The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Broomstick]

I don't think real change (and there was some real change) in the 1960's/early 70's was going to happen without some real violence. I don't think it's going to happen this time without some real blood on the ground. The Arab Spring wasn't bloodless, either.

[aieeegrunt]

I agree. The one percent are'nt going to give up their current position willingly. Occupying Wall Street won't do a thing unless you're erecting guillotines there.

[Broomstick]

Or tearing down the modern equivalent of the Bastille.

[Starglider]

I agree. The one percent are'nt going to give up their current position willingly.

The US is still a democracy. All you have to do is vote for a third party composed of vaguely honest candidates, and implement whatever policies you feel are necessary to curb the 1%. Advocacy of violence is actually an admission of your inability to convince the majority of the population that your position is correct.

[Highlord Laan]

I agree. The one percent are'nt going to give up their current position willingly.

The US is still a democracy. All you have to do is vote for a third party composed of vaguely honest candidates, and implement whatever policies you feel are necessary to curb the 1%. Advocacy of violence is actually an admission of your inability to convince the majority of the population that your position is correct.

Or that the system is so broken that the majority has no choice in the matter. I don't think the US is quite to that point, but it's certainly heading down that path.

[TimothyC]

Or that the system is so broken that the majority has no choice in the matter. I don't think the US is quite to that point, but it's certainly heading down that path.

The catch is that when you say "The system is broken" if there is still a majority of people who do not think the system is broken the majority will ignore you, and ignore what you have to say even if what you have to say is correct.

[Bakustra]

I agree. The one percent are'nt going to give up their current position willingly.

The US is still a democracy. All you have to do is vote for a third party composed of vaguely honest candidates, and implement whatever policies you feel are necessary to curb the 1%. Advocacy of violence is actually an admission of your inability to convince the majority of the population that your position is correct.

This makes a number of assumptions about the US political system, namely that it is responsive to majority opinions, that the free flow of wealth and power from the private sector into the public has a minimal corrupting effect on the system, and that a third party is viable within the current American system. I'm afraid you're going to have to justify those assertions, given that at least one is simply wrong on mathematical grounds and the other two depend on some very generous definitions of the terms involved.

Or that the system is so broken that the majority has no choice in the matter. I don't think the US is quite to that point, but it's certainly heading down that path.

The catch is that when you say "The system is broken" if there is still a majority of people who do not think the system is broken the majority will ignore you, and ignore what you have to say even if what you have to say is correct.

Or you could convince people of the problems with the system, rather than relying on working within a faulty system under the belief that nobody is willing to believe that there could be problems with the USA.

[Shroom Man 777]

CLEVELAND - Occupy Cleveland protesters have obtained a permit from the city of Cleveland for what they are calling a “public event.” The public event permit will allow the protesters to erect tents and other structures as long as each structure does not take up a space larger than a 10 foot by 10 foot area.

Since receiving the permit, the protesters have set up nearly 50 tents with large tarp coverings that span the entire length of their makeshift homes.

Protester Jonathan Bowen said he is in it for the long haul and is preparing to stay in Public Square through the winter.

“The weather is going to get cold and we do not plan on leaving anytime soon, so yeah I mean I plan on being here through the winter because I know change isn’t going to happen anytime soon," Bowen said.

Bowen also said he believes that Occupy Cleveland is getting stronger by the day and he reported that the number of people participating has grown everyday since the movement began last Thursday. Organizers said they have just over 50 people that are making the West Roadway sidewalk their home.

Food and supplies have been donated to the group and they also have rented portable toilets that are set up in Public Square.

The group said it hopes to get national recognition as more groups gather to demonstrate in other cites around America. The Cleveland group said its goal, as a whole, is to make the change they said America desperately needs for a better future.

The group members said that they have not had any run ins with the police and that they feel that most people are receptive to their message.

Rain was in the forecast. The Occupy Cleveland protesters had no tents, because the City of Cleveland had not permitted them. So the protesters sent out a cry for help.

Who delivered? The Cleveland Police themselves. Individual officers supplied the protesters with tents.

Kamikaze Sith, your fellow law enforcement officers did a good thing and we should all be proud to their services to the community and to the people. Truly they are serving and protecting the public by upholding their prime directives. Serve the public trust. Protect the innocent.

[Simon_Jester]

Or that the system is so broken that the majority has no choice in the matter. I don't think the US is quite to that point, but it's certainly heading down that path.

The catch is that when you say "The system is broken" if there is still a majority of people who do not think the system is broken the majority will ignore you, and ignore what you have to say even if what you have to say is correct.

When it gets bad enough, the majority will change their minds- as Laan says, they have no choice.

Remember 1789- not so much the storming of the Bastille as the women's march on Versailles, if you ask me.

What's problematic is trying to change things before it gets that bad, which is vastly preferable.

[Starglider]

The US is still a democracy. All you have to do is vote for a third party composed of vaguely honest candidates

This makes a number of assumptions about the US political system, namely that it is responsive to majority opinions, that the free flow of wealth and power from the private sector into the public has a minimal corrupting effect on the system, and that a third party is viable within the current American system.

Not at all. I didn't say that a third party is currently viable, I simply said that that if you could get a majority votes you wouldn't need violence. Propaganda and first past the post preventing third parties from gaining electoral momentum would not stop you if the electorate was intelligent and you had a proposal that genuinely captured their support. The only legal blocker is ballot access and while the situation is not ideal in the US that is not an issue for a well-funded mass movement. Right now of course no US third party is anywhere near being able to get a significant voice in the US government, but how much of that is really the system and how much is because those parties and/or the voting public suck?

Use of violence is an admission that either the electorate is too stupid or indoctrinated to vote for a third party without a track record, that your movement is too fracticious and disorganised to coallesce into a single co-operating party, or that your platform just isn't that popular after all. IMHO all of those things are true, although the situation is very slowly improving. I personally support voting reform but largely to mitigate the blind status-quo-obsessed obliviousness of the voting public, which greatly magnifies the problems caused by archaic non-proportional voting systems.

[Bakustra]

Not at all. I didn't say that a third party is currently viable, I simply said that that if you could get a majority votes you wouldn't need violence. Propaganda and first past the post preventing third parties from gaining electoral momentum would not stop you if the electorate was intelligent and you had a proposal that genuinely captured their support. The only legal blocker is ballot access and while the situation is not ideal in the US that is not an issue for a well-funded mass movement. Right now of course no US third party is anywhere near being able to get a significant voice in the US government, but how much of that is really the system and how much is because those parties and/or the voting public suck?

Use of violence is an admission that either the electorate is too stupid or indoctrinated to vote for a third party without a track record, that your movement is too fracticious and disorganised to coallesce into a single co-operating party, or that your platform just isn't that popular after all. IMHO all of those things are true, although the situation is very slowly improving. I personally support voting reform but largely to mitigate the blind status-quo-obsessed obliviousness of the voting public, which greatly magnifies the problems caused by archaic non-proportional voting systems.

Yes, and if wishes were fishes, we'd all be casting nets. Simply saying that a well-funded mass movement can win against Duverger's Law is fundamentally equal to saying that a properly-developed revolutionary Marxist movement can implement a fair socialist state without bloodshed- they are technically true, but they make light of enormous difficulties. Chief among them is asking the rich to fund an effort to hurt them, or else to fund a nationwide movement on whatever bits of 10% of American wealth is available. Other concerns rely on propaganda distributed against the movement by the existing power structure, the possibility of outright election fraud to disenfranchise potential voters for the movement, the difficulty of winning 60 seats in the US Senate and 218 seats in the US House against incumbents, the difficulty of winning the Presidential election without any support from more than a handful of the wealthy, the difficulty of doing things in the face of a hostile private sector and hostile state governments... These are all immense difficulties that you wave away. But you pretend that voting systems don't matter, that the structures of government don't matter, or perhaps you are really that ignorant.

[Samuel]

Chief among them is asking the rich to fund an effort to hurt them, or else to fund a nationwide movement on whatever bits of 10% of American wealth is available.

Well if you declare the rich are the enemy, of course you will have difficulty. If you take a more sane and moderate line, or co-opt some of their members, you can get alot further. Not all members of the upper class are robots who seek total control of the serfs. Many are patriots who care about the US and are willing to give up some wealth if it actually results in improvement.

Other concerns rely on propaganda distributed against the movement by the existing power structure, the possibility of outright election fraud to disenfranchise potential voters for the movement, the difficulty of winning 60 seats in the US Senate and 218 seats in the US House against incumbents, the difficulty of winning the Presidential election without any support from more than a handful of the wealthy, the difficulty of doing things in the face of a hostile private sector and hostile state governments... These are all immense difficulties that you wave away.

Actually none of those things are as hard as you make them sound.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Voter turnout for the 2010 federal election was 37.8%. Two thirds of the population didn't bother voting! If you can't build a movement on the overwhelming majority of the populance, you weren't popular to begin with.

[Bakustra]

Chief among them is asking the rich to fund an effort to hurt them, or else to fund a nationwide movement on whatever bits of 10% of American wealth is available.

Well if you declare the rich are the enemy, of course you will have difficulty. If you take a more sane and moderate line, or co-opt some of their members, you can get alot further. Not all members of the upper class are robots who seek total control of the serfs. Many are patriots who care about the US and are willing to give up some wealth if it actually results in improvement.

How do you think this state of affairs came about? Did the wealth inequality fairy wave a magic wand over the country? You're presuming that the majority of the upper class are stupid enough to be fooled into thinking that a wealth-redistribution plan would not entail taking money away from them, as long as people don't point out that the rich had to step up and take the wealth away in the first place.

If there really is such dissatisfaction within the 1%, then why aren't more of them working in favor of wealth redistribution? I doubt that more than a handful of people in the upper class, relatively speaking, would support redistributive efforts.

Other concerns rely on propaganda distributed against the movement by the existing power structure, the possibility of outright election fraud to disenfranchise potential voters for the movement, the difficulty of winning 60 seats in the US Senate and 218 seats in the US House against incumbents, the difficulty of winning the Presidential election without any support from more than a handful of the wealthy, the difficulty of doing things in the face of a hostile private sector and hostile state governments... These are all immense difficulties that you wave away.

Actually none of those things are as hard as you make them sound.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Voter turnout for the 2010 federal election was 37.8%. Two thirds of the population didn't bother voting! If you can't build a movement on the overwhelming majority of the populance, you weren't popular to begin with.

You do know that a) the reasons voter turnout is so low in the US are more complicated than that, b) that doesn't solve the problems of hostile propaganda that can drown out the absolute majority of mass-media messages such a movement can put out, c) it doesn't solve the problem of having an incredibly hostile private sector once you get into office (the last time you had a government close to being as relatively radical as this one would be, there was at least one coup attempted against it by the business sector), d) it doesn't solve the problem that you'd need to win solid majorities in Senatorial elections for two elections in a row in order to get a majority period, or else somehow coopt one or the other of the existing parties (in which case you don't need a third party at all). It's not easy, and portraying it as such is a repulsive and vile effort to redirect anger into irrelevancy.

[Simon_Jester]

How do you think this state of affairs came about? Did the wealth inequality fairy wave a magic wand over the country? You're presuming that the majority of the upper class are stupid enough to be fooled into thinking that a wealth-redistribution plan would not entail taking money away from them, as long as people don't point out that the rich had to step up and take the wealth away in the first place.

If there really is such dissatisfaction within the 1%, then why aren't more of them working in favor of wealth redistribution? I doubt that more than a handful of people in the upper class, relatively speaking, would support redistributive efforts.

It depends heavily on the definition of "redistribution."

You can find millionaires who want to repeal the Bush tax cuts without too much difficulty, I think; you can't necessarily find a lot of them, but they're there. You probably can't find millionaires who advocate shooting millionaires and pouring their assets into a general fund for X, Y, and Z.

Many of the goals of the 99% movement could be achieved without doing anything radical that hasn't been done before- this is not to say the economy would become wonderful overnight, but we could patch a lot of the holes people are falling through without ruining wealthy people. If you're rich and value the continued well-being and function of your society more than you value having twice as much money as you know what to do with (versus having, say, half again as much)... yeah, you might very well support that. It's not as if there wasn't plenty of room to be prosperous and powerful in times when the deck was less stacked in favor of the 1%.

[Bakustra]

But it's not just "repeal the Bush tax cuts". Wealth inequality was well on its way before then. It's largely progressive changes towards things like a guaranteed living wage, guaranteed employment, all the stuff that FDR proposed in his Second Bill of Rights, if we're talking limited demands based on what OWS wants. Calling for greater and more wealth taxes, which is at the upper end of what OWS wants, would alienate many more people. While there are millionaires and billionaires who would support all this, they are outnumbered by the people who fight for any little scrap of money.

[Samuel]

You're presuming that the majority of the upper class are stupid enough to be fooled into thinking that a wealth-redistribution plan would not entail taking money away from them, as long as people don't point out that the rich had to step up and take the wealth away in the first place.

If there really is such dissatisfaction within the 1%, then why aren't more of them working in favor of wealth redistribution? I doubt that more than a handful of people in the upper class, relatively speaking, would support redistributive efforts.

I didn't say were dissatisfied, I said you could find allies. I also said that some value the country more than their wealth and so could be convinced if you get them to think it is for the good of the country.

You do know that a) the reasons voter turnout is so low in the US are more complicated than that

... Read my posts. I didn't give any reason so saying low voter turnout is more complicated is rebuting something I never claimed.

b) that doesn't solve the problems of hostile propaganda that can drown out the absolute majority of mass-media messages such a movement can put out,

I'm sure you can scrounge up a revolutionary vanguard ready to lead the masses to the promised land since they are too stupid to think for themselves.

c) it doesn't solve the problem of having an incredibly hostile private sector once you get into office (the last time you had a government close to being as relatively radical as this one would be, there was at least one coup attempted against it by the business sector),

Find members of the private sector who will benefit from your schemes, ally with them and use their support to sideline hostile elements. Unless of course your plan is opposed to the entire private sector.

it doesn't solve the problem that you'd need to win solid majorities in Senatorial elections for two elections in a row in order to get a majority period, or else somehow coopt one or the other of the existing parties (in which case you don't need a third party at all).

Yes, because neither major party has ever compromised. In fact, Democrats and Republicans never vote for each others bills

It's not easy, and portraying it as such is a repulsive and vile effort to redirect anger into irrelevancy.

Of course it isn't easy. I never claimed it was easy. I said it was possible. You seem to have problems actually responding to the content of my posts instead of what you think I said.

Wealth inequality was well on its way before then. It's largely progressive changes towards things like a guaranteed living wage, guaranteed employment, all the stuff that FDR proposed in his Second Bill of Rights, if we're talking limited demands based on what OWS wants.

Dude, if you are entirely against wealth inequality, all you need to do is stop immigration, reduce imports and cartelize blue collar work. You could easily get these enacted by working with the Democrats and Republicans. Those changes would get the US economy closer to its structure from 1950-1970.

Looking at the Second Bill of Rights:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Three is stupid and contradicts two, while one is questionable. Exactly how is the government going to insure everyone has a chance at productive labor? I suppose you could do it the easy way and simply have nationalized industries using labor intensive processes, but people would object to it on the grounds it is a waste.

Five is the easiest to achieve politically. You just have to change the local conditions and housing market. Open up more land for building, reduce the number of barriers for new projects and make it so current owners can't block the construction of more housing. Of course this is politically impossible because the people making this changes are choosen by the people who would be hurt by this.

Six, seven and eight are no remotely radical- the government already does those to a degree, you just need to get the programs better funded and expanded.

[Bakustra]

You're an honest-to-god idiot who thinks that propaganda only works on stupid people. Did you know that advertising is a form of non-political propaganda? Would you say that only idiots are influenced by advertising? So then dismissing the ability of propaganda to sway people is frankly stupid.

What you're doing, though, is insisting that if a few people from a group support you (and believe me, only a handful of CEOs and Big Business execs would support a living wage), then it doesn't matter that the rest of the group is opposed to you (and believe me, the US Chamber of Commerce would be willing to spend billions to shut down efforts at mandating a living wage). Hah.

You also ignore that this was started by Starglider suggesting that people just vote for a third party, where they could get a majority and thus pass whatever they needed. So you're making a non sequitur when you babble about how parties can compromise, since this was about gaining a majority with a third party.

If you're going to retreat into "I only said that it was possible", I never said that it was impossible either, so right back atcha, bud.

Dude, if you are entirely against wealth inequality, all you need to do is stop immigration, reduce imports and cartelize blue collar work. You could easily get these enacted by working with the Democrats and Republicans. Those changes would get the US economy closer to its structure from 1950-1970.

I had to quote this, because it's really very stupid. You honest-to-god think that immigrants are a critical reason for wealth inequality. Do you know why wealth inequality is so egregious in this country? Because of a variety of reasons. One of them is shitty education on personal economics. One of them is systematic racism. But probably the biggest is wage stagnation among the working classes and massive wage increases amongst the upper class. I really don't think that either party is willing to support increased unionization in order to solve that problem, and I'm damn sure that immigration isn't a major source of wage inequality.

Did you know that Australia managed to maintain full employment (without counting the frictional unemployment of workers shifting jobs) from 1941 to 1975? It's not impossible, by any means, to ensure that non-frictional unemployment is zero or very small, and they did it without socialism.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how farmers earning a decent living is incompatible with other people doing the same, or why it's stupid. Do you really believe that farmers should all be destitute? You're a sick son of a bitch in that case, Samuel. Or were you talking about ensuring fair markets, number four? Because I don't see how that's stupid or contradicts a living wage either.

Meanwhile, the housing market is in a state of oversupply right now, and the idea that the only acceptable home is a house is damned stupid. I should have know that a Californian might suggest that. Tell me, do you go to LA and inhale smog for fun? Cheap shots aside, the goal is to make affordable living space available to everybody, which doesn't mean your fantasies about subdivisions as far as the eye can see.

[Raw Shark]

Park Closed, Dozens Arrested in Denver

Dozens of police in riot gear advanced early Friday on the last remaining cluster of protesters supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement at the state Capitol in Denver. The demonstrators retreated without resisting, but some were arrested.

[Samuel]

You're an honest-to-god idiot who thinks that propaganda only works on stupid people. Did you know that advertising is a form of non-political propaganda? Would you say that only idiots are influenced by advertising? So then dismissing the ability of propaganda to sway people is frankly stupid.

Ah Bakustra, I can always rely on you to attack me for things I never said.

What you're doing, though, is insisting that if a few people from a group support you (and believe me, only a handful of CEOs and Big Business execs would support a living wage), then it doesn't matter that the rest of the group is opposed to you (and believe me, the US Chamber of Commerce would be willing to spend billions to shut down efforts at mandating a living wage). Hah.

Once again, never said that.
What I actually said:

Well if you declare the rich are the enemy, of course you will have difficulty. If you take a more sane and moderate line, or co-opt some of their members, you can get alot further.

A living wage is actually the easiest measure to pass. You know why? Because states can pass their own minimum wage- heck San Francisco did as well.

You also ignore that this was started by Starglider suggesting that people just vote for a third party, where they could get a majority and thus pass whatever they needed. So you're making a non sequitur when you babble about how parties can compromise, since this was about gaining a majority with a third party.

You don't think a third party getting enough power that one of the major party compromises with it, thus passing the law it wants... is equivalent to a third party passing a law it wants.

You honest-to-god think that immigrants are a critical reason for wealth inequality.

They are one of the reasons that are easy to adress with the existing parties. I thought that saying "You could easily get these enacted by working with the Democrats and Republicans." made that clear.

One of them is shitty education on personal economics

Which is why there was a dramatic increase in inequality since 1970?

One of them is systematic racism.

Blacks had real wage increases and a decrease in inequality from 1950 to 1970. Asians have higher incomes that any other ethnic group.

But probably the biggest is wage stagnation among the working classes and massive wage increases amongst the upper class.

That comes perilously close to restating the problem.

Here is another view of what is happening.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 7-2007.svg

Wages have stagnated amoung the bottom 50% while increasing amoung the top 50% and dramatically amoung the top 20%.

Interestingly that matches pretty well with the proportion of people who have attended college and people who have higher degrees. What would you do if the problem is returns to education have increased?

I really don't think that either party is willing to support increased unionization in order to solve that problem,

That won't solve the problem if companies can just outsource.

Did you know that Australia managed to maintain full employment (without counting the frictional unemployment of workers shifting jobs) from 1941 to 1975?

You mean during a sustained economic boom? Something the US and Western Europe also managed to accomplish?

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how farmers earning a decent living is incompatible with other people doing the same, or why it's stupid. Do you really believe that farmers should all be destitute? You're a sick son of a bitch in that case, Samuel. Or were you talking about ensuring fair markets, number four? Because I don't see how that's stupid or contradicts a living wage either.

...

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

Having a high price for farmers makes the thrid harder. In addition the only way to maintain high prices is
-deliberatly restrict production (violates unfair competition)
-subsidize farmers, giving them money to sell food/price controls. This will result in a surplus so you will either need to dump it abroad or burn it.

The US does both. Of course than we get complaints from poor countries- something about driving down world prices and impoverishing them. But hey, economic nationalism is always fun.

As for farmers being destitute, I'm not sure how "state intervention here is bad" leads to "I think you should all be poor".

Meanwhile, the housing market is in a state of oversupply right now, and the idea that the only acceptable home is a house is damned stupid. I should have know that a Californian might suggest that. Tell me, do you go to LA and inhale smog for fun? Cheap shots aside, the goal is to make affordable living space available to everybody, which doesn't mean your fantasies about subdivisions as far as the eye can see.

Five is the easiest to achieve politically. You just have to change the local conditions and housing market. Open up more land for building, reduce the number of barriers for new projects and make it so current owners can't block the construction of more housing

1.Houses and apartments considered collectively.

Stay classy Bakustra.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Squatting 1200 lbs is also possible. It doesn't mean that it happens terribly often.

Historically, major change has rarely come without blood shed. It'd be bloody nice if the OWS movement could change things without large-scale violence but I'm not gonna hold my breath on it.

[Samuel]

Squatting 1200 lbs is also possible. It doesn't mean that it happens terribly often.

Historically, major change has rarely come without blood shed. It'd be bloody nice if the OWS movement could change things without large-scale violence but I'm not gonna hold my breath on it.

Lets look at the US. We had a massive change in the 1830s that was peaceful (poor people get to vote!), violent in the 1860s, peaceful in the 1900s, peaceful in the 1930s and quasi-peaceful in the 1960s. So yeah most of the time the US has major changes without mass bloodshed and it isn't terribly rare.

[Broomstick]

What change around 1900 are you referring to?

[Samuel]

What change around 1900 are you referring to?

The progressive era although technically what I am talking about spans from 1890s to 1920s. You get regulation of industry to insure health and counter monopolistic practices, an income tax, direct election of senators, women's sufferage and prohibition.

[Broomstick]

I thought there was quite a bit of violence around work rules reform, along with a nasty anarchist movement around that time. I'm not so sure it's as peaceful as you think it was.

[Samuel]

I thought there was quite a bit of violence around work rules reform, along with a nasty anarchist movement around that time. I'm not so sure it's as peaceful as you think it was.

While the changes that the labor movement where pushing for had a fair amount (okay large amount) of violence, the progressive eras reforms did not.