• Happy Birthday: The Occupy Movement One Year Later
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37688984]It's still going on, dude.[/QUOTE] Yes, but to a lesser capacity.
The natural rate isn't set in stone however, it all depends on the state of the economy and ultimately the confidence and perceptibility of the general populace.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37688898] And sorry no, there are no systems which can even slightly emulate the productive activities of capitalism. [/QUOTE] Anarcho-Socialism/Communism has shown to be pretty productive where they have been tried. There is also Participatory Economics, which hasn't been tried in any society, to my knowledge. However, it shows promise as a viable economic system.
[QUOTE=person11;37688516]It shifted the focus somewhat from simply jobs and "The Economy" to Income Inequality and Corruption. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] A bunch of people at my school seem to think Socialism would be a good idea. I am sure most of the protesters were for a more regulated Capitalism. I hope.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Strider*;37689068]You cannot have full employment because of sticky wages, job turnover, and a variety of other ailments. Economists don't really dispute this whatsoever so I'm not sure why I'm being rated dumb. I use the figure of around 2 to 5 percent because it's the most argued for region of natural unemployment and observations from the past 100 years seem to correlate.[/QUOTE] in capitalism. you said all systems. i don't even know why im arguing with someone that believes capitalism is the most productive system in existence utopian or what
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37689091]Anarcho-Socialism/Communism has shown to be pretty productive where they have been tried.[/QUOTE] Productive at what, sustaining and developing the standard of living? Introducing new goods and services? Making what was previously deemed only a dream by the masses a easily purchasable commodity? These are benefits which seem only to arise in countries and places where there has been a mostly free system of trade.
1 year of unorganized protests in which jobless bums and hippies held signs with no merit of a message. Happy birthday occu-tards.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37689074]Yes, but to a lesser capacity.[/QUOTE] Somewhat, maybe. However, it's still a very large movement. The news doesn't cover on them as much, but they are still going very strong. And the premise isn't just its ideology as a normal political movement. The general assemblies get people participating in direct democracy for the first time. The protests connect radicals together in a political network. These people get to know each other and learn to organize, which strengthens the chances for an actual social revolution later. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;37689122]Productive at what, sustaining and developing the standard of living? Introducing new goods and services? Making what was previously deemed only a dream by the masses a easily purchasable commodity? These are benefits which seem only to arise in countries and places where there has been a mostly free system of trade.[/QUOTE] I don't know about introducing new goods and services, but socialist societies were pretty successful in Spain and Ukraine and in fact many people did very well.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37689109]in capitalism. you said all systems. i don't even know why im arguing with someone that believes capitalism is the most productive system in existence[/QUOTE] I said in all [i]productive[/i] systems. I shouldn't have even use the word system to begin with however. Capitalism is mostly just run by the simple protection and guidance of exchanges which would occur by the natural desire for people to exchange goods in the first place.
[QUOTE=Kymandu;37689123]1 year of unorganized protests in which jobless bums and hippies held signs with no merit of a message. Happy birthday occu-tards.[/QUOTE] You're so intelligent vilifying an entire movement from your computer. I encourage you to demonize a movement with both liberals and conservatives, white collar and blue collar, veterans and hippies more often. They're also pussies for putting themselves out there against authority you should say that too.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37689161]I said in all [I]productive[/I] systems. I shouldn't have even use the word system to begin with however. Capitalism is mostly just run by the simple protection and guidance of exchanges which would occur by the natural desire for people to exchange goods in the first place.[/QUOTE] the most productive system that could possibly exist is the one where the people are so knowledgeable, educated, and happy with their standard of well being that inequalities (such as difference in born wealth) are pointless and therefore do not exist. a good example of this would be a post-scarcity economy; by the means of automated production. capitalism cannot contain automated production in the masses, therefore it is far less productive.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37689161]I said in all [i]productive[/i] systems. I shouldn't have even use the word system to begin with however. Capitalism is mostly just run by the simple protection and guidance of exchanges which would occur by the natural desire for people to exchange goods in the first place.[/QUOTE] I would say Socialism is more natural. Capitalism is artificial hierarchy and authority derived from a small ruling class of "owners".
[QUOTE=Bobie;37689191]the most productive system that could possibly exist is the one where the people are so knowledgeable, educated, and happy with their standard of well being that inequalities (such as difference in born wealth) are pointless and therefore do not exist.[/QUOTE] That's not the definition of productivity, at that point productivity wouldn't matter. There will always be scarcity, that's the first principle of economics so I don't understand the point of hypothesizing about a post-scarcity economy. It doesn't matter if resources were entirely free, time will always be scarce and the differences in capabilities among people will always be distinct. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37689196]I would say Socialism is more natural. Capitalism is artificial hierarchy and authority derived from a small ruling class of "owners".[/QUOTE] Capitalism has nothing to do with an inherent hierarchy and authority. The upper class arises from those who gained access to capital and were willing to take risk. You cannot run an economy without a population of executives and business owners willing to coordinate the efforts of labor. Capitalism has increased the general standard of living more than socialism or any other system of production in history. You can argue that socialism has never been successfully implemented. But the fact remains that the general populace has more access to food and technology today directly because of the implementation of liberal reform.
[QUOTE=Strider*;37689236] The upper class arises from those who gained access to capital and were willing to take risk. You cannot run an economy without a population of executives and business owners willing to coordinate the efforts of labor. [/quote] So why have executives and business owners and not have the state? There is very little in the way of difference. Either way, you do NOT have to have business owners or executives. Why do you think normal people are too stupid to coordinate labor and distribution themselves? Why do you think that normal people are too stupid to organize on their own? Capitalism and Centrally-Planned Socialism both make the assumptions that humans, by default, are slobbering, incapable beasts worthy of no other task than menial labor. I find that preposterous. We are quite capable of organizing society without a dictator telling us what to do. [quote]Capitalism has increased the general standard of living more than socialism or any other system of production in history. You can argue that socialism has never been successfully implemented. But the fact remains that the general populace has more access to food and technology today directly because of the implementation of liberal reform.[/QUOTE] Is it Capitalism, or technology in general? Remember that people in the USSR got a boost in their standard of living as the nation began industrializing as well. Countries like the PRC ended up causing a lot of death by turning their back on technology. Technology itself causes a rise in standard of living.
So wait, the occupy movement is still going on?
[QUOTE=shian;37689967]So wait, the occupy movement is still going on?[/QUOTE] The people most likely responsible for the recession still holds their jobs, so take a wild guess.
[QUOTE=shian;37689967]So wait, the occupy movement is still going on?[/QUOTE] Somewhat.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37689389]Why do you think normal people are too stupid to coordinate labor and distribution themselves? Why do you think that normal people are too stupid to organize on their own?[/QUOTE] but ordinary people are stupid they buy lottery tickets for fuck's sake [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37689389]So why have executives and business owners and not have the state? There is very little in the way of difference.[/QUOTE] but there is a very big difference business owners risk their own money. the government risks the taxpayer's.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691675]but ordinary people are stupid they buy lottery tickets for fuck's sake [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] but there is a very big difference business owners risk their own money. the government risks the taxpayer's.[/QUOTE] or in the case of major banks, business owners risk the money of those who trust them
[QUOTE=Bobie;37691750]or in the case of major banks, business owners risk the money of those who trust them[/QUOTE] the threat of going bankrupt is meant to deter from this
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;37688321]I do have to admit, it was a good concept. However, [B]it only lasted so long[/B].[/QUOTE] you mean the short period in which the media would permit coverage of the event only lasted so long they're still there after a year, they're just being ignored
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37691872]you mean the short period in which the media would permit coverage of the event only lasted so long they're still there after a year, they're just being ignored[/QUOTE] then they've failed [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] the occupiers lost, they didn't try hard enough
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691675]but ordinary people are stupid they buy lottery tickets for fuck's sake[/quote] Then why not just institutionalize slavery again, then? Obviously people can't fend for themselves so they need a big brother to watch out for them. [quote]but there is a very big difference business owners risk their own money. the government risks the taxpayer's.[/QUOTE] A CEO's money or a Corporation's money is not their own to risk. It is the worker's money that has been forcefully taken for someone else to distribute. So both the government and the business owner are risking someone elses money. The difference is that a government is often accountable to the worker in some fashion, and is more likely to provide services.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37688484]Not accurate? Kind of hard with photos like these: [img]http://anticap.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dear-capitalism-occupy-wall-street-occupy-pittsburgh-gift-economy-usury-lewis-hyde-charles-eisenstein-sacred-economics.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/zucc-2.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Jp16k.jpg?1[/img] [img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zwicbMr3WD4/TqVi3LTOkWI/AAAAAAAAAgs/380S7SqJcvk/s1600/Anti%2BCapitalism%2BOccupy%2BWall%2BStreet.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] do you have any remote inkling of understanding for how many people there were at OWS protests around the world a handful of anti capitalist pictures doesn't change the fact that OWS base message wasn't anti-capitalist (not that it would be a bad thing) [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691894]then they've failed [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] the occupiers lost, they didn't try hard enough[/QUOTE] yeah they should have broken into the news studios and forced people to pay attention to them right
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691860]the threat of going bankrupt is meant to deter from this[/QUOTE] it didnt really tho
[QUOTE=CanadianBill;37689022]Glad to see the progress it made. ...wait[/QUOTE] haha yeah fuck those guys for trying to make their voices heard what a bunch of idiots lol!!
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691894]then they've failed [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] the occupiers lost, they didn't try hard enough[/QUOTE] It's sort of hard to keep corporate media coverage when a movement is fighting against those corporations. It's in the best interest for these corporations to cut the coverage and try and demonize the movement, since it helps them keep their power.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37691911]Then why not just institutionalize slavery again, then? Obviously people can't fend for themselves so they need a big brother to watch out for them.[/quote] show me a system where slavery actually benefits people on net over the alternative and I'll endorse slavery [quote]A CEO's money or a Corporation's money is not their own to risk. It is the worker's money that has been forcefully taken for someone else to distribute.[/quote] it wasn't taken by force. the worker voluntarily sold their labor, the transaction is complete, it is the business' money now [quote]So both the government and the business owner are risking someone elses money. The difference is that a government is often accountable to the worker in some fashion, and is more likely to provide services.[/QUOTE] ahahah the government is barely accountable to the people what are you smoking [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37691943]It's sort of hard to keep corporate media coverage when a movement is fighting against those corporations. It's in the best interest for these corporations to cut the coverage and try and demonize the movement, since it helps them keep their power.[/QUOTE] i'm not disputing that. they failed. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37691930]it didnt really tho[/QUOTE] yes because of the implicit assurance of a bailout.
capitalism isn't the problem, corruption is the problem. i don't get why they act like capitalism is some malevolent entity that's magically the root of every issue.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37691894]then they've failed [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] the occupiers lost, they didn't try hard enough[/QUOTE] 'They failed' is a pointless statement, because it implies that there was something the protesters could have reasonably done to succeed, when that wasn't really the case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.