Skip to main content

View Diary: 2 years since OWS began and 99 percent of us are still getting screwed (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you take the anarchist influence (10+ / 0-)

    out of Occupy, you will be removing one of it's core influences, without which Occupy would never have come to be. Occupy was founded, in part, by anarchists:

    Those here who want OWS to emphasis party politics and to get involved in the electoral process are missing a big advantage OWS had in staying out of electoral approaches. It was by remaining outside the system that OWS had its enormous appeal., and any OWS member who thinks it should have been more like other traditional groups is forgetting why OWS steered clear of this.

    The concept of the "1%" vs the "99%" is a good example. It wasn't about electing a specific personality, but as a concept it changed the national dialogue. And it wasn't Rachel Maddow, or Chris Hays, or some famous personality or political celebrity who sparked off this powerful theme, but the Occupy movement in parks all across the country.

    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

    by ZhenRen on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:52:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If you believe in anarchy, become a libertarian (0+ / 0-)

      Let me know how that works out for you.

      Independence does not equal uncoordinated effort.

      •  Anarchy does not equal uncoordinated effort (8+ / 0-)

        And libertarians are not by any stretch of the imagination anarchists. Libertarians support the police, the army, and property rights, all of which require a state to enforce. Anarchists are against a state, an army, police, and property rights.

        Anarchists believe in coordinated efforts that aren't backed up with the threat of violence like government or market based coordination are.

      •  You obviously have not infrared yourself (12+ / 0-)

        sufficiently about anarchism to make an informed commentary.

        Anarchism is anti-capitalist, and does not support private ownership of the means of production. American style "libertarianism" (an oxymoron in that usage) is almost a polar opposite of anarchism, and more appropriately should be called "propertarianism".

        By the way, the original libertarians were and still are anti-capitalists, not right wing free market zealots. Outside of the US and internationally in anarchist literature, libertarian still is used in the original form that dates back to the mid 1800s in Europe.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:16:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Edit: "informed" yourself, not infrared. n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JayRaye, Cassiodorus, caul

          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

          by ZhenRen on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:17:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Tell that to libertarians like Penn Jillette. asdr (0+ / 0-)
          •  What does Jillette have to do with it (5+ / 0-)

            Libertarians are not anarchists. Not at all. Only those ignorant of one or the other, or both, would say they are.

            •  He claims he is both. (0+ / 0-)

              An anarcho-capitalist actually, but there you go. There is a breed of libertarian who are just as socially libertarian as they are economically so. I don't believe they see things on the economic side without a sort of naivety and a lack of skepticism regarding greed. And frankly, I'm still waiting to see any kind of a successful anarchist economic system. It hasn't happened yet. What makes you think it can now? What evidence are you basing this on?

              But one thing I wouldn't call folks like Jillette or Michael Shermer is ignorant. They are very intelligent and well spoken in other regards.

              •  I know what Anarcho-capitalists are, ugh (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JayRaye, ZhenRen, Laconic Lib, BlueDragon, caul

                They're idiots that don't understand how the world works. You can't have property rights without government. And he, like many other, throw around the word without actually knowing what it means. It's a trendy philosophy right now and the right is trying to capitalize on that, pun entirely intended ;)

                But really it's a PR ploy like when they coopted the word libertarian. The right wing libertarians actually bragged about what a coup it was that they'd tricked people into identifying the anti-regulation right wing as libertarian.

                •  I'm sure Jillette has a good idea what he's saying (0+ / 0-)

                  I may not agree with him on a lot of things economically, but he certainly is not an idiot.You may not agree with him either but I think you can find hours of him at least detailing his positions. He is quite rational on most other things. He may have a definition of the term other than what you are familiar with.

                  But again, please remind me which anarchist economic system are you talking about which is successfully in play. What anarchist method of government is helping what developed nation to thrive?

                  •  There were the large sections of Spain (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZhenRen, BlueDragon, JayRaye, caul

                    during the revolution/civil war to look at in terms of what an anarchist economic system would look like, though I wasn't actually talking about anarchist economic systems, I was talking about the difference between libertarians and anarchists and how libertarians aren't anarchists.

                    And I doubt he does have an idea of what he's saying, not that I've heard him say that. But really, there's a bunch of libertarians going around claiming to be anarchists now and they just plain aren't. He happens to be one of the people who doesn't know what he's talking about. He is not that smart.

                    He may have a definition of the term other than what you are familiar with.
                    Yes, like I said, a right wing definition that isn't actually correct. They decided that anarchists were cool and so they took the name, just like with libertarians last century.
        •  Look at when civil rights and the middle class... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          isabelle hayes

          ...came of age. We flourished under capitalism where the capital at the highest incomes was heavily taxed, when we made the investments in education and infrastructure that made us into a nation unlike any other for two + generations. That version of capitalism, with strong unions serving as a counterbalance to government and industry, served as the model taken by European and the Japanese recipients of the Marshall Plan and became Democratic Socialism.

          I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Well regulated capitalism with progressive taxation and capital gains, when also highly taxed at the high end until they depreciate to encourage development of them rather than flipping them, changed the world as we know it. And can do so again. And now with the Internet and modern communications we stand to make it ever more transparent and fairer if we, the citizens, take the reigns back into our own hands.

      •  You should probably invest in a few (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ZhenRen, Laconic Lib

        books and do a little bit of studying before you lecture anarchist about anarchism.

        It will save you from making ignorant comments such as this one.

        God spare me the Heart to fight them... I'll fight the Pirates forever. -Mother Jones

        by JayRaye on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:36:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a citizen's job to hold parties accountable (0+ / 0-)

      That means having the presence of mind and of one's morals to not become consumed by the party. If OWS can't change the laws that govern Wall St. or the culture of Washington, they don't get to drive the steamroller. And the 99% will continue to be crushed under it.

      •  Has any group (10+ / 0-)

        succeeded in turning around the Wall Street corruption by working within the system? If you haven't noticed, Democrats are enabling Wall Street.

        The corrupt system makes if very difficult if not impossible to succeed electorally without support of the moneyed class. Hence the need to work outside the system.

        Occupy did what no other group has succeeded in doing in recent history: It made the concept of the hegemony of the 1% a worldwide meme.

        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

        by ZhenRen on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:10:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How is OWS going to "turn around corruption" (0+ / 0-)

          if they can't even get a sustained, coherent, unified message.

          When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

          by PhillyJeff on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:19:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, there was a unified message (7+ / 0-)

            It opposed Wall Street corruption and hegemony. But if by unified you mean lockstep, no thank you. I can join the Democrats for that, and at the moment, they are a big part of the problem.

            Its amazing that because OWS didn't solve all the worlds's problems in a few months people attack Occupy, forgetting that their preferred hallowed party institutions have completely failed over a period of decades, not a few mere moths of existence.

            Nice try.

            "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

            by ZhenRen on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:25:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site