs. Why does so much of our society treat them as intrinsic and universal?

Good article. Also, this is the greatest phrase I've ever read:

The ironic thing about all those posts on the bottom half of the Internet

 

[Fusebox]

What could make you think this?? It couldn't be further from the truth, going by most accounts of the groups and types of people who organized the early stages of OWS (pre-Sept 17th with the New York General Assembly)

Not to mention the lack of open-carry firearms.

 

[cooljeanius]

Not to mention the lack of open-carry firearms.

First of all, those primarily started appearing after the Tea Party was already co-opted. Second, there has been a movement to start introducing those at Occupy protests.

 

[XMonkey]

My experience in the Occupy New Hampshire Facebook group (which seems to have disappeared). All the Ron Paul supporters in Occupy. Also just the tone of some comments and posts on /r/occupywallstreet

There are certainly some Tea Party-types and Libertarians that support Occupy, but since this is such an encompassing movement (perhaps to a fault) I'd refrain from picking one sub-group and assigning it to the movement as a whole, especially when talking about the original motives of the protest. The original organizers had their roots more closely aligned with anarchism and socialism than anything the Tea Party really stood for.

Thinking hard-line conservatives will do an ideological 180 and turn far-left just so they can start a movement that doesn't want to be co-opted is a bit baffling, if I'm honest.

 

[Fusebox]

First of all, those primarily started appearing after the Tea Party was already co-opted. Second, there has been a movement to start introducing those at Occupy protests.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[travisbickle]

How is the disparity of wealth in capitalism compared to other forms of communism/socialism?

Capitalism works by creating a class system of haves and have nots, communism works on all people being equal.

 

[alstein]

It's disheartening to see this argument continue to come up. You can't change a systematically corrupt electoral process by running candidates through that same corrupt system. For example, if both major parties count Goldman Sachs among their biggest donors, how can you possibly run a candidate in either party who wants to prosecute Goldman? It can't happen. If you want to run in either party, you need to accept money from the same organizations, which compromises any change you may have wanted to institute. If you want national press coverage, which is essential to winning national elections, you need to be vetted by the major parties or you need to be outrageously rich. Otherwise, the corporate media won't give you the time of day. The system is fundamentally broken. Change can no longer come from within. Now, change is only possible by the citizenry putting enormous public pressure on those in office and forcing them to change.


What political party did the anti-Vietnam war movement take over? Or the civil rights movement? Richard Nixon, a republican, got as out of Vietnam because public pressure had built to the point where there was no other option. LBJ, a southern democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act into law even though he knew that it would loose the South for the democratic party for decades. He did it anyway because of public pressure. Do not underestimate the power of the public to force change. The government can only rule at the consent of the governed. When the people in power loose the consent of the public, their only option is to change course or abdicate power.

First off: the Civil Rights movement did cause a takeover of a party. Dixiecrats became Republicans and that changed the Republicans heavily. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, the two most prominent Dixiecrats, started off as Dems.

This is why I think the best option may be for the OWS folks to try and take over a political party themselves. Instead of being co-opted, do the co-opting. It would be a long, hard slog- and you'd probably lose some seats in the short-term, but it could be done.

All you gotta do to take over is run a primary candidate and win. There's a reason Joe Lieberman is no longer a Dem, the liberals primaried him.

First of all, those primarily started appearing after the Tea Party was already co-opted. Second, there has been a movement to start introducing those at Occupy protests.

I haven't heard that, but I'm for it. The only way change comes is through either revolution or fear or revolution. Teddy Roosevelt didn't enact the reforms he did out of the goodness of his heart, he did it because he knew if he didn't do it, the American flag would have had a hammer and sickle eventually. Otto von Bismarck came to the same conclusion in Germany 20 years before that.

 

[Jenga]

Capitalism works by creating a class system of haves and have nots, communism works on all people being equal.

...yeah and from what I understand of the track record of most communist societies it still occurs anyways

 

[cooljeanius]

First off: the Civil Rights movement did cause a takeover of a party. Dixiecrats became Republicans and that changed the Republicans heavily. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, the two most prominent Dixiecrats, started off as Dems.

This is why I think the best option may be for the OWS folks to try and take over a political party themselves. Instead of being co-opted, do the co-opting. It would be a long, hard slog- and you'd probably lose some seats in the short-term, but it could be done.

Exactly. The thing about the term "co-opt" is that it implies a power relationship. By being afraid of someone co-opting you, you're admitting that they're the ones with the power. If OWS wants to have power, it has to change its mindset and see itself as the potential co-opting force.

 

[ReBurn]

Capitalism works by creating a class system of haves and have nots, communism works on all people being equal.

Which is why communism on a large scale as never worked. In large societies those charged with keeping things fair quickly realized their power and became corrupt while everyone else became the least common denominator. The power would still reside at the top.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why is it that the Tea Party folks always loved to complain about how the left-wing media was out to get them and that isolated stories involving their fringe crazies was twisted to misrepresent the entire movement?

Why is it that the OWS folks always love to complain about how the corporate media is out to get them and that isolated stories involving their fringe crazies are twisted to misrepresent the entire movement?


If there's anything those two sides have in common, it's their obsession with being persecuted by the powers that be.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm not sure why anyone bothers to compare and contrast the two.

 

[akira28]

I'm not sure why anyone bothers to compare and contrast the two.

American Communism could incorporate checks and balances to ensure corruption stays minimized and is immediately attacked when apparent. People act like these are closed systems that they can't repair. Shit, we could fix capitalism, but capitalists don't wanna.

The homegrown American socialists weren't anything like the Russian communists, they mainly dealt with worker organization and it wasn't incompatible with Democracy, except that Democracy as it exists relies on citizen separation and aggregate views being directed to desired points by media and political platforms. Voting blocs are their enemy because they generally can't be controlled unless you start from the bottom up.

 

[Rentahamster]

Because it's sterile and I like the taste.

 

[teruterubozu]

I'm not sure why anyone bothers to compare and contrast the two.

Because the US has a black and white, good vs. evil, us vs. them view of politics.

 

[ReBurn]

American Communism could incorporate checks and balances to ensure corruption stays minimized and is immediately attacked when apparent. People act like these are closed systems that they can't repair. Shit, we could fix capitalism, but capitalists don't wanna.

Because the US has a black and white, good vs. evil, us vs. them view of politics. Is that really news?

Yeah, I get it. It seems like people need for the Tea Party to be conservative and OWS to be liberal. Granted, the Tea Party is decidedly conservative/libertarian with its message. Especially since it was co-opted by the republican political machine. I think it is a tragedy that some people see OWS as a liberal "answer" to the tea party, because it isn't. Not even close.

But yep, people do tend to see politics as black and white, with a good side and evil side. It's too bad, really.

 

[teruterubozu]

Well one thing the OWS isn't is conervative, thus it makes it easy for people to group it onto the left.

 

[Evil Benius]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/05/real_estate/occupy_wall_street/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

Has there been any discussion yet on this move to try to interfere with foreclosures? I get the feeling that a lot of people are about to get arrested for trying to interfere with police business. Also once again I get the feeling that the movement is hitching onto a wagon that is not going to win them a lot of widespread support. Most people I know have little sympathy for people who got in over their heads with a mortgage and are facing foreclosure.

 

[alstein]

Yeah, I get it. It seems like people need for the Tea Party to be conservative and OWS to be liberal. Granted, the Tea Party is decidedly conservative/libertarian with its message. Especially since it was co-opted by the republican political machine. I think it is a tragedy that some people see OWS as a liberal "answer" to the tea party, because it isn't. Not even close.

But yep, people do tend to see politics as black and white, with a good side and evil side. It's too bad, really.

Or maybe it's not a real answer to the Dems because the Dems aren't liberal enough?

 

[akira28]

Cons went Ultra-Con, Liberal Dems went moderate in response, and moderates became conservatives or "Conservatives".

When you go gonzo, you skew the pool and move the middle. So many people don't see that though, and still want to call their opponents leftist socialists.

 

[The Technomancer]

You enjoy the buttrape that is a Capitalist recession? or the fact that moral/common sense/ethics are absolutely put aside?

Capitalism looks good on paper. Not so much applied.

....no, regulated capitalism is pretty damn good. Unregulated capitalism leading to power consolidation is the problem.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah, I get it. It seems like people need for the Tea Party to be conservative and OWS to be liberal. Granted, the Tea Party is decidedly conservative/libertarian with its message. Especially since it was co-opted by the republican political machine. I think it is a tragedy that some people see OWS as a liberal "answer" to the tea party, because it isn't. Not even close.

But yep, people do tend to see politics as black and white, with a good side and evil side. It's too bad, really.

What does any of that have to do with detracting from wanting to analyze a political movement and compare it with others from the past?

 

[empty vessel]

Would they? Make this "ardent capitalist's" argument for me.

Capitalism rewards idleness over work (most people believe that to be wrong). Capitalism rewards idleness at the expense of work, i.e., it takes what people work for and permits people who did not work to appropriate it (most people believe that to be wrong). Capitalism divides society into two classes whose interests are mutually opposed, thereby creating antagonism within society (most people believe that to be undesirable).

What I am describing is not an opinion about capitalism. It is in the theory itself. No rational person believes that the exploitation of people who work by those who don't or that the creation of antagonistic classes in society are good things in and of themselves. A rational person may, however, believe them to be necessary evils, i.e., bad things to put up with for some other overall good. I would disagree with those people. But people who assert that capitalism is virtuous per se are either ignorant or sociopaths, usually the former.

 

[travisbickle]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/05/real_estate/occupy_wall_street/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

Has there been any discussion yet on this move to try to interfere with foreclosures? I get the feeling that a lot of people are about to get arrested for trying to interfere with police business. Also once again I get the feeling that the movement is hitching onto a wagon that is not going to win them a lot of widespread support. Most people I know have little sympathy for people who got in over their heads with a mortgage and are facing foreclosure.

I mentioned a few weeks back about the occupation of property. Even at the beginning of the movement it was something on my mind, I may have mentioned here.

The reason being, I wrote a lot about the theories behind, and the practice of, occupying property for my MA last year, it's a very contentious issue but the people I interviewed, and a lot of writers(philosophers/flaneurs) who I researched believe in the idea that a space is only of value if it is being used. Even going as far as to say it is detrimental to the community if it is unused.

As such, I think it is definitely part of OWS, as it is asking for the country to think differently about the current way of doing things, ownership rights etc...one of the best parts of my MA was interviewing a British property owner who owned 25,000 houses in one North West town of England, he gave an interesting perspective on distribution of wealth!

Can't believe last year I was writing papers and producing a publication questioning how society uses public space and disused private space!!!

 

[Angry Fork]

....no, regulated capitalism is pretty damn good. Unregulated capitalism leading to power consolidation is the problem.

I don't think you can regulate capitalism though, at least not in the way everyone assumes. Capitalism is built on the concept of conning each other by as much as possible. Healthcare is a business. A bottle of WATER costs 2 bucks in Manhattan, NYU tuition is 50,000$ per year, and so on. I mean this is all okay with capitalism, dog eat dog mentality, etc. Hey if you don't like it just become a school superintendent and rake in the cash lol pull your bootstraps kid you can do it. Completely oblivious to the fact that it's grossly immoral.

Especially on the fact that it's not about how smart you are it's how savvy you are, how cute and charming you can be. And you need to be friends with marketers and con artists if you have a neat invention you want to share to the world (and if you don't give them a share of your profit your invention will never see the light of day or will be stolen).

Everything is connections and ass kissing. Homeless/poor people are scum, science and technology isn't getting the funding it needs because a bigger football stadium has to be built, selling your soul on TV will net you more money than becoming a physicist, and anyone who tries to protest this mentality gets labeled a dirty hippie. wut.

 

[empty vessel]

I mentioned a few weeks back about the occupation of property. Even at the beginning of the movement it was something on my mind, I may have mentioned here.

The reason being, I wrote a lot about the theories behind, and the practice of, occupying property for my MA last year, it's a very contentious issue but the people I interviewed, and a lot of writers(philosophers/flaneurs) who I researched believe in the idea that a space is only of value if it is being used. Even going as far as to say it is detrimental to the community if it is unused.

The common law has recognized (and rewarded) the possession and use of unused private space by non-owners for centuries on precisely this theory: that society is harmed when land is abandoned by an absentee owner whenever there is somebody else willing to use that property in a productive way.

 

[travisbickle]

The common law has recognized (and rewarded) the possession and use of unused private space by non-owners for centuries on precisely this theory: that society is harmed when land is abandoned by an absentee owner whenever there is somebody else willing to use that property in a productive way.

Yeah I know. It really feels like they thought this thing through centuries ago...you know the idea that individuals accumulating too much wealth, property, land etc. is bad for society.

 

[ReBurn]

Well one thing the OWS isn't is conervative, thus it makes it easy for people to group it onto the left.

Right. Does that make it inherently liberal?

There is a subset of the OWS population that are conservative. I live in the southeast US, which is about as politically conservative as it gets. I know a lot of people who identify as politically conservative that support OWS. High tuition costs and student loan debt affect conservative voters, too. There are conservatives who have lost their jobs and savings as corporate profits have increased. There are conservatives who can't get healthcare.

However, the ideological lines are booby trapped with hypocrisy, anecdotes and hyperbole. So there is an assumption that if a person is politically conservative that he or she is pro-business, anti-poor, etc. Sometimes, that's true. But not always. There is an assumption that if someone is liberal that they want someone else to pay their way. There are people like that, but I don't believe that they are the norm. To many pre-conceived notions on either side of the fence.

If OWS became a democrat movement like the tea party became a republican one the it would become a huge joke, just like the tea party has. All of the democrat politicians who started latching onto it after the fact are opportunistic phonies, because they sure weren't talking about those issues in any meaningful way before people took to the streets. At least most of the conservative politicians here honest in their contempt, even though their vitriol is equally opportunistic and is pandering to their base.

We need to hold all politicians to the same standards. There is corporate money influencing democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives. Regardless of your politics, it needs to stop.

 

[jorma]

Yeah I know. It really feels like they thought this thing through centuries ago...you know the idea that individuals accumulating too much wealth, property, land etc. is bad for society.

I don't think that is exclusive to "capitalism", really - it's something that (unavoidably?) happens in any economic system without active measures to redistribute. You had the 1% in soviet russia as well, it's just that the wealth was technically state property and they just controlled it. And when russia went hypercapitalist they made sure they kept that wealth, only now as private individuals.

And i have heard that one of the reasons the roman empire fell was because just a few families owned pretty much the entirety of the known world. So not enough people had anything notable invested in keeping the empire going...

So i figure it's cyclic - wealth gravitates upwards to fewer and fewer individuals until it becomes unsustainable and that society topples, is reset, and then the process starts all over.