Occupy Discussion

[Aravar]

What gets me is how these salaries and bonuses end up getting approved by shareholders. It's their company, it's their money, yet they vote to pay millions of it in one year to one person.

Mainly because the shares are held by large groups of institutional investors, so that the votes are bing made by people who are themselves on high packages and can then use the high remuneration elsewhere as justification for their own.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

For me, it is not so much the issue that those 'at the top' receive jaw-dropping remuneration, but the fact that those at the bottom are deemed deserving of such scant reward. The 1% have become a fiscal aristocracy, whilst the 99% are peons.

However, and it is a huge caveat, it would seem that the vast proportion of the 99% are complicit in their own exploitation. They don't unionise. They don't organise. Heck, so many of them actually appear to support this manifestly unjust status quo and I think a reason for this is that they delude themselves into believing they can join this 1%. Greed and selfish 'aspiration' wins out.

It seems.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For me, it is a huge puzzle that we have both developed -- and continue to utilize -- the completely bizarre concept of "money". Until that concept is completely and utterly abandoned, and resources are therefore allowed to be allocated in a manner that is sane, these kind of inequities will continue to be inevitable.

Unfortunately, I see no real path towards either making or allowing that to happen.

[River]

F Heck, so many of them actually appear to support this manifestly unjust status quo and I think a reason for this is that they delude themselves into believing they can join this 1%.

Occupy Wall Street is happening because that delusion is falling apart.

I have no idea where it's going to go.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

F Heck, so many of them actually appear to support this manifestly unjust status quo and I think a reason for this is that they delude themselves into believing they can join this 1%.

Occupy Wall Street is happening because that delusion is falling apart.

I have no idea where it's going to go.

Well, as an active member of UK Uncut, and our peaceful blockades of Vodafone starting in October 2010, I like to think we influenced OWS...

However, I remain aware that UK Uncut was, and remains, a tiny minority, and I am correspondingly unsure of the reach of OWS. I noticed the activity in Oakland, though, and it was really... interesting. What especially caught my attention was the presence of the 'Black bloc', notorious since Toronto in June 2010, when agents provocateur 'smashed and grabbed' under the guise of revolutionary protest, and provided TPTB with tacit justification for cracking skulls. Consequently, I remain suspicious about the actions in this manifestation.

So, River, I have to agree. I have no idea where this is going, but precedent tells me the Establishment wins...

[River]

TPTB in Oakland started cracking skulls last week.

In 1999, downtown supposedly got destroyed by violent demonstrations during the WTO meeting. My parents went downtown after the conference was all cleared out and found nothing near the destruction being bandied about by the news media. Since then, my natural inclination is to take any news about violence at these sorts of affairs with several large grains of salt.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Occupy movements. If I didn't have a job, I'd be joining them. I haven't been personally frakked over by this economy, partly due to luck and partly due to some good decisions (not that I always realized how good these decisions were when I made them...). But I'm angry all the same.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

TPTB in Oakland started cracking skulls last week.

In 1999, downtown supposedly got destroyed by violent demonstrations during the WTO meeting. My parents went downtown after the conference was all cleared out and found nothing near the destruction being bandied about by the news media. Since then, my natural inclination is to take any news about violence at these sorts of affairs with several large grains of salt.

I have a lot of sympathy for the Occupy movements. If I didn't have a job, I'd be joining them. I haven't been personally frakked over by this economy, partly due to luck and partly due to some good decisions (not that I always realized how good these decisions were when I made them...). But I'm angry all the same.

I think we should all be angry. Anger's good, if it has focus.

River, it wasn't so much the original Oakland protests, in which Scott Olsen was grievously wounded, that I was referring to, but yesterday's occupation and closure of the port. This was achieved through peaceful action, but later there was a movement by 'black bloc' activists that incorporated smashing windows and general 'vandalism'. It is this that i'm suspicious of. In Toronto, it transpired that those who instigated violence were, in fact, establishment agents provocateur enjoying police protection. This can be viewed here.
Now, before the brickbats, I take Alex Jones with a pinch of salt, but I have to grudgingly admit he does highlight questionable state activities.

So I totally agree with you, River, that reported violence is a political weapon. And it can also be the case that actual violence is also a political weapon, perpetrated by infiltrators to discredit those protesting.

This is going to be a long fight. And I think we'll lose. Again.

[yovargas]

It'll be a particularly long fight if the Occupiers don't state any clear goals of their occupations. Once I hear a "We'll occupy this place until X", then I might start paying attention. For now it just looks like a bunch of pointless, unfocused anger.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It'll be a particularly long fight if the Occupiers don't state any clear goals of their occupations. Once I hear a "We'll occupy this place until X", then I might start paying attention. For now it just looks like a bunch of pointless, unfocused anger.

It is a trap set by those with a vested interest in the status quo to force those who protest to make absolutist demands. What is required is a change of mindset. A broad church can never have conformity. Revolutions are not driven by absolutist demands, but by a general coalerscence of those aggrieved. These protestors would be idiotic if they succumbed to the demands of their enemies by attempting to formulate absolutisms. It is enough to stand up and say "This is wrong!"

Change isn't going to occur through incremental agreements formed around the negotiating table. The Unions have shown the futility of such a conciliatory approach. It is the anarchic nebulism of this new rationale that is its strength. We all know what we are against, even if we aren't experts in the intricacies of economic orthodoxy. It is economic orthodoxy that has brought us to this parlous state.

yovargas, you are welcome to your disdain. And I am more than happy with the amorphous nature of uncertainty. TPTB deal most effectively with an enemy they can easily quantify. They don't have that this time, and that is the strength of this movement. It is organic, and can shift at any time. Think of it as an influenza virus; unpredictable and dangerous. Just what is needed. I'll call it 'Cat Flu', and hopefully the Fat Cats will tremble...

[yovargas]

It is enough to stand up and say "This is wrong!"

Not if you don't explain what "This" is. Some ideas on how to fix those wrongs would be nice too. The whole "OMG Some people are crazy rich!!" anger is meaningless to me.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It is enough to stand up and say "This is wrong!"

Not if you don't explain what "This" is. Some ideas on how to fix those wrongs would be nice too. The whole "OMG Some people are crazy rich!!" anger is meaningless to me.

Oh, there is plenty of explanation about what is wrong on that simplistic level. The fact that the rich really are getting richer whilst the poor are suffering is a grand start. In times past, these profiteers would be lynched. A less drastic measure is preferable, but I have a soft spot for rope manufacturers...

The fact that today the link between benefits, that safety net for the most deprived, linked to the RPI for its raises, are under threat because RPI has hit 5%, is symptomatic of the cancer we're fighting. The poor get shafted, whilst the rich are being consistently rewarded... for being rich. This is what is opposed.

There is no need, nor justification, for such income disparity to exist today. I don't care who you are; an hour of X's life labouring is as important as an hour of Y's life labouring. For one to receive remuneration a hundred, a thousand times greater than the other is simply obscence. There is no rational justification for it.

So let's re-evaluate. If we need income disparity, let's make the divide acceptable to the vast majority. Have the highest earners receive only 10 times the lowest earners. I tell you what that would do. It would make those at the top ensure those at the bottom earned well!

Win-win, I reckon...

[Primula Baggins]

It'll be a particularly long fight if the Occupiers don't state any clear goals of their occupations. Once I hear a "We'll occupy this place until X", then I might start paying attention. For now it just looks like a bunch of pointless, unfocused anger.

It is a trap set by those with a vested interest in the status quo to force those who protest to make absolutist demands. What is required is a change of mindset. A broad church can never have conformity. Revolutions are not driven by absolutist demands, but by a general coalerscence of those aggrieved. These protestors would be idiotic if they succumbed to the demands of their enemies by attempting to formulate absolutisms. It is enough to stand up and say "This is wrong!"

Change isn't going to occur through incremental agreements formed around the negotiating table. The Unions have shown the futility of such a conciliatory approach. It is the anarchic nebulism of this new rationale that is its strength. We all know what we are against, even if we aren't experts in the intricacies of economic orthodoxy. It is economic orthodoxy that has brought us to this parlous state.

yovargas, you are welcome to your disdain. And I am more than happy with the amorphous nature of uncertainty. TPTB deal most effectively with an enemy they can easily quantify. They don't have that this time, and that is the strength of this movement. It is organic, and can shift at any time. Think of it as an influenza virus; unpredictable and dangerous. Just what is needed. I'll call it 'Cat Flu', and hopefully the Fat Cats will tremble...

What he said. They can't fight what they can't buy.

[vison]

For me, it is a huge puzzle that we have both developed -- and continue to utilize -- the completely bizarre concept of "money". Until that concept is completely and utterly abandoned, and resources are therefore allowed to be allocated in a manner that is sane, these kind of inequities will continue to be inevitable.

Unfortunately, I see no real path towards either making or allowing that to happen.

I find the concept of "no money" to be utterly bizarre. There has to be some medium of exchange. As for resources being allocated . . . . what resources, and by whom?

I see the problem as the corporatization of society. There is nothing wrong with "money" - but what has happened is that the "working class" has given away its right for decent wages in return for - what?

As long as people are unwilling or afraid to organize for their own benefit, nothing will change. After decades of union busting by corporations and governments (in the pockets of corporations) all over North America and, obviously, Great Britain, this is what we get.

That and the idea that anyone can be rich, if they just work hard enough. If you're not rich, it merely proves you're lazy and probably stupid, too.

[Primula Baggins]

My brother just emailed—he was down at Occupy Wall Street and said there's a rumor the police are coming in at 4 AM to clear out Zuccotti Park. He was at a long meeting about whether to clear everything out in advance to preserve it. Consensus was they aren't going to, at least not a lot of it. We'll see what happens in about three hours. :|

I hope it's a wet squib like that morning early on, when after many announcements the police never actually showed up (my brother was there then, too—hundreds and hundreds of people came down, which may be one reason the park owners changed their minds).

[Aravar]

[The fact that today the link between benefits, that safety net for the most deprived, linked to the RPI for its raises, are under threat because RPI has hit 5%, is symptomatic of the cancer we're fighting. The poor get shafted, whilst the rich are being consistently rewarded... for being rich. This is what is opposed.

I tihnk you'll find the high RPI is cuased by ultra-low interest rates which in turn are keeping people in their homes

There is no need, nor justification, for such income disparity to exist today. I don't care who you are; an hour of X's life labouring is as important as an hour of Y's life labouring.

Utter utter rubbish. I am a lawyer. When I was at University I stakced shelves in a supermarket and worked on the tills. One job is worth far more to the person paying than the other, for all sorts of reasons.

Do you really think that an hour of a surgeon's time is worth the same as an hour of someone handing out free newspapers?

So let's re-evaluate. If we need income disparity, let's make the divide acceptable to the vast majority. Have the highest earners receive only 10 times the lowest earners. I tell you what that would do. It would make those at the top ensure those at the bottom earned well!

Not necessarily 10 time minimum wage works out about 120k. Many people would stop working when they hit that level. after all, the knock on effect would be that asset prices fall.

[SirDennis]

There has been a deliberate attempt to characterize OWS as being about taking from the rich to give to the poor. Or making it about jealousy toward the rich on the part of the poor.

It is a subtle thing but the effect is to polarize people, even as GBG points out, among people who ought to be allies. Same goes for race, religion, political persuasion (man is the Red Scare making a come back just now), etc. What profit is there in complaining about the wealth others possess if you yourself desire the kind of freedom wealth can bring in a capitalist economy? Then there is the very real fear (as I have said before, and Yov echoes) of movements based on demonizing a specific group of people. Actually, the most powerful motivator used to stir hatred against Jews, [was and] is their perceived wealth and power as compared to everyone else.

There is either a lot of misunderstanding or dissemination of misinformation right now, especially among conservative Christians (at least that's from whence I hear it most often). The idea that social spending and social justice automatically equates to socialism just won't die. Thanks to various totalitarian regimes over the years calling themselves socialist when they were anything but (they were in fact state-capitalists), this is a powerful condemnation of those calling for change. Is it any wonder Reagan, the blankity blank that he was, is being heaped with praise of late?

What is really at issue is the way governments have for years been enacting policy that benefits those least in need of further benefit AT THE EXPENSE OF those most in need. OWS has identified getting money out of politics as one way to turn things around. That is to say, as a start, to limit political contributions to parties and candidates for office.

Under the current system we see those with the greatest means at their disposal already (ie corporations and wealthy individuals) making political contributions in exchange for favours. It is blatant of late, considered praise (and bonus) worthy even. This necessarily leads to something like this: wealthy CEOs, who would never work without a contract themselves, put pressure on governments to enact legislation limiting the rights of workers, even to the extent of removing a legally binding contract as the basis of employee employer relationships. Members of this board need look no further than The Hobbit production for an example of this. (And yes the people trying to secure some rights went about it the wrong way, but that is a separate issue and in no way diminishes the usefulness of this example here.)

If that example is too close to home, the story of Robert Nardelli, former CEO at Home Depot speaks to a point Holby made: after years of ineptitude resulting in declining stock prices, market share and job loss at the store level, Nardelli was forced out in 2007 -- but not without a $210 million US severance package. (imagine if all people who worked for a living had such ironclad agreements?) From Home Depot he landed at Chrysler where he worked for $1/year but recieved bonuses in the hundred millions. Why exactly was Chrysler in need of a bailout, a bailout that did nothing to improve the security and working conditions of most of its employees?

A main argument from the right cites statistics that while income for the top one percent has grown by over 300%, income for the bottom 20% has grown 18% over the same period. They go on to say that while income growth at the bottom isn't as much, it is still something. Their conclusion is jealousy is at the heart of the OWS.

The way I see it, income is not a good measure of quality of life, especially when accounting for the meteroic rise in the price of healthy food, fuel for transportation and heating, real estate, medical care and the cost of credit. Yes credit because it is the only thing that has kept the current economic model from total collapse. As for medical care, how much more does that impact low income compared to high income people? And how many doctors are tied up performing medical procedures based on vanity and high disposable income, rather than addressing the needs of the ill and elderly among the nation's poor?

Everyone pays the same for a loaf of good bread, fresh vegetables, and the other necessities of life. After obtaining such things, what you have or do not have left over, or the extent to which you are obliged to buy less healthy food to make ends meet is a measure of quality of life.

Then, as Prim points out, there is the way some economic activities that bring wealth to some, cause suffering for others (activity that results in contaminated ground water immediately comes to mind). Making a little more than you were before is cold comfort when you realize you still cannot afford to move to an area where the water isn't killing you.

A final (?) fault with the argument is the triple digit rise on one end with more modest gains on the other proves that policies do favour the wealthy more than the rest of us, and that very little, if any wealth has been trickling down.

But again, this is not about having Robin Hood rule the day. In fact limiting what OWS is after to that kind of scenario is to do them a disservice; some, even among the poor, still see Hood as a common criminal. What it IS about is letting some social democracy temper -- not overthrow -- capitalism. At least that is the common thread I'm getting from listening to people on the street.

Edit: to fix attribution error from Holby to Yov; to add attribution to Holby at another point; to clarify and expand the point about Nardelli.

[River]

It is enough to stand up and say "This is wrong!"

Not if you don't explain what "This" is. Some ideas on how to fix those wrongs would be nice too. The whole "OMG Some people are crazy rich!!" anger is meaningless to me.

It is and it isn't. The anger isn't rational, but it's a very common and natural response to a select group that is either unaffected or thriving under conditions when most everyone else is suffering. It's a powerful thing and it needs to be addressed.

I've probably said it before but I'll reiterate: the Occupy movements are a natural consequence of these times. It's like a headache and stuffed nose after bacteria have overgrown in your sinuses - it's a symptom and it came from somewhere (please do not take this analogy as a trivilization of the movements because it's not - I just recently fought off a sinus infection so it was what sprang to mind). A widening income gap is not sustainable. It never has been. It culminates in revolutions.

Also, I'm not convinced OWS and its children are as disorganized as everyone wants you to think they are. They've lasted too long.

[yovargas]

Good post, SD. Despite my usual libertarian leanings, I don't see much there to disagree with.

[Frelga]

What Sir Dennis said, times million.

"They hate the rich" is a red herring. What provoked the movement is the realization that the democratic process broke down, and the 1% took control of the government. The goal is not to take money from the rich, but to take money out of the politics. This cannot be accomplished from inside the current system.

And of course there is a lot of Brownian motion around that. The movement is truly grassroots and largely urban, so it attracts diverse participation and a share of nutjobs.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Members of this board need look no further than The Hobbit production for an example of this. (And yes the people trying to secure some rights went about it the wrong way, but that is a separate issue and in no way diminishes the usefulness of this example here.)

Actually I think it enhances the usefulness of the example here. Because I think that a strong argument can be made that the members of the OWS movement (or at least a significant portion of the members) are also going about trying to secure rights in the wrong way. The obvious example are the masked vandals in Oakland that Ghân references (and who were active long before the general strike protest, Ghân, and who's actions along with those of the police and other TPTB directly led to Scott Olsen's injury). But I need look no further than the Occupy Santa Cruz encampment. No, they are not violent (thank Eru!), but they are dirty, a health hazard and generally off-putting to many of the people that would and should be there allies. As long as that is the case, the movement is not going to go anywhere in the long run.