Now to be hurting feelings, but that top 1% didn't get there buy getting stuff handed to them. They (in most cases) went to medical school, ran a profitable business ect. Yes they have a lot of money but that doesnt make it justified to say that because they worked hard they, in a sense, MUST share that money. Is it there fault for grinding away at whatever company and becoming CEO? No. Not saying the movement is bad but it sounds like that lazy kid in a group assignment who whines about his group failing him when he sat eating chocolate with his group scrambling to make a good project. However not saying that it is always there fault there is the rare case where someone got stuck with maybe a bad co-worker who screwed them and got them fired ect...ect.. Just my opinion.
I don't like your comparison. You mean to say that everyone is sitting on their ass wanting handouts?
Why does everyone find it so easy to believe that everyone has been simultaneously hit with extreme laziness?
I'm not, I agree with some of our points but I don't agree with most of them or the methods by which they are attempting to bring about change.
We, as greedy materialistic Americans, dug ourselves into this economic crisis. To blame a small group of Americans is folly. We the consumers are just as much to blame as politicians and corporations. We have forced our economy to change from a production based (1940s and 50s) to a consumption based (1980s and 90s) to a debt based economy. That is all of our faults. It is just as much the fault of corporations as it is the people who AVERAGE 30k dollars in credit card debt.
To rise up and blame one set of people for a mistake that is ours as a whole society is completely irresponsible and straight out stupid. What we need to do is get back to a production driven economy. However, doing so will be VERY painful. Honestly, it may take the total collapse of the current economy. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing.
The people responsible for directing our economy threw it off a cliff and you're blaming common Americans?
While some of the blame should fall on us for our silly materialistic attitudes and unrealistic economic views, I think this fails to consider just how badly the leadership ****ed up. Do I need to point out many bank's policy of giving a family a mortgage whether they can pay it or not?
I am a humanist , one of many who refuse to buckle under any longer under the strain of the oligarchical control of the corporate banking concerns .
Ill be here everyday cept when Im at school or work . Im getting kinda tired of the moist towelette bathing in gas station bathrooms and Ill probably stop at home tomorow.
Now to be hurting feelings, but that top 1% didn't get there buy getting stuff handed to them. They (in most cases) went to medical school, ran a profitable business ect. Yes they have a lot of money but that doesnt make it justified to say that because they worked hard they, in a sense, MUST share that money. Is it there fault for grinding away at whatever company and becoming CEO? No. Not saying the movement is bad but it sounds like that lazy kid in a group assignment who whines about his group failing him when he sat eating chocolate with his group scrambling to make a good project. However not saying that it is always there fault there is the rare case where someone got stuck with maybe a bad co-worker who screwed them and got them fired ect...ect.. Just my opinion.
In a perfect world you would be right, but us with common sense know this is just simply now true. It's not as black and white as this. To think that way is really immature and will offend alot of people.
In a perfect world you would be right, but us with common sense know this is just simply now true. It's not as black and white as this. To think that way is really immature and will offend alot of people.
In alot of cases the top 1% got there exactly by having stuff handed to them . (Inheritance ) And when you couple the facts of archaic laws from the 18th century declaring people as property and all the blood money from the countless wars......
We fight for our future , so sit there and call us Communists ,or w.e, I will fight fascism and totalitarianism no matter what form of governance it masquerades as.
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
Just change civil war with capitalism or whatever its called.
I'm not, I agree with some of our points but I don't agree with most of them or the methods by which they are attempting to bring about change.
We, as greedy materialistic Americans, dug ourselves into this economic crisis. To blame a small group of Americans is folly. We the consumers are just as much to blame as politicians and corporations. We have forced our economy to change from a production based (1940s and 50s) to a consumption based (1980s and 90s) to a debt based economy. That is all of our faults. It is just as much the fault of corporations as it is the people who AVERAGE 30k dollars in credit card debt.
To rise up and blame one set of people for a mistake that is ours as a whole society is completely irresponsible and straight out stupid. What we need to do is get back to a production driven economy. However, doing so will be VERY painful. Honestly, it may take the total collapse of the current economy. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing.
That's like saying soldiers are responsible for wars. It's true that they could have done nothing without consumers, but that is our framework now. And no matter what, the vast majority of people will always choose to buy something for cheap rather than support people who need it for just a little more money.
As you said, nothing short of a total collapse will reach the masses. But corporations have already been cheating on taxes and are the least work to try to break the cycle. Why not try to change them first? No matter who caused it, both the consumers and suppliers need to change, why not try the way that's most likely (albeit very unlikely) to work?
If any senator wishes to read this, I suggest a SUSA bill. Stop United States Act. If the internet needs to babysit your lawmaking, Then there's something wrong.
Tbh, I have no idea what they plan to accompish with their movement.
This is why they're Tea Party for liberals. They're the angry fringe of the 99% - just like the Tea Party - who are angry at the system but have no real coherent plan or hope for a plan to rectify what they see as injustices. The ostensible injustices differ as would be expected given the different backgrounds of the persons in said movements, but the tenor is the same. Simmering rage, rebellious vigor, determination to keep going until something is done, proclaiming the injustices of the system via organized protest, marching/displaying at the place of said part of the system's most visible presence, etc.
Perhaps they just need to form the Tea Occupation, and we can have Guns and Living Wage for all.
I think this article could provide some much-needed perspective for those who side with the protesters: Occupy Wall Street vs. Jobs
It's worth reading through to the end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
So they are making smart choices on how they want to run their company. What is wrong with that exactly? Americans want everything handed to them. It's why there are so many illegal immigrants coming to America. They do the jobs we do not want to do.
"Smart choices" (read: for profit) are made at the expense of the laboring workers. Americans do not want "everything handed to them", in fact, the current protests show exactly that: the Americans are tired of getting ****ed over and exploited on a constant basis whilst a 1% has it better off than the rest of the country. That 1% minority is having "everything handed to them".
"Illegal" immigrants moving to the US do so because of higher standards of living in the United States, that by no means shows us that the Americans are 1) lazy, and 2) do not want to work. What the shows though is the degree to which superexploited workers are willing to be bled out for a minimum wage (or even lower!) in order to simply survive while the 1% (think here multi-millionaires) do not even need to break a sweat at all. The reason why "illegal" immigrants are willing to work for lower wages is that the standard of living in their country is far below that of the United States, that at least with that petty pay, they are capable of scraping by a living (which is by no means easy at all). Are you here to tell me that American workers should simply get rid of the minimum wage (yes, some do propose that) and many workers' rights in order to simply find work to appease you?
You cannot blame one percent of the American society when it is the American society as a whole.
This is not a problem of American society but of Capitalism as a whole, which sadly many do not realize it and instead want to (yet again) reform Capitalism. We have seen how that turns out, history shows this very well. The 1% represents the multinational imperialist bourgeoisie, not god damn miners or lumberjacks.
Why be angry at all the other issues in America like illegal immigration, natural disaster recovery and drug smuggling when you can protest for money!?
I'm not, I agree with some of our points but I don't agree with most of them or the methods by which they are attempting to bring about change.
I also disagree with their methods and reformist limitations. Instead of shunning them altogether, try and proposing alternatives or solutions.
We, as greedy materialistic Americans, dug ourselves into this economic crisis. To blame a small group of Americans is folly. We the consumers are just as much to blame as politicians and corporations. We have forced our economy to change from a production based (1940s and 50s) to a consumption based (1980s and 90s) to a debt based economy. That is all of our faults. It is just as much the fault of corporations as it is the people who AVERAGE 30k dollars in credit card debt.
Actually, no. The blame is to be put on that "small group of Americans" (a colloquial and politically correct term for multi-millionaire bourgeoisie, eh?), not only on them but on that very inherent flaw of Capitalism: the creation of such a massive disparity gap. To think that a small minority is capable of amassing such fortune (billions of dollars, read: more than 1,000,000,000 dollars) when it does not even break a sweat in its "work", while the laboring masses spend countless days and nights without food and without many luxuries and slaving off in drastic conditions and menial labor only to be paid a few hundred to thousands dollars (100-10,000 dollars).
Now on the issue of economic crisis, that is not the fault of the working class nor even the middle class, that is due to the failures of the statesmen to keep their affairs within the country. Trillions of dollars spent on bombs, tanks, armaments, etc. etc. as well as the massive research and development funds given to the military, that is the very problem but it is not by itself the only factor. The most important here is to speak of the crisis, and as such, a working class family in a consumer-based society is bound to hit rock bottom. It plays a small role in the economy as a whole when compared to that 1% who are in control of the multinational chains and industries around the world (oh, job creation) that are the very ones behind the exportation of capital abroad in order to leach off of imperialist superexploitation. Power is in the hands of that minority, and not by any means in the hands of that working class family which is incapable of feeding itself (the issue of the temptations of consumer society can be spoken of here as a cause of debt in that family). So no, consumers (see what you did there?) are not to blame, but we are to blame the men in power, the very decision-makers who can enter a country into a war, export capital, and even affect the economy directly. It is a common fallacy due to flawed logic to blame the poor workers and struggling middle-class families instead of the bourgeoisie and the statesmen, or even the flawed system itself.
The change of the economic base from being production-based to consumer-based and now to debt-based is not the work of the masses, but of that minority who is in fact holding the reigns and in control of the means of production (specifically the multi-national and multi-million dollar ones). The change from being production-base to consumer-based can be said to be due to unions and working class struggle, to an extent that is true as we have a minimum wage. But what is forgotten here is that if that did not take place, workers would be paid very low wages as in other countries, for after all, it is not in the Capitalist's best interest (in terms of profit) to increase wages, but to actually lower them and impose stricter quotas (see the antagonistic and irreconcilable nature and interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie). With that said, that would still not be a solution as superexploitation will still play a major factor in world economics; the workers of Third-World countries are more than willing to work for lower wages than their First-World country counter-parts as they do not want to starve to death. The move to a consumer-based society was not the move of the workers either, it was an action taken by the bourgeoisie to profit off in a country where its wages allow individuals to indulge in (excess) luxuries. The worker did not introduce gadgets X and Y, it was the Capitalist who marketed said product (I hope I do not have to explain this). What do we have here is that the masses (ironically) are not the ones responsible, in power, or that have the ultimate say in things, but it is the bourgeoisie and their statist cronies and nothing more. To blame the working class and the masses is a constantly recurring fallacy that is spewed whenever any attempt at advancement is made. The mostly used comment would be them saying, "Go get a job", "It's your fault", "You are sitting there and expecting to be paid?", etc. etc. What ultimately these people do not understand is that the realities are not as what they perceive them to be, such comments are generally made by the bourgeoisie, and more recently, reactionary and counter-revolutionary proletarians and lower middle-class individuals. Again, I quote this by John Steinback: "Socialism did not take root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
To rise up and blame one set of people for a mistake that is ours as a whole society is completely irresponsible and straight out stupid. What we need to do is get back to a production driven economy. However, doing so will be VERY painful. Honestly, it may take the total collapse of the current economy. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing.
That is not a solution, **** will hit the fan as it has already done. Do not strike at the branches and call it done, strike at the roots and kill it off.
"A mistake that is ours"
It's great to see reactionaries up and outspoken, especially when they are referring to themselves. THAT is the only thing that is stupid, to blame the innocent masses of things which they have little to no say in. Yes, to get back to a production-driven economy, we must need a systematic overhaul, but not reforming Capitalism, but moving forwards to Socialism and eventually communism. We have seen how Capitalism has turned out in almost every country, on the world scale, and on the individual level. It has failed drastically, it is in its very nature to empower a minority while oppressing a majority.
Those in the 1% did not make you go to college to accumulate outrageous student loans, or put you in that 30k dollar credit card debt. You did that yourself America.
****ing awesome. It is the masses' fault for attempting to go to college! This is unbelievable. When the masses drop out, the blame them for destroying themselvesa nd the country, when they country is in deep **** the masses are blamed for not going to work, when the inherent flaws of the current system are showing themselves in the light of day, people blame Socialism, when the masses go to college to get a respectable wage and life, they get blamed for destroying themselves and the country. Reactionaries make my god damn gears grind. The monopoly of education is in this case a major contributing factor to the debt of the masses, if you want to take that specific case and example of yours, and as such it is NOT the fault of the individuals who are attending college, but of the system itself which creates this monopoly in the first place.
"You did that yourself America"
...
I just...
It is a typical human response to not accept the blame, and instead, push the blame on to someone else. That honestly needs to stop. If you **** up your ****, do not say, "OH I AM THAT 99% THE 1% IS SOOOO WRONG." Man up, and say, "**** I ****ed up. Maybe I should not have chosen that as my career path."
*facepalm*
Reactionary ******** yet again, see my reply to 42and19 above. It is by no means the fault of the proletariat and the working masses, but of the politicians and the multi-millionaire bourgeoisie who are the deciding factors of the economy and the country as a whole. If you took a moment to read up on class antagonisms and the nature of classes, you would not be here spewing such nonsense and making my eyes bleed.
****. I've seen too many of these "I am the 99%" posters that write that they are in crazy debt, then they say they studied in Women Studies. Whaaaaaaaaaaat?
Indeed, they should have pursued profit and capital instead of what they actually "want" to do, that is, what actually appeals to them and interests them. But what can we say to this when the system in which they are living in is based off of the profit motive, which in and of itself eliminates many innovation, research, work, etc. which could improve humanity in terms of efficiency and durability. Instead bases itself upon the profit motive, and thus creating useless **** which no one "needs" (not "want"), a rape of resources, the exploitation of millions of workers for petty wages, the creation of the iPhone drama (see the multiple "new" versions which eliminate the old, they could have added all of these "innovative" features in one gadget and saved everyone in terms of time, money, resources, waste, etc. etc.).
I hate this concept. I have spent the last year unemployed. Not because I wasn't applying to work on farms and in assembly plants, but because these immigrants were getting hired before me. They can, BY LAW, be paid less per hour than me. Thus making them more attractive. While I, the 25 year old white male (the second most discriminated against group in America) gets passed over for a job. 350 applications!
Thank God I finally was hired back at Toys'R'Us.
It is very amusing that you speak out against the OCW and yet you fall in the massive hole yourself from which they are attempting to get everyone out of.
As the reactionaries would say, "Get a job". You seem to have experienced this simple, lovely, enjoyable, alluring, and satisfying activity of "getting a job", no? I need not say more.
That's because the wealthy are out working for their money,
...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OMFG, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry, I just couldn't handle myself. "The wealthy are out working for their money", good one.
See the bourgeois-proletarian relationship, the Bill Gates-lumberjack/miner/worker comparison, etc. etc. Also see this post, I guarantee you that you will laugh at what you had just said in time: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/685917-whats-your-take-on-occupy-wall-st/page__st__80__p__8986656
instead of protesting about money not being givin to them.
Do us all a favor and study basic economics. Why in the holy name of **** would a bourgeois protest against the bourgeoisie (himself)!? HE is the one in control of the means of production, of the multi-national and multi-million dollar industries and chains all over the world. Are you here trying to even HINT that these people would actually have to protest for money? They are the ones in control of the economy, they are the ones that hold a monopoly over the means of production, they are the ones in control. It is in their best interest to lower the wages of the proletariat and increase their profits. Then not only that, but you continue on to say "protesting about money not being given to them". To that I request that you read up on the proletarian-bourgeois relationship, surplus value, exploitation of labor, how they live off of the back, labor, and produce of the workers, etc. etc.
Want money? Get a job, and quit wasting your time protesting.
I would have called you "stupid", but I would have got warned, I would have called you "ignorant", but that would have been to no avail, so instead I'll settle with this, because quite frankly, I do not have the stomach to explain again: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/jobv.jpg/
We do not live in the mythical Capitalist Utopia, get back to reality.
Quit blaming the wealthy for you not having any money, and go out and make your own.
*facepalm*
This fails on so many levels, I do not think I should write anything to prove it wrong.
Now to be hurting feelings, but that top 1% didn't get there buy getting stuff handed to them. They (in most cases) went to medical school, ran a profitable business ect. Yes they have a lot of money but that doesnt make it justified to say that because they worked hard they, in a sense, MUST share that money. Is it there fault for grinding away at whatever company and becoming CEO? No. Not saying the movement is bad but it sounds like that lazy kid in a group assignment who whines about his group failing him when he sat eating chocolate with his group scrambling to make a good project. However not saying that it is always there fault there is the rare case where someone got stuck with maybe a bad co-worker who screwed them and got them fired ect...ect.. Just my opinion.
I am a humanist , one of many who refuse to buckle under any longer under the strain of the oligarchical control of the corporate banking concerns .
Ill be here everyday cept when Im at school or work . Im getting kinda tired of the moist towelette bathing in gas station bathrooms and Ill probably stop at home tomorow.
I hope you realize that I was being ironic when I referred to you as a Communist.
Which is exactly why the protest will fail by achieving nothing (reforms are "achieving nothing" today). Do not get me wrong, there are countless Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, etc. who are protesting for a systematic change from Capitalism to another system entirely, but it is the main focus and reformist of the protest as a whole that makes it fail. The protest is not focused on changing Capitalism and its inherent flaws and profit-motive, but are attempting to "punch in the dark". They are striking at the branches, not knowing exactly "why" this is currently taking place, they cannot seem to place their finger on it that the problem here is not spawns of Capitalism, but Capitalism itself which has led to these spawns. This can be said mainly due to the lack of workers' consciousness, or even, a revolutionary alternative at that thanks to our old friend McCarthy, the Red Scare, the Cold War, and the media.
Sounds like a bunch of hippies with nothing better to do.
That "bunch of hippies with nothing better to do" is at least trying to do something after all other options have been used up and failed. What do I see YOU doing? **** all.
This is why they're Tea Party for liberals. They're the angry fringe of the 99% - just like the Tea Party - who are angry at the system but have no real coherent plan or hope for a plan to rectify what they see as injustices. The ostensible injustices differ as would be expected given the different backgrounds of the persons in said movements, but the tenor is the same. Simmering rage, rebellious vigor, determination to keep going until something is done, proclaiming the injustices of the system via organized protest, marching/displaying at the place of said part of the system's most visible presence, etc.
Perhaps they just need to form the Tea Occupation, and we can have Guns and Living Wage for all.
That is true to an extent, and the very reason why I have no hope for the Occupation (as I had said previously) to put forward or lead to any revolutionary change. Here's what I had said: "I do not have much hope for the protests as a revolutionary change, this is the same as any other protest out of thousands in the recent years. The protestors most likely want some more petty reforms that do nothing but pacify the masses. Without a revolutionary movement, there cannot be a viable alternative to the current system, reformation can only do so much within the limitations and confines of Capitalism. This is the very reason why I support a revolutionary Vanguard: to turn the Reformist anger and wishes of the protesters from aims of reform to aims of achieving a full-fledged workers' system. The only option for a viable alternative here would be if the same case as that of Russia (February Revolution and its reformist advances replaced by a Communist revolution by the Bolsheviks) took place in the United States, but this time with a compatible and First-World country instead of a Third-World backwards feudal society that was struggling for its survival and on the brink of collapse. "
"Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement." - Vladimir Lenin
But, this is by no means a reason to shun and step on the protests, instead we should and must attempt to provide an alternative, a charter if you may, or even change the many flaws of the protest. Again, we must not attack the protest, but instead seek to "fix" it.
In alot of cases the top 1% got there exactly by having stuff handed to them . (Inheritance ) And when you couple the facts of archaic laws from the 18th century declaring people as property and all the blood money from the countless wars......
We fight for our future , so sit there and call us Communists ,or w.e, I will fight fascism and totalitarianism no matter what form of governance it masquerades as.
I think you misunderstood me. I was refuting his post with the very same logic you used. I'm an occupier as well friend, with the exact same views as you.
tormented, i wonder how we coud "fix" the occupy movement, and what are its flaws.
It depends on what is meant by "fix". To me, "fixing" the Occupation would mean turning it into a revolutionary Communist protest. How would this be done? A revolutionary Vanguard. I lost hope for leaderless Communist revolutions, a Vanguard is a necessity to turn the protests from reformist goals to revolutionary goals, as had taken place in Russia. See this excellent post on Vanguardism (you may need to register): http://www.revleft.c...blog.php?b=1744
I don't like your comparison. You mean to say that everyone is sitting on their ass wanting handouts?
Why does everyone find it so easy to believe that everyone has been simultaneously hit with extreme laziness?
The people responsible for directing our economy threw it off a cliff and you're blaming common Americans?
While some of the blame should fall on us for our silly materialistic attitudes and unrealistic economic views, I think this fails to consider just how badly the leadership ****ed up. Do I need to point out many bank's policy of giving a family a mortgage whether they can pay it or not?
You heard that, green and red.
I am a humanist , one of many who refuse to buckle under any longer under the strain of the oligarchical control of the corporate banking concerns .
Ill be here everyday cept when Im at school or work . Im getting kinda tired of the moist towelette bathing in gas station bathrooms and Ill probably stop at home tomorow.
In a perfect world you would be right, but us with common sense know this is just simply now true. It's not as black and white as this. To think that way is really immature and will offend alot of people.
In alot of cases the top 1% got there exactly by having stuff handed to them . (Inheritance ) And when you couple the facts of archaic laws from the 18th century declaring people as property and all the blood money from the countless wars......
We fight for our future , so sit there and call us Communists ,or w.e, I will fight fascism and totalitarianism no matter what form of governance it masquerades as.
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
Just change civil war with capitalism or whatever its called.
Sounds like a bunch of hippies with nothing better to do.
That's like saying soldiers are responsible for wars. It's true that they could have done nothing without consumers, but that is our framework now. And no matter what, the vast majority of people will always choose to buy something for cheap rather than support people who need it for just a little more money.
As you said, nothing short of a total collapse will reach the masses. But corporations have already been cheating on taxes and are the least work to try to break the cycle. Why not try to change them first? No matter who caused it, both the consumers and suppliers need to change, why not try the way that's most likely (albeit very unlikely) to work?
Even then, many of them use their money for charitable purposes.
This is why they're Tea Party for liberals. They're the angry fringe of the 99% - just like the Tea Party - who are angry at the system but have no real coherent plan or hope for a plan to rectify what they see as injustices. The ostensible injustices differ as would be expected given the different backgrounds of the persons in said movements, but the tenor is the same. Simmering rage, rebellious vigor, determination to keep going until something is done, proclaiming the injustices of the system via organized protest, marching/displaying at the place of said part of the system's most visible presence, etc.
Perhaps they just need to form the Tea Occupation, and we can have Guns and Living Wage for all.
I came across this right before I came to off topic, lol. http://news.yahoo.com/why-shouldnt-compare-occupy-wall-street-tea-party-091014606.html
Occupy Wall Street vs. Jobs
It's worth reading through to the end.
"Smart choices" (read: for profit) are made at the expense of the laboring workers. Americans do not want "everything handed to them", in fact, the current protests show exactly that: the Americans are tired of getting ****ed over and exploited on a constant basis whilst a 1% has it better off than the rest of the country. That 1% minority is having "everything handed to them".
"Illegal" immigrants moving to the US do so because of higher standards of living in the United States, that by no means shows us that the Americans are 1) lazy, and 2) do not want to work. What the shows though is the degree to which superexploited workers are willing to be bled out for a minimum wage (or even lower!) in order to simply survive while the 1% (think here multi-millionaires) do not even need to break a sweat at all. The reason why "illegal" immigrants are willing to work for lower wages is that the standard of living in their country is far below that of the United States, that at least with that petty pay, they are capable of scraping by a living (which is by no means easy at all). Are you here to tell me that American workers should simply get rid of the minimum wage (yes, some do propose that) and many workers' rights in order to simply find work to appease you?
This is not a problem of American society but of Capitalism as a whole, which sadly many do not realize it and instead want to (yet again) reform Capitalism. We have seen how that turns out, history shows this very well. The 1% represents the multinational imperialist bourgeoisie, not god damn miners or lumberjacks.
@Keeltoll:
Try working on that.
@42and19:
I also disagree with their methods and reformist limitations. Instead of shunning them altogether, try and proposing alternatives or solutions.
Actually, no. The blame is to be put on that "small group of Americans" (a colloquial and politically correct term for multi-millionaire bourgeoisie, eh?), not only on them but on that very inherent flaw of Capitalism: the creation of such a massive disparity gap. To think that a small minority is capable of amassing such fortune (billions of dollars, read: more than 1,000,000,000 dollars) when it does not even break a sweat in its "work", while the laboring masses spend countless days and nights without food and without many luxuries and slaving off in drastic conditions and menial labor only to be paid a few hundred to thousands dollars (100-10,000 dollars).
Now on the issue of economic crisis, that is not the fault of the working class nor even the middle class, that is due to the failures of the statesmen to keep their affairs within the country. Trillions of dollars spent on bombs, tanks, armaments, etc. etc. as well as the massive research and development funds given to the military, that is the very problem but it is not by itself the only factor. The most important here is to speak of the crisis, and as such, a working class family in a consumer-based society is bound to hit rock bottom. It plays a small role in the economy as a whole when compared to that 1% who are in control of the multinational chains and industries around the world (oh, job creation) that are the very ones behind the exportation of capital abroad in order to leach off of imperialist superexploitation. Power is in the hands of that minority, and not by any means in the hands of that working class family which is incapable of feeding itself (the issue of the temptations of consumer society can be spoken of here as a cause of debt in that family). So no, consumers (see what you did there?) are not to blame, but we are to blame the men in power, the very decision-makers who can enter a country into a war, export capital, and even affect the economy directly. It is a common fallacy due to flawed logic to blame the poor workers and struggling middle-class families instead of the bourgeoisie and the statesmen, or even the flawed system itself.
The change of the economic base from being production-based to consumer-based and now to debt-based is not the work of the masses, but of that minority who is in fact holding the reigns and in control of the means of production (specifically the multi-national and multi-million dollar ones). The change from being production-base to consumer-based can be said to be due to unions and working class struggle, to an extent that is true as we have a minimum wage. But what is forgotten here is that if that did not take place, workers would be paid very low wages as in other countries, for after all, it is not in the Capitalist's best interest (in terms of profit) to increase wages, but to actually lower them and impose stricter quotas (see the antagonistic and irreconcilable nature and interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie). With that said, that would still not be a solution as superexploitation will still play a major factor in world economics; the workers of Third-World countries are more than willing to work for lower wages than their First-World country counter-parts as they do not want to starve to death. The move to a consumer-based society was not the move of the workers either, it was an action taken by the bourgeoisie to profit off in a country where its wages allow individuals to indulge in (excess) luxuries. The worker did not introduce gadgets X and Y, it was the Capitalist who marketed said product (I hope I do not have to explain this). What do we have here is that the masses (ironically) are not the ones responsible, in power, or that have the ultimate say in things, but it is the bourgeoisie and their statist cronies and nothing more. To blame the working class and the masses is a constantly recurring fallacy that is spewed whenever any attempt at advancement is made. The mostly used comment would be them saying, "Go get a job", "It's your fault", "You are sitting there and expecting to be paid?", etc. etc. What ultimately these people do not understand is that the realities are not as what they perceive them to be, such comments are generally made by the bourgeoisie, and more recently, reactionary and counter-revolutionary proletarians and lower middle-class individuals. Again, I quote this by John Steinback: "Socialism did not take root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
That is not a solution, **** will hit the fan as it has already done. Do not strike at the branches and call it done, strike at the roots and kill it off.
"A mistake that is ours"
It's great to see reactionaries up and outspoken, especially when they are referring to themselves. THAT is the only thing that is stupid, to blame the innocent masses of things which they have little to no say in. Yes, to get back to a production-driven economy, we must need a systematic overhaul, but not reforming Capitalism, but moving forwards to Socialism and eventually communism. We have seen how Capitalism has turned out in almost every country, on the world scale, and on the individual level. It has failed drastically, it is in its very nature to empower a minority while oppressing a majority.
@StiffC:
****ing awesome. It is the masses' fault for attempting to go to college! This is unbelievable. When the masses drop out, the blame them for destroying themselvesa nd the country, when they country is in deep **** the masses are blamed for not going to work, when the inherent flaws of the current system are showing themselves in the light of day, people blame Socialism, when the masses go to college to get a respectable wage and life, they get blamed for destroying themselves and the country. Reactionaries make my god damn gears grind. The monopoly of education is in this case a major contributing factor to the debt of the masses, if you want to take that specific case and example of yours, and as such it is NOT the fault of the individuals who are attending college, but of the system itself which creates this monopoly in the first place.
"You did that yourself America"
...
I just...
*facepalm*
Reactionary ******** yet again, see my reply to 42and19 above. It is by no means the fault of the proletariat and the working masses, but of the politicians and the multi-millionaire bourgeoisie who are the deciding factors of the economy and the country as a whole. If you took a moment to read up on class antagonisms and the nature of classes, you would not be here spewing such nonsense and making my eyes bleed.
Indeed, they should have pursued profit and capital instead of what they actually "want" to do, that is, what actually appeals to them and interests them. But what can we say to this when the system in which they are living in is based off of the profit motive, which in and of itself eliminates many innovation, research, work, etc. which could improve humanity in terms of efficiency and durability. Instead bases itself upon the profit motive, and thus creating useless **** which no one "needs" (not "want"), a rape of resources, the exploitation of millions of workers for petty wages, the creation of the iPhone drama (see the multiple "new" versions which eliminate the old, they could have added all of these "innovative" features in one gadget and saved everyone in terms of time, money, resources, waste, etc. etc.).
@42and19:
It is very amusing that you speak out against the OCW and yet you fall in the massive hole yourself from which they are attempting to get everyone out of.
As the reactionaries would say, "Get a job". You seem to have experienced this simple, lovely, enjoyable, alluring, and satisfying activity of "getting a job", no? I need not say more.
@zSneakyPetez:
...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, OMFG, HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry, I just couldn't handle myself. "The wealthy are out working for their money", good one.
See the bourgeois-proletarian relationship, the Bill Gates-lumberjack/miner/worker comparison, etc. etc. Also see this post, I guarantee you that you will laugh at what you had just said in time: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/685917-whats-your-take-on-occupy-wall-st/page__st__80__p__8986656
Do us all a favor and study basic economics. Why in the holy name of **** would a bourgeois protest against the bourgeoisie (himself)!? HE is the one in control of the means of production, of the multi-national and multi-million dollar industries and chains all over the world. Are you here trying to even HINT that these people would actually have to protest for money? They are the ones in control of the economy, they are the ones that hold a monopoly over the means of production, they are the ones in control. It is in their best interest to lower the wages of the proletariat and increase their profits. Then not only that, but you continue on to say "protesting about money not being given to them". To that I request that you read up on the proletarian-bourgeois relationship, surplus value, exploitation of labor, how they live off of the back, labor, and produce of the workers, etc. etc.
I would have called you "stupid", but I would have got warned, I would have called you "ignorant", but that would have been to no avail, so instead I'll settle with this, because quite frankly, I do not have the stomach to explain again: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/jobv.jpg/
We do not live in the mythical Capitalist Utopia, get back to reality.
*facepalm*
This fails on so many levels, I do not think I should write anything to prove it wrong.
@inabottle:
See the whole post, and also this: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/685917-whats-your-take-on-occupy-wall-st/page__st__80__p__8986656
@Killer_bunny420:
I hope you realize that I was being ironic when I referred to you as a Communist.
@Travis:
Which is exactly why the protest will fail by achieving nothing (reforms are "achieving nothing" today). Do not get me wrong, there are countless Leftists, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, Anarchists, etc. who are protesting for a systematic change from Capitalism to another system entirely, but it is the main focus and reformist of the protest as a whole that makes it fail. The protest is not focused on changing Capitalism and its inherent flaws and profit-motive, but are attempting to "punch in the dark". They are striking at the branches, not knowing exactly "why" this is currently taking place, they cannot seem to place their finger on it that the problem here is not spawns of Capitalism, but Capitalism itself which has led to these spawns. This can be said mainly due to the lack of workers' consciousness, or even, a revolutionary alternative at that thanks to our old friend McCarthy, the Red Scare, the Cold War, and the media.
@Steks:
That "bunch of hippies with nothing better to do" is at least trying to do something after all other options have been used up and failed. What do I see YOU doing? **** all.
@RiverC:
That is true to an extent, and the very reason why I have no hope for the Occupation (as I had said previously) to put forward or lead to any revolutionary change. Here's what I had said: "I do not have much hope for the protests as a revolutionary change, this is the same as any other protest out of thousands in the recent years. The protestors most likely want some more petty reforms that do nothing but pacify the masses. Without a revolutionary movement, there cannot be a viable alternative to the current system, reformation can only do so much within the limitations and confines of Capitalism. This is the very reason why I support a revolutionary Vanguard: to turn the Reformist anger and wishes of the protesters from aims of reform to aims of achieving a full-fledged workers' system. The only option for a viable alternative here would be if the same case as that of Russia (February Revolution and its reformist advances replaced by a Communist revolution by the Bolsheviks) took place in the United States, but this time with a compatible and First-World country instead of a Third-World backwards feudal society that was struggling for its survival and on the brink of collapse. "
"Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement." - Vladimir Lenin
But, this is by no means a reason to shun and step on the protests, instead we should and must attempt to provide an alternative, a charter if you may, or even change the many flaws of the protest. Again, we must not attack the protest, but instead seek to "fix" it.
I think you misunderstood me. I was refuting his post with the very same logic you used. I'm an occupier as well friend, with the exact same views as you.
It depends on what is meant by "fix". To me, "fixing" the Occupation would mean turning it into a revolutionary Communist protest. How would this be done? A revolutionary Vanguard. I lost hope for leaderless Communist revolutions, a Vanguard is a necessity to turn the protests from reformist goals to revolutionary goals, as had taken place in Russia. See this excellent post on Vanguardism (you may need to register): http://www.revleft.c...blog.php?b=1744
Also, take a look at the threads here: http://www.revleft.c...f270/index.html
The flaws here would be its very nature, its goals, its lack of perception (Capitalism), its lack of an agenda, it being reformist, etc.