The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect an accelerationist is someone who wants to actively make conditions under the status quo worse, because that will force people to confront the inherent contradictions and abuses within the system, and thus "accelerate" the day on which they rebel against it.

EDIT: I for one would be more or less satisfied to see the Occupy movement turn into something roughly equivalent to the Tea Party's opposite number- a wing of the Democratic Party with enough muscle to force Democratic leadership to acknowledge them, and to shift the terms of debate into the language Occupy favors.

I think that any really significant change heralded by the Occupy movement will be slow and drawn-out, and will probably have a lot to do with generational shifts. We've got large numbers of people in 'Generation Y' coming into fully adult and politically relevant age now, approaching their thirties and forties. If we're lucky, quite a few of them aren't going to accept the narrative of post-Cold War politics in which crony capitalism is to be revered as a superior alternative to a nebulously defined "socialism." Even if they accept the language and do not consider themselves socialists, I think they'll be a lot more sympathetic to efforts to defang powerful interest groups and to contribute strength to a movement that seeks to do the same.

I think something similar helped to clinch a lot of change in the 1960s and 1970s: the boomer generation simply did not see blacks or women in the same role that their ancestors did, and voted accordingly.

[Losonti Tokash]

Simon got it in one. There are a few people advocating we vote for Republicans, not because we agree with them, but because we might as well just get the process over with quickly as opposed to the slightly slower descent into shit offered by Democrats. I am not one of those people and would much rather prefer to make things better now instead of just "in the future" but I can understand it.

[K. A. Pital]

Beg pardon? If the Tea Party had not remained within the Republican party, they would simply have siphoned off some of the votes, resulting in less of a landslide in 2010. The Democrats would have remained diminished and spineless. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're going for.

The Tea Party would have caused the Republican party to veer further right regardless of the chosen method - siphoning votes or infiltrating and using it as a vessel. That's what I meant. The right-wing shift would be accomplished either way. Or so it seems to me. Why? Because even when the Tea Party was not existing, the Repubs shifted to the right more and more to pander to Christian conservatives, for example, who didn't even form a coherent protest movement or something like that. It would be inevitable regardless of whether the TP stood inside or outside.

A consistent social democratic party would be healthy - it's just that when you describe something as "hardcore left", I get worried. That being said, it will be interesting to see what their platform turns out to be. It'll be a tough balancing act. America really needs to get rid of FPTP.

Ha-ha-ha, on the day when I will refer to the OWS as "hardcore left" from my side - I'll sip some champagne. If anything, America's politics look more like a stinking mire of special interests now instead of looking like a honest fighting field between alternative concepts of development. Which is what most low-corruption democracies look like.

[Lord Zentei]

The Tea Party would have caused the Republican party to veer further right regardless of the chosen method - siphoning votes or infiltrating and using it as a vessel. That's what I meant. The right-wing shift would be accomplished either way. Or so it seems to me. Why? Because even when the Tea Party was not existing, the Repubs shifted to the right more and more to pander to Christian conservatives, for example, who didn't even form a coherent protest movement or something like that. It would be inevitable regardless of whether the TP stood inside or outside.

That's not entirely certain - at least it would have delayed the rightward shift by one election cycle as the Republicans licked their wounds from the Tea Party siphoning off votes, thus giving the center more time to regroup.


BTW: the American system is an honest fighting field between alternative concepts of development - specifically a fighting field between a secular center-right vs a theocratic far-right.

[K. A. Pital]

That's not entirely certain - at least it would have delayed the rightward shift by one election cycle as the Republicans licked their wounds from the Tea Party siphoning off votes, thus giving the center more time to regroup.

*scratches head* I guess so. I also guess I'm too young to care about electoral cycles since those four-year periods seem awkwardly short to me. Now, when something is there for like 4 or 5 cycles... then you start to wonder... if it is really a human lifeform or not. Like Putin.

BTW: the American system is an honest fighting field between alternative concepts of development - specifically a fighting field between a secular center-right vs a theocratic far-right.

I guess you could frame it that way. But is the Republican party really a batshit crazy theocratic party or just a craptacular religion-influenced right party? Not sure. Theocons aren't the most influent Repub cadre. They are drowned in the sea of corporate lapdogs, career-builders and secular militarists and imperialists.

...

Okay, I see your point there.

[Lord Zentei]

*scratches head* I guess so. I also guess I'm too young to care about electoral cycles since those four-year periods seem awkwardly short to me. Now, when something is there for like 4 or 5 cycles... then you start to wonder... if it is really a human lifeform or not. Like Putin.

Well, I guess it does depend on whether the Democrats would have capitalized on such a success, which is not certain, given both their and Obama's failure to capitalize on their majorities during 2009-2010.

As for the other point: thankfully, there are term limits in America... too bad the Russian constitution wasn't more explicit about the two term limit there... EDIT: OK, so I looked it up - it says "two terms in succession".

[Simon_Jester]

While election cycles matter, if we don't put our mental horizon beyond the next election and think "where is this movement going in five years, as opposed to four?" we'll keep blundering into holes.

The answer to "how to win the next election," when the question is cast purely in those terms, is simple: circle the wagons, mobilize the base, tack toward the right (insofar as those goals aren't mutually exclusive), and do lots of electioneering. That's a facile answer with bad long term consequences, but it works for the simple goal of 'win this next election, given the terms of current politics as we see them laid out before us.'

Anything that offers better long term prospects in fighting cronyism almost has to be able to keep its collective mind running outside that cycle. It's okay for a political movement to be more interested in making sure people approve of its aims in 2015 than they are in maximizing their input for a single brief instant in 2012.

[K. A. Pital]

Exactly my point. As far as I noticed (well, outside of nutjobs) nobody is advocating summarily executing OWS folks if Democrats lose the next election. The Repubs are scum, but they will behave within the realms of bourgeois democracy. Same goes for the Democrats.

The "fight only on this day" idea matters only if all losing parties would suffer complete political destruction (a violent one too) after a defeat. So far that's not the case. America 2011 is not Germany 1933.

[Lord Zentei]

Yeah, I get that. The problem is that if they fare poorly enough in 2012, then they risk losing support back to the Democrats (outside of the more hardcore supporters), especially if the Democrats are smart enough to play their cards right. Some momentum must be maintained, in my view. If not, what's going to happen by 2014 and 2016 that couldn't happen in 2012 that makes the situation any better? It's all well and good saying "we're looking at the long term", but then some kind of actual mechanism must be envisioned that makes the long term viable which wasn't available in the short term.

[Simon_Jester]

The accelerationists, at least, have an answer- they argue that it will inevitably get worse, more blatantly corrupt and cronyist, before it gets better... and that therefore it is better to present a reform agenda and an anti-corporate platform in 2016 than in 2012, because the corporatists will have made their utter indifference to the well-being of the average American citizen and the future of the American nation all the more obvious.

[Lord Zentei]

I realize that. I just don't sympathize with that view.

I recall seeing a TV interview way back in 2000 where a bunch of left-wingers were asked who they preferred, Al Gore or George W Bush. They just laughed and said "neither, they're equally corrupt". When pressed, one of them smugly said "Bush". Why? Because he would make the inevitable collapse of the system faster, so something else could replace it. I don't think that this was the first time accelerationism had been suggested.

Accelerationism is, to put it very mildly, neither wise nor responsible.

To take a radical example, how long exactly did it take following the decline of the Roman Republic for something more democratic to emerge? I'm not saying that it would take as long now, given public literacy and mass production and dissemination of information, not to mention a large body of political philosophy and experience available to the general public, but seriously... this idea that it is a good thing to endorse the decline of democracy in order to ensure a revolution of some sort is ridiculous.

Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that most of OWS isn't accelerationist, and that they're not going for such a strategy.

PS: At least I hope not. If it is, then my sympathy for them will vanish.

[Simon_Jester]

Right. I don't really support accelerationism myself; it's too blackly cynical and gambling-oriented for me.

But to take a more reasonable stance- Occupy is the first genuinely populist and anti-corporate movement we've seen come out of the current crisis. Assuming you don't count the Tea Party, which I don't, given that the Tea Party seems to have no problem electing politicians who are as pro-corporatism as they come.

It's only twelve months before the election. Do you really think there is time for the movement to arrange itself on a large enough scale to really change the trends? What are they going to do, carry out a successful primary challenge to Obama over the next three to six months? The time and the wealth and the organization they need just aren't there.

Big political shifts cannot be effected that fast without revolution, and ultimately Occupy is (still, for now) reformist and not revolutionary. So they aim farther out, for a time when they've hopefully grown enough, organized enough, and shifted the terms of debate enough (get more politicians talking unemployment and fewer talking deficits) that they stand a chance of changing things more effectively.

This is not unlike the way that individual politicians may decide to hold off on a presidential race- I suspect some of the potential leading lights of the Republican Party, like Bloomberg and Christie, are doing exactly that with this election cycle because they don't want to get down in the shit with the rest of the party and would prefer to wait until 2016 if they decide to run at all.

[Connor MacLeod]

I would think that any sort of acceleration has a number of problems with it:

- first off, how are they going to shift the blame to the corporatists? they're the ones who voted the people into office, it seems it could be quite possible to shift the blame away from the corporate agenda (you know, money propoganda commercials.. the way things are done now.) which means it would backfire. Americans as a group tend not to be all that decisive or perceptive, in my experience.

- secondly, if things did crash and burn, what is to prevent the corporate side from being the ones to build it back up? They have the money and power, and I doubt a descent into hell woudl change that either. Which would actually make accelerating things worse, because they could put things back together in a way which suits them.

Maybe I'm just not understanding the intention (If so feel free to elaborate) but accelerationist ideas seem to be even more foolish, not just risky.

[NoXion]

Also from a revolutionary leftist standpoint "accelerationism" is a bad idea because the likelihood of things heading in the opposite direction is unacceptably high. After all, if you're giving votes and political positions to right-wingers, why should it come as a surprise that the political zeitgeist heads rightwards?

[Terralthra]

Speaking of the 1% (though this may deserve its own thread, this fits nicely into the Occupy narrative):

University of California regents OK raises for several executives
University of California regents approved raises for several high-level employees during their meeting Monday, as we reported in this morning's Bee.

Here are more details about the raises they approved. The first two batches are executives whose salaries are paid for with state funds:

• Two vice chancellors at UC Irvine and a vice chancellor at UCLA got raises of 9.9 percent. That brings salaries for Wendell C. Brase and Meredith Michaels at UC Irvine to about $247,000, and salary for Steven A. Olsen at UCLA close to $317,000.
• Joseph I. Castro was appointed interim dean of the graduate division of UC San Francisco and given a 7.5 percent raise, bringing his salary to $252,625.

The head lawyers of six UC campuses received raises ranging from 6.4 percent to 21.9 percent:

• Steven A. Drown, chief campus counsel at UC Davis, got a 21.9 percent raise, bringing his salary to $250,000.
• Diane F. Geocaris, chief campus counsel at UC Irvine, received a 14.3 percent raise, bringing her salary to $255,000.
• Carole R. Rossi, chief campus counsel at UC Santa Cruz, received a 13.9 percent raise, bringing her salary to $215,000.
• Michele Coyle, chief campus counsel at UC Riverside, received an 11.4 percent raise, bringing her salary to $215,000.
• Marcia J. Canning, chief campus counsel at UC San Francisco, received an 8.9 percent raise, bringing her salary to $255,000.
• Daniel Park, chief campus counsel at UC San Diego, received a 6.4 percent raise, bringing his salary to $250,000.

Regents also approved three compensation items for positions that are not paid for with state money:

• Lynda Rogers was appointed dean of University Extension at UC Santa Cruz, with a salary of $165,000
• A new position of chief strategy officer for the UC Davis Health System was created, to oversee the Medical Center and the School of Medicine. Salary for the position will range from $214,700 to $333,700.
• Vincent L. Johnson, chief operating officer of the UC Davis Medical Center, got a 23 percent raise, br
  inging his salary to $553,500. A staff report says Johnson is being recruited by another hospital offering him more than $650,000.

"We consider these retention efforts to be essential," UC President Mark Yudof said during the meeting at which regents approved a budget request asking the state for an 18 percent increase in funding. "I understand it's not a great time, but we can't really close down shop and say we're not going to make any effort to retain our best people."

More information on the compensation items approved Monday is available here.

Classes cut, students turned away, furloughs for professors...and pay raises for executives!

Way to serve the public trust, UC.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

I find it ironic that the vice chancellors pay raise of 9.9% is the same rate that our tuition will be raised next year.

[Connor MacLeod]

I like how they consider this 'retention" efforts too as if it justifies things. It sounds alot like its a status thing "hey look we have these important, highly paid people on staff! We're a big deal!". Not unlike how sports stars or coaches can be treated, I suppose. Capitalism in action I guess.

[Lord Zentei]

I like how they consider this 'retention" efforts too as if it justifies things. It sounds alot like its a status thing "hey look we have these important, highly paid people on staff! We're a big deal!". Not unlike how sports stars or coaches can be treated, I suppose. Capitalism in action I guess.

The University of California is a public institution.

[FaxModem1]

In local news, a man was found dead on my university's campus's Occupy movement.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Man-foun ... 78388.html

Man found dead at Occupy Denton encampment

WFAA

Posted on December 3, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Updated today at 3:33 AM

DENTON — University of North Texas police are investigating a man's death.

A UNT spokesperson said the body was discovered unattended in a tent at the Occupy Denton encampment on campus early Saturday evening.

Officials identified the the dead man as Darwin Cox, 23, of Denton.

"He was found in a tent on the Occupy Denton camp where he had been given shelter after a fellow occupier saw him suffering from a fever," according to an unsigned statement posted on the Occupy Denton Facebook page early Sunday morning. "Darwin's lifelong struggle with drug addiction is suspected to have played a role in this tragedy."

Occupy Denton said one of the organization's core issues is homelessness. "The lack of a safety net and inclusive shelters for the homeless left Darwin with nowhere else to go," the unsigned statement continued.

Police said it could be two to three weeks before a cause of death can be determined, but there was no initial evidence of foul play.

Occupy Denton said it was planning a vigil to honor Cox at 7 p.m. Monday on the lawn between the Physics and Art buildings on the UNT campus.

The Occupy Denton movement had this to say:

http://occupydenton.wordpress.com/2011/ ... t-tragedy/

Official Statement Concerning Recent Tragedy
Posted: December 4, 2011 | Author: anarchiamutatio | Filed under: Occupy Denton |Leave a comment »

Darwin Cox (1988 - 2011)

Occupy Denton mourns the loss of a fellow occupier, a kind and idealistic young man and a friend. Darwin Cox passed away. He was found in a tent on the Occupy Denton camp where he had been given shelter after a fellow occupier saw him suffering from a fever. Darwin’s lifelong struggle with drug addiction is suspected to have played a role in this tragedy. While drug use or possession is strictly against Occupy Denton’s policy, it was the Occupy Denton camp where he found friendship, respect, and compassion for his warm, caring, and generous character. Occupy Denton will dearly miss him, and forever appreciate the fortune of having shared a space and time with our friend, Darwin Cox. We give our deepest condolences to his family.

One of Occupy Denton’s core issues is the struggle against homelessness. Specifically, the lack of a safety net and inclusive shelters for the homeless left Darwin with nowhere else to go. Tragedies like this happen every day and fail to make the nightly news or the newspapers. Our current social structure criminalizes the homeless as well as those suffering from addiction. This is one of the reasons why Occupy Denton emerged, why Darwin joined, and why Occupy Denton will continue the struggle for the marginalized and oppressed.

Occupy Denton will observe a vigil on Monday, December 5th at 7 P.M. on the lawn between the Physics and Art buildings at the UNT campus. The vigil will mourn his loss and commemorate his life. A deep sense of connection and family has emerged among the occupiers. Darwin’s loss has deeply shaken us. Our love and resolve will continue with Darwin in our hearts.

Solidarity,
Occupy Denton

[montypython]

Also from a revolutionary leftist standpoint "accelerationism" is a bad idea because the likelihood of things heading in the opposite direction is unacceptably high. After all, if you're giving votes and political positions to right-wingers, why should it come as a surprise that the political zeitgeist heads rightwards?

Acclerationism would only really work if Revolutionary defeatism occurred simultaneously with it, i.e., the right-wing elites self-annihilate via war (a la WWI) or some other similar catastrophic circumstances.

[Simon_Jester]

It also neglects that, by and large and as a rule, the violent counterrevolutionaries of the right are better at violence than the violent revolutionaries of the left. Exceptions are quite rare, looking at how many 20th century leftist insurgencies there have been. For the left to successfully provoke a revolution, without help from an outside power that either mauls their opposition or arms and trains them heavily... I'm having a hard time thinking of any example other than the original Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War, and that was an incredibly difficult fight in which so many circumstances favored the Reds.

[Stark]

Are you sure that's because of ability or degree of violence, and not issues like rightist revolutionaries generally being better funded and organised (and supported internationally)?

[Sriad]

Are you sure that's because of ability or degree of violence, and not issues like rightist revolutionaries generally being better funded and organised (and supported internationally)?

I'm trying to put this in more civil terms than "righties are more violent" but having trouble getting there...

Okay, so let's say you're in America. Pull A: 1,000 random liberals/democrats off the street and B: 1,000 conservatives/republicans. Compare number of guns owned. Compare military experience. Compare attitudes toward solving political problems with violence/use of force. Maybe be a little sneaky with the last one; ask about quasi-legal violence (get the police to arrest them all) and plainly illegal violence (kill 'em all, let God etc) separately.

Additionally, "rightward" revolutions tend to be toward more authoritarian philosophies while "leftward" revolutions tend to be toward less. End results may vary, of course.

[Losonti Tokash]

Here's a real quick article about my local occupation from the Columbia Journal Review. The reporter interviewed me as part of this so a portion of that is also present in there. Apologies for no excerpt, but the website doesn't like my phone very much: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/cjr_ho ... p?page=all

[Stark]

I'm trying to put this in more civil terms than "righties are more violent" but having trouble getting there...

Okay, so let's say you're in America. Pull A: 1,000 random liberals/democrats off the street and B: 1,000 conservatives/republicans. Compare number of guns owned. Compare military experience. Compare attitudes toward solving political problems with violence/use of force. Maybe be a little sneaky with the last one; ask about quasi-legal violence (get the police to arrest them all) and plainly illegal violence (kill 'em all, let God etc) separately.

Additionally, "rightward" revolutions tend to be toward more authoritarian philosophies while "leftward" revolutions tend to be toward less. End results may vary, of course.

That's the American context, but if he's speaking historically, right revolutions (or counter-revolutions) have generally been organised by either the rich or the military or both, usually receive better international treatment than left revolutions, etc. You can't just say 'left loses' or 'left does less badness' or whatever.