The Occupy Movement in 2012

Yeah, but you gotta focus if you want to make any headway.

If there were a bunch of OWS style protests specifically about citizens united, they would have accomplished more, or at least had better chances. This whole "Let's just invite every single person who is pissed off about the system and we'll figure it out as we go." just doesn't work.

The problem is, a specific anti-citizens united or anti corporate tax dodge rally would just be painted by the media as "communists and whiny college liberals demanding wealth redistrubution"

Bam. List of demands.

.. OWS gets painted that way anyway.

^

Some of that is pretty stupid.. They act like they have some sort of actual threat potential if they have a bunch of people blocking the rotunda. "(If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.)"

A really good position? You don't have a bargaining position, to have a bargaining position you must have leverage. To have leverage you have to have something the other party wants, or does not want to happen.

Bullshit it is. Let's cut this one off right at the pass: it doesn't matter even if we lived in a world where Leftists were just as willing to buy elections as Right-wingers, because Leftists still aren't the ones using those positions to destroy people's lives using the government as a bludgeon for priests and corporate executives.

Then practically speaking there is literally nothing we can do within the current system. Everything—everything—begins and ends with gigantic, heaping amounts of money. If you cannot—or will not—obtain such for a cause, your cause isn't going to be fought for no matter how right or wrong it might be. Money runs our politics, and saying "well it shouldn't" is an empty platitude because it does, and there's nothing you can do about it that doesn't involve spending even more heaping amounts of money.

If nothing else, that is why OWS failed. They thought they could achieve something tangible in politics without spending a billion dollars to do it.

I highly, highly doubt that. The 2008 election was an extraordinary event fueled by anger at the Iraq War and a sinking economy, and a lot of Obama's money came from big-money sources anyhow. As I understand it, the majority of his donations came from small-money people, but the majority of the money donated came from big-money people. I may be wrong, however.

Neither would I, really, but I don't much care if it'll be useful in getting something fixed.

I don't know that that really matters when they have functionally unlimited money to begin with.

Well, I can sit here and talk about practical policy all damn day, but it isn't going to matter if you can't get the political power to enact any of it. What I'm suggesting is a way to seize political power from the Right.

There are many things Christians can quibble with, but direct commands from Christ aren't among them. If not for that, I may very well agree with you and say to let them all burn.

Maybe, at least.

Well, we could just link you to the Green Party platform after striking some of the sillier points on foreign policy (like unilateral disarmament).

Kind of. That would basically just put us back to square one like it was in the '70s when it all began to fall apart. We'd still have to make actual progress besides.

I rather doubt that, to be honest. Citizens United is devious in that it is a very technical issue, and so it is easily swept under the rug because normal people just don't care enough and can't be brought to care because such would require complex abstract thought.

The one silly thing on that list is this:

Citizens United is a Supreme Court decision. Congress can't just legislate it away.

EDIT:

So what's the difference?

If I had that kind of (presumably military) position, I wouldn't ask for higher taxes, I'd ask for a socialist revolution. Asking for something so petty and pointless with that kind of temporary power would be insanely idiotic.

edited 17th Jun '12 4:56:19 PM by DerelictVessel

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

The opposition already has pretty much everything they want. The system is in a nigh-on optimal position to continue lining their own pockets while keeping them safely in an ivory tower of laws written by people in bed with them.

What leverage would you suggest?

Theoretically, they want to keep their jobs. Providing we can threaten that by voting for other people, we can get them to start doing things we like. That's probably the long haul solution, though. Actually, doing anything the democratic way is the long haul solution.

Things other than voting I'd have to ask activist organizations, though.

Our election process is set up in a way that gives you your choice of corrupt businessmen. While you have a degree of power with the ballot itself, you have pretty much none whatsoever over who actually ends up on the ballot.

Well, that's to do with primaries. Frankly, we should be able to vote in all primaries without having to register with a party, though I don't see that happening soon. I'd put that somewhere in the middle of things I think should be enacted.

But yeah, corrupt or not, if they fear for losing their jobs they're more likely to do what we want them to.

Yeah, I don't think it's much of a threat to, say, Wal-Mart if you say "I'm voting for Obama instead of Romney!" They're basically similar as politicians.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

You have power over the primary election itself, but who ends up on it is basically up to polls of whatever rigged districts they feel like and internal backstabbing.

Well, as I understand it you can't be working for Wal Mart and be running for office at the same time. Although that might be different at municipal positions? But a lot of folks are career politicians, and that's generally the guys I'm talking about.

Anyway, this is just more reason to lobby for open primaries.

OWS failed? Hardly. Political change doesn't happen instantanteously. It's a long, discouraging struggle against entrenched power. It took over a decade for the corruption of the 1920s to be effectively dealt with enough that the economy (and, by extension, the government) could function normally again (and no, ramping up military production was not the thing that got the world out of the Great Depression), and this basic outline can be found in most non-violent political struggles (women's suffrage, the numerous social movements in the 1960s, and so on). If OWS is anything, it's a beginning, building a foundation for future activism and fighting to dismantle the corruption that's captured the government, using tactics that have proven effective in previous struggles without the need for a hundred quadrillion dollars from the moneyed elite. The ever growing noise to overturn Citizens United is a perfect example of this, and that will likely run the same course that resulted in the 17th amendment (which was grudgingly written and passed by Congress to avoid having it forced on them by the states calling a convention and doing it for them).

And really, just because the corporate owned media isn't reporting on OWS anymore doesn't mean it's gone away. It's still plenty active, even if some specific instances are fairly ludicrous. So while the political system as it's currently structured is inherently dependent on cash flow from the ultra rich, the ultra rich are ultimately dependent on we the people cooperating with their attempts to drive us back to a purely deregulated economy based on slavery.

"All propaganda is a lie, even when it's telling the truth." - George Orwell

@Endrael,

That's a nice, rosy view of things that I could sit and quibble with all day, but the fact that I think you're partially wrong doesn't matter in the face of the fact that even if you are right, it wouldn't matter anyway, because we don't have time for that.

No, the political system doesn't change instantly. It has to, though, because we are on a time limit.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

See, I agree that we're on a time limit, literally one where we face extinction if we don't act quickly (oh hi global warming), but, unfortunately, until we deal with the political system, we can't deal with anything else, even if there is growing movement at the local level to do something about it. In the face of global catastrophe, local doesn't matter a terrible lot.

And honestly? Even though I'm fairly certain, based on everything I've read, we've already passed the gates of hell a decade or more gone and are headed for the seventh or eighth circle if we continue as is, that doesn't change that any effort at all to change the system shouldn't be applauded and supported, so long as it doesn't, in the long run, lead us back to the same hole we find ourselves in now. I'm rather fond of the Native American approach of thinking 500 years ahead, but that's clearly an unworkable method if we maintain any sort of economic, social, or political system reminiscent of what we have now.

"All propaganda is a lie, even when it's telling the truth." - George Orwell

Global warming isn't extinction-level, it's seasonal famine. That's part of the reason why people with way too much money don't care if it happens, because they'll be in the best position — financially and geographically — to hoard scarce resources and conduct business as usual while everyone else is screwed.

Seriously, the fact that it's not a complete doomsday scenario is part of why they don't give a shit.

edited 17th Jun '12 6:38:42 PM by Pykrete

That's still several tens or hundreds of millions of lives hanging in the balance.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

And yet, not an insurmountable one.

But if we're going to get off on the topic of the environment and future possible famine we really should make a new thread for it. We've been veering off as it is. <.<

These are companies that have toppled and created entire regimes and sponsored genocides in the third world to get at natural resources. Do you really think they'll care if a few more hundred million starve?

What have I posted that makes you think I think they care? I just don't care about them—and would gladly tear such entities to the ground if I could.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Not just companies, Governments too.

Derelict, what about outside the US? Do they count? What do you suggest there?

Keep Rolling On

Is a destructive corporate power any less evil if it's European or Asian instead of American?

Most of them are transnationals anyways.

"Can ye fathom the ocean, dark and deep, where the mighty waves and the grandeur sweep?"

Yeah, I mean most of the problem is that in many ways they're bigger than the countries themselves, and aren't bound to any of said countries' rules in any meaningful way that they don't outright control.

edited 19th Jun '12 6:43:11 PM by Pykrete

Barring an astonishing political 180 among the world powers in the next twelve years, our only hope is to construct alternative local economies throughout both the developed and the developing world, and hope they're robust enough to jump ship to when the global economy collapses. Preserve as much information and communication infrastructure as you can, and plan ahead so that these local economies can start to pull the economic weight for the large-scale geoengineering that'll be necessary to undo the damage we've done.

BUT BACK TO OCCUPY, because what I've just described is going to require a broad array of planning. People have argued that Occupy lacked the focus to directly address issues, and I can agree; it could still function as a general support structure for more focused groups. Occupy Our Homes is one such focused movement directly addressing a problem; a "Go After White Collar Crime and Corruption" group would be great too.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

In other words, become a Not-So-Crazy Survivalist?

And by the way, I'd expect the large-scale geoengineering to need a much smaller Global Population, too — since apparently, we've got too many people on Earth.

Keep Rolling On