Occupy Discussion

[SirDennis]

VtF said:

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.

Like River, and based on personal experience (see earlier post referencing agent provocatuers), I am skeptical of violent elements at and before OWS. It is interesting to note the amount of play reports of violence have recieved in comparison to the overal action.

Regardless, I agree on the point about the general lack of appeal of joining the occupyers. Though officially homeless again, I have no desire to join them as long as clean accomodation remains on offer. It didn't make me popular but I actually addressed this very issue at a workshop for social justice advocates.

Of course depending on means, some people cannot help their lack of hygene or appearance, nor even the unsanitary conditions they live in. For those who have a choice, choosing to add to the mess that overcrowding and lack of sanitation produce, I wonder if it is seen as a way of trying to force authorities to take action? Or perhaps it is an act of submission to the kind of humiliation and suffering such conditions might also produce?

I think they are doing it this way because occupying buildings for shorter lengths of time often leads to immediate violent reprisal. That and occupying a lobby, suite of offices, or even an abandoned building is far less visible but percieved as far more threatening.

[Túrin Turambar]

I’m not convinced that political donations are an issue. No matter how much money the wealthy or the corporations put into political campaigns, at the end of the day people only get into office on a majority of actual votes. I’ve always felt it was something of a smokescreen to hide the fact that, in general, they pursue their agenda with the open and freely-given support of the majority of the middle classes. They vote consistently for lower taxes, for less regulation on banks for easier loans and credit, policies that lead to lower wages for the retail sector so stores stay open longer and the goods are cheaper, and for the security of their own Social Security and Medicare benefits regardless of the cost. They get the college education which the poorer half of the population generally does not, they are educated and engaged enough to make up the bulk of the actual voters, and politicians in the United States inevitably aim their campaigns at them and give them what they demand.

[Inanna]

They refuse to pass regulations that would well, regulate, the actions of the banks and their trades, they underfund the EPA, the cosmetic industry regulation in US is a joke....

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[vison]

People always talk about dirty people being a "health hazard". What kind of health hazard? Dirt, in and of itself, isn't "unhealthy".

If you're talking about lack of toilet facilities, that's a different matter. But smelly armpits or unwashed hair never killed anyone.

Still, it's another one of those things that the comfortable and well-off can sneer at.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't mean dirty in the sense of grimy faces, vison. I mean a complete lack of sanitation. And I am neither "well-off" nor am I "sneering" at anyone.

[vison]

. . . .

[SirDennis]

Neither apply to me presently either. In a bid to avoid losing my seasonal "home" I looked into hauling it to a piece of land, perhaps surrounding it with straw bales for insulation against the cold. The deciding factor against this plan was availability of water and sewer hook up, both of which are essential to make the place habitable.

Edit: cross posted with Vision. Hey Vision did you follow that link I posted on page one? It was about the occupy Vancouver deal and its meaning for the coming municiple elections there.

[SirDennis]

Actually on the point of elections, one thing I worry about is what this will mean for Obama. I hope our friends to the south keep him around for a second term.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think the Occupy movement may possibly help Obama, Dennis, particularly if Romney is the GOP nominee. Because Romney's history as an investment capitalist is prime target for the discontent that OWS is a symptom of.

[SirDennis]

I think the Occupy movement may possibly help Obama, Dennis, particularly if Romney is the GOP nominee. Because Romney's history as an investment capitalist is prime target for the discontent that OWS is a symptom of.

Ah very interesting...

From what we can see from here, apart from Romney (and even he is a long shot) no one among the current leadership candidates stands a chance against Obama, with or without OWS.

Still, if the Tea Party managed to swing a Republican Congress just when you needed it least, OWS clouds certainty about anyone's future.

This is one reason OWS needs a solid message: so no-one who is actually interested in tackling their concerns (such as Obama) becomes alienated or collateral damage along the way.

just my buck fifty

[Primula Baggins]

The more "solid" (i.e., focused—or, actually, narrow) OWS makes their message, the fewer people it speaks to.

Right now, huge numbers of people are finding common ground with OWS. What is going to make Obama and others interested in jumping in front of this parade is the size of the parade. Narrow it down to the point where the Congressional Progressive Caucus is able to back it 100%, and it will get exactly the backing from Obama that the Congressional Progressive Caucus gets, i.e., something like . . . zero.

I am not anti-Obama. He has political realities to deal with. What he needs to push him beyond that is a lot of people, a whole lot of people, who are pushing for something beyond simple partisan political campaign platforms.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sorry, Prim, but you are buying into the Daily Kos kool aid there. I would actually put the overlap between Obama and the progressive caucus at about 75-80%. But the focus inevitably is on the 20-25%. Which I think is very sad.

Meanwhile, check out this footage from Oakland. You talk about the size of the parade. This is it, right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4jYdCaH ... r_embedded

[SirDennis]

Sorry, Prim, but you are buying into the Daily Kos kool aid there. I would actually put the overlap between Obama and the progressive caucus at about 75-80%. But the focus inevitably is on the 20-25%. Which I think is very sad.

Meanwhile, check out this footage from Oakland. You talk about the size of the parade. This is it, right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4jYdCaH ... r_embedded

Interesting, the top comment on that video:

You are so out of touch with the general public its pathetic. No we couldn't just become successful with bussiness skills alone. We don't have millions of dollars handed to us to start a successful corporation. Your also missing the point of the whole movement. They aren't asking the rich to give them there money. They are trying to change the fact that corporations control government. by crk416

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I generally avoid looking at comments. They too often make me furious.

[River]

What Voronwë said. Comments make me despair for the entire human race. Especially on YouTube.

As for the demo... Awesome.

[Primula Baggins]

My main point, which I didn't spell out, was that more specific demands (especially if they are far-left specialty items, or "centrist" ones that look like the Democratic Party platform planks) would shrink the parade considerably and reduce the chance that it will influence events going forward.

And, I don't care for the anti-Obama "Kool-Aid" at Daily Kos or anywhere, any more than you do, and I wish you'd stop assuming that I do; I'm getting tired of rebutting it. I said right in the post that I am not anti-Obama and that I know he has political realities to deal with. This is why it will take a mass-level movement to make him listen to the people in the streets rather than the extremely cautious, "centrist" (really right-wing) advice he's hearing every day from his staff. Which means we need a big parade that large numbers of people feel comfortable joining because it is so diverse in message. Right now we have that. If the Occupy activists start letting the Democratic Party or any single large group dictate their agenda instead of the consensus meetings, people will fall away from the movement literally left and right. It won't last the winter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but it looked to me like you were saying that Obama supports the progressive caucus 0% of the time when you said " it will get exactly the backing from Obama that the Congressional Progressive Caucus gets, i.e., something like . . . zero." If that is not what you meant, I apologize (though I would be curious to know what you did mean by that, if that is the case). In any event, I agree with your general point.

[Primula Baggins]

Fair to call me on that one. But it sometimes feels like zero support on the issues I and many others care about, such as taking health care reform far enough to help people in big ways now as well as small ones in 2014, even if it ticks off the insurance companies; or financial regulation far enough that it might prevent another disaster like the one we're living through, even if it ticks off Wall Street; or ever holding powerful people who've committed criminal acts accountable.

He seems to be moving back toward his campaign platform now and has been keeping or indicating that he'll keep some important promises. If the conversation can continue to be influenced by people outside DC, my hopes for his reelection and for the future will strengthen.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

[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

I think there are a number of reasons for a high RPI, for example quantitive easing (currency devaluation). Ultra low interest rates are... problematic. They may favour some home owners, but affect pensions adversely. They are very much a poisoned chalice; an action of last resort to try and maintain a discredited fiscal system. But my major criticism at this juncture is not so much the RPI level, but how assurances made that tie the incomes of the poorest, those on 'benefits', to RPI are reneged upon. It is symptomatic of the "1%" who rule, and maintain their own greedy, vested interests. These are wonderfully wealth redistributive times... from the poor to the rich!

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?

I think there is some confusion here, but perhaps I can clarify. Yes, I do believe that an hour of a newspaper vendor's life is as worthy as an hour of a surgeon's life. I also believe that a surgeon would, most likely, gain greater satisfaction from being a surgeon than being a vendor. As such, she is already being rewarded. If the sole rationale for a surgeon being a surgeon was financial reward, I would be deeply disappointed. I think that the pursuit of 'riches', in effect being governed by Mammon, is the curse of our societies.

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.

And there would always be people willing to fill the gap of those who decide to stop working at that level. Job sharing as well as wealth sharing would be another win-win...

[SirDennis]

Fair to call me on that one. But it sometimes feels like zero support on the issues I and many others care about, such as taking health care reform far enough to help people in big ways now as well as small ones in 2014, even if it ticks off the insurance companies; or financial regulation far enough that it might prevent another disaster like the one we're living through, even if it ticks off Wall Street; or ever holding powerful people who've committed criminal acts accountable.

He seems to be moving back toward his campaign platform now and has been keeping or indicating that he'll keep some important promises. If the conversation can continue to be influenced by people outside DC, my hopes for his reelection and for the future will strengthen.

That's just it. I have difficulty seeing Obama as part of the problem. He is someone who, like us, is trapped within a system that is utterly corrupt. As President of the US and via that office's position among the nations, he could lead a movement of reform. I believe that is his intention. But trying to do it by consensus (not talking about elections here but governing between elections), given how corrupt many of the players are, is like making a deal with the Devil. That always ends badly.

Behind it all are the rules that keep top level banks (who loan money they do not actually have to other banks and governments), top level bankers (accountable to no one), and those who support them (not necessarily all who are counted among the wealthy but certainly many who are counted among the blind even though they can see). Those are the real culprits, along with the corrupt who feed off them. Obama should know by now that such sociopathic elements cannot be reasoned with.