Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

I understand the principle, it just seems like an odd response to the post. Rather than address any merits from the video, you posted a link that says just under nine percent of Frank's last campaign was funded by investment companies. That adds some context for your dislike of Frank, but nothing to the content of the video and how the debate played out.

(I should note I can't get the linked video to play, so I don't have the full context. I'll try to fix that later today.)

Exactly. Its a sidestep. I was referring to how delusional and misguided the Occupy Wallstreet movement is (or was).

I'm assuming zero shift is referring to Barney's criticism of grassroots political organizing. Barney is absolutely wrong about it, and it's one of my pet peeves about him. He either doesn't care about, or doesn't understand, the mechanisms by which political change occurs. People do not magically show up at polls informed. They have to be politically engaged first, and that requires organizing, creating a sense of solidarity, and all those marches and other activities that Frank hates. Such activity not only creates voters directly, it also changes media narratives and creates frames which influence the way even the politically apathetic vote. The perception of an outraged public created by organized political activity outside the electoral system also puts direct pressure on lawmakers (this is its most effective mechanism for change--creating a perception of a unified public, even if the reality is a vocal minority; the tea party, although not strictly grassroots, accomplished this, and that's why everybody started talking about the deficit).

Frank's attempt to distinguish the civil rights movement on the ground that blacks could not vote is totally specious. Frank himself has previously admitted the efficacy of such activities when he said that had the energy generated by OWS occurred earlier, Dodd-Frank would have been stronger.

That isn't what Barney said. He said that while protesting is important and all there is much more to changing the system then holding a sign outside of a building. You need to sponsor candidates, bring on demands, strong recruit people to your movement/party, try to get the disfranchised more involved in the political process, get further into community organizing programs, etc. I'm sure there are better ways to play out a grassroots movement then some of these things but the general point is that anything is really better then just protesting. While important protesting is only a piece (albeit large) to a bigger mechanism.

 

[empty vessel]

Exactly. Its a sidestep. I was referring to how delusional and misguided the Occupy Wallstreet movement is (or was).

What was delusional and misguided?

That isn't what Barney said. He said that while protesting is important and all there is much more to changing the system then holding a sign outside of a building. You need to sponsor candidates, bring on demands, strong recruit people to your movement/party, try to get the disfranchised more involved in the political process, get further into community organizing programs, etc.

OWS was doing all of that except for sponsoring candidates, which is unnecessary. Political movements don't sponsor candidates, they make demands.

I'm sure there are better ways to play out a grassroots movement then some of these things but the general point is that anything is really better then just protesting. While important protesting is only a piece (albeit large) to a bigger mechanism.

Of course protesting is only a piece. Protest is the culmination of political organizing. It is the physical embodiment of political threat. It is what changes narratives. It is what scares representatives. But to be effective, organizing and outreach must precede it to generate numbers. You have never seen effective protests in your lifetime because there have been no effective political movements in your lifetime. (I do consider OWS to be successful, but obviously not in creating policy change but for other reasons.) But an effective political movement will indeed have protests. It will not lobby representatives directly (although it will undoubtedly generate direct lobbying). Nor will it run political candidates for office (although it will inspire people to run on platforms consistent with its principles, including people from the traditional parties).

Popular political movements happen outside of electoral politics. Electoral politics respond to popular political movements, i.e., to the demands publicly made by them.

 

[zero shift]

What was delusional and misguided?

The fact that one should not work in the system at all to gain influence. Frank brought up the point that if you really want the movement to take off, there is a huge untapped amount of disgruntled left leaning voters out there to get motivated.

OWS was doing all of that except for sponsoring candidates, which is unnecessary. Political movements don't sponsor candidates, they make demands.

The problem is that they didn't take any of these things far enough. As for making demands, I disagree with that. During the whole movement there was constant arguing over what should and should not be demanded. The only thing people settled on was "the good thing about this movement is that it brings a variety of people together, we don't need specific demands."

You have never seen effective protests in your lifetime because there have been no effective political movements in your lifetime.

I agree that I haven't possibly it sparked something, but its taking a while to get there. And I feel that OWS could have done more to speed it up.

 

[Wilsongt]

Going through airport security tomorrow is going to be such a pain in my ass.

 

[sc0la]

This. All employers should consider ACA to be a godsend. It helps you lock up your employment and entrench social immobility.

Healthcare should be 100% outside of any sort of employment, people should not be made to fear that some calamitous health concern may arise while they are already trying to make decisions to better their station by seeking a different career path, starting up a new venture, becoming self-employed, going to improve their education (cultural capital), etc.

It's terrorism, making hostages out of your employees, and held together by social programming akin to Stockholm Syndrome.

yep. I see people keep jobs they hate because of health care (ironically severly affecting mental health in the process). Since employers are the defacto gatekeepers to affordable plans (individual market prices too high or pre existing conditions) employer sponsored health care is a huge bargaining chip for capital against labor.

I have said it before but I am exploring the possibility of quitting my job and starting a small business because of the exchanges. My pre existing condition (asthma) made this essentially an impossibility before.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I have said it before but I am exploring the possibility of quitting my job and starting a small business because of the exchanges. My pre existing condition (asthma) made this essentially an impossibility before.

I have a feeling this is gonna happen a lot more and gonna be a big source of positive news about Obamacare.

 

[Black Mamba]

Holy shit. Watched Real Time, and the Overtime part was great. Barney Frank killed this Occupy WallStreet girl. Specifically with the last question. The entire episode is pretty much an example of why that movement failed. The girl was so annoying.

Hey, Larry Miller was on that. I knew him personally once upon a time. Great guy and super hilarious. He put on some extra weight though.

 

[Aaron Strife]

O'Malley more or less confirmed he's running in 2016:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signaled that he is moving closer to mounting a 2016 presidential campaign this weekend at the summer meeting of the National Governors Association in Milwaukee, Wis.

Speaking to reporters Saturday — 1192 days before Election Day — while sipping a beer in the wood-paneled lobby of the Hilton hotel, the Democrat seemed excited by the possibility, speaking candidly about his ongoing preparations. ”It’s going well,” he said, adding that he’s given a number of significant addresses over the past several months at universities and think tanks. “By the end of this year I think we’re on course to have a body of work that lays the framework for a candidacy in 2016.”



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/0...loser-to-2016-presidential-run/#ixzz2axJxMXIt

Would gladly support him, though he's said he'll defer if Hillary runs, which is fine.

 

[RDreamer]

O'Malley more or less confirmed he's running in 2016:



Would gladly support him, though he's said he'll defer if Hillary runs, which is fine.

I liked what I've seen of that guy, though I feel like he's more of a vice presidential candidate for some reason.

 

[Dominican Power]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R_oa_VEnNlA

Excellent.

 

[Frank the Great]

O'Malley more or less confirmed he's running in 2016:



Would gladly support him, though he's said he'll defer if Hillary runs, which is fine.

Everyone's Presidential ambitions will be deferred if Hillary runs, whether willingly or not.

O'Malley seems like he'd be a good VP candidate though.

 

[B-Dubs]

Everyone's Presidential ambitions will be deferred if Hillary runs, whether willingly or not.

O'Malley seems like he'd be a good VP candidate though.

Yep. If she runs it's pretty much over. Even the big GOP challengers won't be able to do their thing. Christie would look like a bully, Cruz would look like a dolt, and Rand Paul would look like an asshat. Not that these things aren't already true.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I liked what I've seen of that guy, though I feel like he's more of a vice presidential candidate for some reason.

He gave a pretty underwhelming speech at the DNC last year. His resume is impressive though, but I doubt he has the skill to win the nomination (if Hillary doesn't run). If she does run he'd be a solid VP choice.

I still think Mark Warner has VP locked up, if Hillary gets the nomination.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

O'Malley more or less confirmed he's running in 2016:



Would gladly support him, though he's said he'll defer if Hillary runs, which is fine.

He should run. Creates a better field for 2020 or 2024.

He's got a great resume but I fear it might be too liberal for 2016.

 

[zero shift]

Whatever happened to that Castro guy?

 

[B-Dubs]

Whatever happened to that Castro guy?

He's still only a Mayor isn't he? Dude needs to win a seat in congress or the Governorship first.

 

[Diablos]

https://twitter.com/stellacreasy

Why can't US Congress have people this awesome

god dammit

 

[Jooney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R_oa_VEnNlA

Excellent.

This is great. But don't read the comments (urgh).

 

[sc0la]

Bootstraps, had a kid when I was 17, working since 13. All in the bootstraps.

I will continue to have my company pay for my health insurance and drop from covering 50% of the cost for my 20 employees and drop it to 35%. Since the rate increase was for all my employees as I am on the same plan as them.

I want to come back to this. I assumed it was fake before, but if it is not I want to get you to confirm this. Because of a 10% increase in monthly premiums by your insurance company you intend to reduce your monthly costs of providing some health benefits to your employes by 20%, while increasing the amount your employees pay (each and collectively) by 43% of the previous amount. Is this indeed what you implied?

I used a cost unit for each employee and yourself since you said everyone is on the same plan. I used 400 total cost per employee per month in the final example, but it could be anything. Let me know what your true actual cost, per person of insurance is and I would be happy to plug it in.

I suggested you were an asshole previously, that may have been premature, so I want to give you a chance to clarify. Is this what you are planning on doing?

 

[Black Mamba]

Technically, he reduced his contributions to the employees by 23% but to the total healthcare bill (including himself) by 20%.

Small distinction, but he's screwing the employees by slightly more.

An increase of 10% is leading to a decrease of 23% to his contributions to them. THANKS OBAMA!

 

[sc0la]

True. Good point. He reduced the amount he pays towards employee plans by 23 percent he only decreases his total costs by 20 percent because the premium increase on his plan was fully absorbed on that side of the ledger.

It's semantic, but I would also argue that it is his employees that are providing him healthcare, rather than the opposite.

I wonder if his employees know he is cutting their pay in this manner? I also wonder if he is blaming Obamacare rather than himself.

 

[Oblivion]

lol, got banned from Redstate.com after one post on that dude who didn't have health insurance. Ah, well.

 

[Mike M]

lol, got banned from Redstate.com after one post on that dude who didn't have health insurance. Ah, well.

Hope it was at least a good one

 

[Oblivion]

Hope it was at least a good one

Well, I wasn't nearly as impolite as I could have been.

 

[sc0la]

Well, I wasn't nearly as impolite as I could have been.

You didn't call anybody douche-nachos? I've been meaning to try that one out.

 

[ivysaur12]

He should run. Creates a better field for 2020 or 2024.

He's got a great resume but I fear it might be too liberal for 2016.

He also has zero charisma, but yeah, he should run to help build the bench. He'll lose to Hillary, though.

 

[Angry Fork]

The fact that one should not work in the system at all to gain influence. Frank brought up the point that if you really want the movement to take off, there is a huge untapped amount of disgruntled left leaning voters out there to get motivated.

Same people who say this shit also say 3rd parties are hopeless so vote democrat. And then they say anyone like Bernie Sanders or further left who runs for democrat is unelectable. Then you get Obama and you wonder why the left is disgruntled? This isn't coincidental, this is the result of lesser of two evils methodology run amock.

The left is gone because liberals continue to move further right in order to win elections rather than putting their foot down and demanding more of their home team. What do you want? Do you want everyone to compromise everything they believe in to vote for Obama and support dems (do you really believe this is working for the left?) or do you want people to go on the streets for real, different ideas? Or maybe Occupy can put their own candidates, 3rd party etc. but then I'm sure you'll be here saying that's hopeless they're stupid and childish don't they know how the world works bla bla. Voting will not do shit (or at least not what you think it will do) as long as the corporate dictatorship exists. It all must be brought to it's knees through mass protests like in the arab spring, turkey and brazil (now the method by which this ''mass'' is generated is something the left needs to deeply think about, but it sure as shit isn't going to be generated by electing authoritarian free marketers.)

The problem is that they didn't take any of these things far enough. As for making demands, I disagree with that. During the whole movement there was constant arguing over what should and should not be demanded. The only thing people settled on was "the good thing about this movement is that it brings a variety of people together, we don't need specific demands."
.

You seem to not care about the fact that it was the first major anti-capitalist protest since Seattle WTO, and before that I don't even know, the 70s maybe? And Seattle was just one place, this spread throughout the globe.

Every time people hurl this charge at Occupy that it was either full of people who didn't know enough, didn't have demands, and so on, I wonder, what the hell do you expect? In a country where capitalist, consumerist ideology is the only thing people know for DECADES, where money is god, this is the first time in a generation people are starting to feel like they might want something different.

How are they supposed to even know what else they could want if they're never taught about alternatives in school? Where everyone is de-politicized and accepts everything the way it is? Occupy's purpose was to politicize people and it worked, it is the beginning. Only cheap fair weather activists (or those who perceive Occupy as a threat and want to shit on it) will look back with hindsight and act like it should have been a perfect revolutionary movement. Sure we want it to be that but if it isn't we still must support it and look to make it better, build on it, rather than condemn and laugh at those who tried.

 

[el retorno]

You seem to not care about the fact that it was the first major anti-capitalist protest since Seattle WTO, and before that I don't even know, the 70s maybe? And Seattle was just one place, this spread throughout the globe.

Every time people hurl this charge at Occupy that it was either full of people who didn't know enough, didn't have demands, and so on, I wonder, what the hell do you expect? In a country where capitalist, consumerist ideology is the only thing people know for DECADES, where money is god, this is the first time in a generation people are starting to feel like they might want something different.

OWS wasn't "anti-capitalist" and if it was it would go nowhere

Look at this

You see the big bump for socialism with democrats because of their support for regulation, single payer and the government and because the republicans mark everything as socialist which boosts support from partisan. no one wants to get rid of coorporations, the profit motive, etc.. There is no real market for running on "socialism" of the kind you and EV like. Its not happening in the US.

 

[zero shift]

Pretty much. The only place in the world that is having a legitimate socialist movement is Venezuela which is being met with incredibly mixed results (which is starting to trend toward the negative now). Only in South America in places like Brazil, Argentina,Bolivia, and Ecuador will you likely find a fair share of the population who will aline toward far left thought.

 

[empty vessel]

There is no real market for running on "socialism" of the kind you and EV like. Its not happening in the US.

It has happened in the US (assuming the scare quotes simply mean a government that does not single-mindedly place the interests of business ahead of people). More than once. The point of organizing and doing work outside the electoral system is to make it happen again (which it absolutely can without doubt). And in the process drag the parties back left.

 

[Angry Fork]

OWS wasn't "anti-capitalist" and if it was it would go nowhere

Look at this


You see the big bump for socialism with democrats because of their support for regulation, single payer and the government and because the republicans mark everything as socialist which boosts support from partisan. no one wants to get rid of coorporations, the profit motive, etc.. There is no real market for running on "socialism" of the kind you and EV like. Its not happening in the US.

I don't know what you think it means if a majority of people think x is good/bad. That has little bearing on what's the actual truth and what isn't. I just said people have had no clue of alternatives to capitalism in generations, which is true. You know the defamation republicans do on public healthcare, unions, etc. This same defamation is used against socialism by capitalists.

As for Occupy not being an anti-capitalist movement, that's just silly. The entire format of 99% vs. 1% is drawn on proletarian/bourgeoisie lines. Check the official twitter accounts and there are anti-capitalist tweets every day. The entire point of the enterprise to start with was a society based on participatory democracy on people's needs rather than private profit. That's why the people's kitchen was created, the people's library, collective decision making, etc.

Do you think Zucotti Park was an attempt to tell banks to be nicer? It was the occupation of a public space (supposedly public, at least until it became too public and then had to be taken away) for the common benefit, with inclusion in the decision making made to everyone, one person one vote rather than representative. That's why it posed a threat to the establishment. Any focus on short term goals like regulation or wage increases is just common sense progressivism and a way to include anyone who may not know what socialism is but does feel that the rich are exploiting them. But that was never the end-game for the Occupy movement.

Incidentally those short term goals are the reasons liberals should support Occupy and go beyond the 2 party system, but instead they choose to laugh at it. "LOL THEY WANT WAGE INCREASES HOW FUNNY. Listen Hilary is gonna do that just vote for her don't bother mass protesting it isn't gonna work waste of time... it's gonna hurt democrat chances if we disagree with them man this is how politics works ignore brazil ignore turkey, LOL 15$ an hour are you crazy I don't even make that much fuck those low wage workers they're so entitled hehe."

 

[zero shift]

^^^The thing about Occupy Wallstreet was that it was asking for the country to roll back to a time when profits weren't all concentrated to so few. The average person there would probably allign toward a return of the 70s or 60s, not to spread the Bolivian Revolution to America.

It has happened in the US (assuming the scare quotes simply mean a government that does not single-mindedly place the interests of business ahead of people). More than once. The point of organizing and doing work outside the electoral system is to make it happen again (which it absolutely can without doubt). And in the process drag the parties back left.

I think he refers socialism as in the anti-capitalist economic form. As the one you would have found in Yugoslavia, Anarchist Catalonia, or Maduro's dreams. People>Businesses isn't necessarily a Socialist only thing as Social Democracy (though not really socialism despite the name) fits that bill.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

The answer is of course the abolition of private property.

peace

 

[Angry Fork]

^^^The thing about Occupy Wallstreet was that it was asking for the country to roll back to a time when profits weren't all concentrated to so few. The average person there would probably allign toward a return of the 70s or 60s, not to spread the Bolivian Revolution to America.

My point was most people in the US don't know what the bolivarian revolution is flat out. They think socialism is Stalinism, so it's ridiculous to then say well most people don't want that therefore socialism is impossible. Well duh, I don't want stalinism. If the only thing people know about socialism is stalinism then of course they wouldn't want it. And now the conversation on the surveillance state is being shifted towards "this is the only outcome possible" just as Thatcher claimed there is no alternative to capitalism. It's state propaganda.

The Occupy movement was a step to change the entire conversation on what the current capitalism is, and what the alternatives could be. Yes many on the left and within the protests are drawn to social democratic lines, the nordic model etc. But to ignore the libertarian socialist, even marxist strains within Occupy's ideology is revisionism and an attempt to say it was just some kind of alter-democratic party scheme to wag their finger at Obama or something.

 

[T'Zariah]

*Yawn* Angry Fork shouting ideological nonsense, instead of living in the real world.

 

[zero shift]

My point was most people in the US don't know what the bolivarian revolution is flat out. They think socialism is Stalinism, so it's ridiculous to then say well most people don't want that therefore socialism is impossible. Well duh, I don't want stalinism. If the only thing people know about socialism is stalinism then of course they wouldn't want it. And now the conversation on the surveillance state is being shifted towards "this is the only outcome possible" just as Thatcher claimed there is no alternative to capitalism. It's state propaganda.

The Occupy movement was a step to change the entire conversation on what the current capitalism is, and what the alternatives could be. Yes many on the left and within the protests are drawn to social democratic lines, the nordic model etc. But to ignore the libertarian socialist, even marxist strains within Occupy's ideology is revisionism and an attempt to say it was just some kind of alter-democratic party scheme to wag their finger at Obama or something.

The problem with switching to a far left economic system is that:

#1 Good luck convincing people to give black and brown people money.

#2 There has never been a long term successful alternative to Capitalism. And the one's that got closest were totalitarian hell holes. When Yugoslavia is the best example you have you know there are some problems. I'm not saying that there are no alternatives to Capitalism and that Socialist economic theories are impossible, it took democracy centuries to get off the ground, but where we currently are isn't bad enough to convince people to take another plunge in far left theory. Give it a few decades when globalism fails.

 

[KtSlime]

*Yawn* Angry Fork shouting ideological nonsense, instead of living in the real world.

Ignoring legitimate concerns is the surest way to cause strife and instill hostility for those in the position of maintaining the status quo. It is perfectly normal for people to introduce heterodoxy into the habitus of politics, without it no progress can ever be made.

 

[T'Zariah]

Ignoring legitimate concerns is the surest way to cause strife and instill hostility for those in the position of maintaining the status quo. It is perfectly normal for people to introduce heterodoxy into the habitus of politics, without it no progress can ever be made.

No one ever said that it couldn't.

The problem is that he doesn't want to take baby steps, he wants giant frog leaps, which almost never happens.

The reality is, you have to ease people into progress. It's been that way since the dawn of human history with virtually every single issue ever conceived, and all of a sudden in the year 2013 we're just gonna jump head first without planning accordingly, going against how things have been done since the dawn of human civilization?

 

[KtSlime]

No one ever said that it couldn't.

The problem is that he doesn't want to take baby steps, he wants giant frog leaps, which almost never happens.

The reality is, you have to ease people into progress. It's been that way since the dawn of human history with virtually every single issue ever conceived, and all of a sudden in the year 2013 we're just gonna jump head first without planning accordingly, going against how things have been done since the dawn of human civilization?

I think that is an unfair characterization of past movements. Usually what happens is a form of compromise played out through mutual violence. Big steps are made, then there is a backslide once order is regained, some of the heterodox thoughts get incorporated into the orthodox through means of force, the 'demos' if you will, those who participate on the proletariat team. These concessions are made so that the aristocracy can keep control of the doxa and maintain the stability of the field they are on.

It really is a form of negotiation, so you have to start out with a position that is most favorable to you to make any ground. When you start out with a small movement you are inevitably pulled back closer to the orthodox thoughts than you were aiming for. This is most obviously seen in politics in how Obama plays the game, the people maintaining the status quo always get what they want, usually the changes that are implemented are very minimal, often simply a renaming or reframing of the issue rather than a path to alleviate it.

 

[pigeon]

I think that is an unfair characterization of past movements. Usually what happens is a form of compromise played out through mutual violence. Big steps are made, then there is a backslide once order is regained, some of the heterodox thoughts get incorporated into the orthodox through means of force, the 'demos' if you will, those who participate on the proletariat team. These concessions are made so that the aristocracy can keep control of the doxa and maintain the stability of the field they are on.

It really is a form of negotiation, so you have to start out with a position that is most favorable to you to make any ground. When you start out with a small movement you are inevitably pulled back closer to the orthodox thoughts than you were aiming for. This is most obviously seen in politics in how Obama plays the game, the people maintaining the status quo always get what they want, usually the changes that are implemented are very minimal, often simply a renaming or reframing of the issue rather than a path to alleviate it.

As always, I think this is a somewhat unreasonable analysis of Obama's accomplishments in office. He has, in fact, succeeded, through Obamacare, in creating a new social safety net for America, while reframing the American political debate in a way that is designed to build solidarity among historically alienated groups on the left, while fracturing the right and leaving the Randian masters of the GOP with little ability to accomplish their goals. To me this seems pretty good! And, yes, he did it conservatively, and OWS played a major role from my perspective, but it got done, and we're that much closer to a functionally socialist support structure.

It's easy to view politics in terms of what's happening this month or this year, but Reagan, for example, was a landmark conservative president not merely because of the bills he passed while in office, but because of the enduring change in the political conversation in America. I think that's more valuable in the long term, even if it's less obvious in the short term.

 

[KtSlime]

As always, I think this is a somewhat unreasonable analysis of Obama's accomplishments in office. He has, in fact, succeeded, through Obamacare, in creating a new social safety net for America, while reframing the American political debate in a way that is designed to build solidarity among historically alienated groups on the left, while fracturing the right and leaving the Randian masters of the GOP with little ability to accomplish their goals. To me this seems pretty good! And, yes, he did it conservatively, and OWS played a major role from my perspective, but it got done, and we're that much closer to a functionally socialist support structure.

It's easy to view politics in terms of what's happening this month or this year, but Reagan, for example, was a landmark conservative president not merely because of the bills he passed while in office, but because of the enduring change in the political conversation in America. I think that's more valuable in the long term, even if it's less obvious in the short term.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is better than what we could be facing, and I am glad that in some ways the net has been expanded (however, I was part of the edge of the group who does not benefit). However what I am saying, is even though his message to get elected was that he was going to change the status quo, he did not, or rather he started from such a point that not much change was won.

Any change for the benefit of the proles (as I am one) is good, but I think he should have worked from further in the left - especially when it comes to students and environment. I think it would also be safe to say that this is the most power given to corporations in quite a long time (aggregate, obviously Reagan did the most to unchain them), and even when it benefits the proles, he made sure it was in a very favorable way for corporations and his class. Make no mistake, I view them (corporations) as vermin that must be kept in check. Power given to the corporations was done to strengthen Obama's position - and that was the most rational option he had. I'm just acknowledging that it was for his own self interests the decisions he has made. To ignore that would be outside of my best interest (I have no idea what end of the social and financial capital spectrum you are on, so it may or may not be in your best interest).

I was just framing the situation from the habitus of sociology, Bourdeiuese so to speak.

BTW: I don't think it much matters that the Right is fractured, the Right is just a facade over the class, and they get their will done for the most part by both parties. If you can get your opposition to set up rules/doxa in your favor, all the better. I do it (or try to) via voting, they often do it via misinformation and capital.

 

[Angry Fork]

*Yawn* Angry Fork shouting ideological nonsense, instead of living in the real world.

This doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying any form of change isn't possible. Either it's all possible or it isn't. 1917 was real, Catalonia was real. The shift to the far right proves the far left is just as possible, albeit harder to accomplish.

No one ever said that it couldn't.

The problem is that he doesn't want to take baby steps, he wants giant frog leaps, which almost never happens.

The reality is, you have to ease people into progress. It's been that way since the dawn of human history with virtually every single issue ever conceived, and all of a sudden in the year 2013 we're just gonna jump head first without planning accordingly, going against how things have been done since the dawn of human civilization?

I've never claimed such a forward shift is possible at this moment, of course it isn't, just that if there is an organization or people that want that shift to occur, we should support them rather than constantly look for excuses to dismiss it just because it's not pro-Obama.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Major left wing change is not possible right now, and because of that fact any groups that try to advance left wing causes should be dismissed.

You just gotta live in ~the real world~, maaaan

 

[Giant Panda]

Occupy Wall Street didn't even try to organize until the movement was falling apart, which is why I think it ultimately failed to leave much of a lasting impression. Real change won't come though until voters put enough pressure on the Democrats and Republicans to rewrite the electoral system completely and end their duopoly. That or wholesale revolution that replaces the political system.

While I am a supporter of capitalism the limit of true choice in politics affects many of the other issues that I care about.

 

[KtSlime]

Major left wing change is not possible riight now, and because of that fact any groups that try to advance left wing causes should be dismissed.

You just gotta live in ~the real world~, maaaan

This. (If I think I am interpreting your message correctly) You know, it's just because.

Giant Panda: Did OWS fail because of lack of organization, or because it was dismantled by the class in power via disinformation and threats to what may happen if the movement was permitted to reach critical mass. It will happen one day, once the class in power takes too much, and more people feel the pressure, people will stop acting against their own class' longterm interests. Unfortunately, we may not (most likely won't) have the symbolic capital to make it work without having someone from the opposing class commit class treason.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

OWS undoubtedly failed due to lack of organization (or purpose, if you prefer). it had quite a lot of general good will and positive press for a while, which only started to seriously falter after a couple of months. The couple of things that they could agree to focus on-- weath disparity and student debt-- became a part of the national conversation in a way that they had not been present before. To that end, they were a success, although those foci are sliding out of view lately.

I'd say the revived Minimum Wage discussion is a direct result of OWS.

Had they had a more coherent leadership and message they'd have done even more.

 

[B-Dubs]

I have to agree with the OWS arguments being made. I was a rather large supporter even early on, but it could have done so much more if they had been better organized. They should have just focused on one thing and kicked the Ron Paul Gold Bugs out when they showed up.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Protesting is an overrated way of making "change" happen, especially if the organization is opposed to organizing such as Occupy.

The whole romantic ideal of getting out in the streets as an end goal of 'disruption' or attention is just antiquated and inefficient.

 

[B-Dubs]

Protesting is an overrated way of making "change" happen, especially if the organization is opposed to organizing such as Occupy.

The whole romantic ideal of getting out in the streets is just antiquated.

I wouldn't say that, but organizing is definitely important. Having a simple message and goals that can be easily understood and that are hard to distort are important. Combo that with a large series of protests and you can really effect some change.

 

[KtSlime]

Protesting is an overrated way of making "change" happen, especially if the organization is opposed to organizing such as Occupy.

The whole romantic ideal of getting out in the streets is just antiquated.

That's because you want to maintain the status quo. Protesting isn't some sort of fun vacation for many people, they do it because they are so disenfranchised that they can no longer work within the current structure. But whatever, just pretend it was their fault, and that their actions are futile. Pretend that they actually have options had they just pulled their social capital bootstraps, had they just had enough money to actually influence the system.

Victim blaming is a forte of the American people.