The naivete of people who lap up every superficially populist event as genuine grassroots never ceases to amaze me. The Tea Party was dismissed by pundits as “astroturf” which is an excellent term that describes a good deal of what passes in the US as “grassroots” movements. Everybody wants to be grassroots now. The US gov’t is paying $5000 to YouTubers to come up with video ideas that show how you benefit from the Federal government - in the hope that these videos will “go viral”. The Establishment always tries to dress itself down when it interacts with the masses.
But it’s the very reaction of the Establishment that tells you whether it’s real grassroots or astroturf. The major news media were anti-Tea Party and dismissed it as astroturf until it was dragged under the Republican tent by Sarah Palin et. al. and pacified. Now that it’s under control, the Tea Party is treated as a genuine grassroots movement. But nobody in the Establishment has hinted that Occupy Wall Street is astroturf - it has been treated as “the real thing” from day one. Even its name is telling: “Occupy Wall Street” not “Occupy The Fed”. Wall Street, in the minds of Americans, is a synonym for capitalism and protesting Wall Street is protesting capitalism. But the problem with America is not capitalism, the problem is the Federal Reserve.
While the people involved are flesh-and-blood Americans who are suffering under the boot of the Establishment along with the rest of us, that doesn’t mean they aren’t dupes and that doesn’t mean that this particular protest is not a memetic vaccine. One technique to handle public outrage is to get out ahead of it, anticipate it, and give it vent in a controlled manner before the pressure builds up to the danger point. I call it memetic vaccination - introducing a weakened copy of a dangerous idea to innoculate against the real thing by instilling in the public the sense that “this is old news” or “asked and answered” if the real thing later tries to rear its head.
If Ron Paul continues to gain momentum, the mediocre majority who are (still) not familiar with the “End the Fed” mantra are likely to conflate it with “Occupy Wall Street” and less likely to be whipped up by anti-Fed furor. End the Fed? Isn’t that what those smelly hippy slackers camped out in that NYC Park are protesting for? Who wants to cheer on a bunch of overqualified, unemployed artsie-fartsies who don’t want to work for a living and choose instead to camp out in a NYC park? End the Fed? How about “Get A Job”!
And it’s selective vision like that that’s why you have no problem thinking it’s moral and justified for people to steal money on your behalf. And you’re the one who said “asshole”, no one else.
Flip that around sweetie and you’ll understand a little better. The only reason you’re complaining is because someone has a better situation than you. And you think “that’s not fair”. That’s all their is to your entire philosophy. “X isn’t fair. I think Y would be fair. My opinion should be made law.”
Because if you learn that it is not the role of an ideology to support you, you’ll be much better off.
I don’t know what all the rest of that stuff is talking about, but at least you agree libertarians are right.
No, she doesn’t have any solutions. Just criticisms and complaints. Have a look at some pastthreads. Just like all socialists there is no “solution” other than: “take that stuff that someone else has because I don’t have it.”
And you actually wonder why “offering them some hope that’s not based on the traditional leftist solutions” isn’t sufficient, Sphairon?
Not saying you should love it or leave it. I’m saying the simple fact that someone has something you don’t doesn’t mean an “injustice” has taken place that needs to be rectified. And certainly not through stealing other people stuff to achieve some kind of arbitrary idea of “fairness” that you contrive in your head.
a) If you seriously believe libertarians don’t criticize corporatists and the system that enriches them, you’re out of your mind.
b) the coporatists (bad as they are) aren’t the ones taking to the streets claiming they have a right to other people’s stuff, and advocating polcies that would make the world worse off.
How the hell is that a “however” to the first statement? You admit something is the result of your own choices and your responsibility, and then try to talk about how bad the result is as a way to skirt your responsibility for it? Seriously what you just said is the equivalent of: “To some extent, yes, the jail time we incur is of our own doing. However, for many there is no way out of jail time that can realistically happen in our lifetimes.”
Just had an interesting thought… many of these protesters are definitely well-intentioned and anti-some-pieces-of-government… Misesean activists (Rockwellites, if you will) may be well advised to show up and start handing out free copies of Bastiat’s The Law, Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, Boetie’s Politics of Obedience, Spooner’s No Treason, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, etc. While this will not turn leftists into rightists (which I don’t care to do, anyway), it may have a de-radicalizing effect on many of those holding anti-some-piece-of-government sentiment and provide a more considered and well-reasoned basis for opposing government policies. This could help build coalition support with the left in opposing the Pentagon, the Fed, police-state statutes and the military-industrial corporatocracy more generally.
BP, do you truly think that these people on Wall Street are not lined up for another government handout? Please tell me.
I’m all for libertarian compassion and helping. Some people just have bad luck. Help them, definitely. But I have little respect for those who say “I had bad luck, help me rob this other guy.”
ambiguous signs of “we the people” and “we can do this”, which could very well be libertarians advocating for collective action… But are not. It means “we can tax other people more.”
Signs saying “end corporatism” which could be the libertarian message of ending crony capitalism, but is not.
Ron Paul is certainly sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism and may be one in disguise.
The people protesting on Wall Street are there to protest capitalism, not “big business colluding with the government.” They may see the problem the same way we do (government and wall street in bed), but they think that is systemic of capitalism. We think that is systemic of the government. We want no government, they want no capitalism.
The people protesting on Wall Street are there to protest capitalism, not “big business colluding with the government.” They may see the problem the same way we do (government and wall street in bed), but they think that is systemic of capitalism. We think that is systemic of the government. We want no government, they want no capitalism.
Maybe you can compromise and get rid of both.
I think that would be totally awesome if you guys organized an anti-government Occupy Washington right now.
That socialist need not mean statist is an ideological barrier that you need to overcome, just like how anarcho-communists may immediately conflate capitalism with statism. While it may not be something you want, it doesn’t automatically equate to support of the state. That people here can’t separate the difference between protesting Wall Street traders and someone stealing your shit is, well, kind of dumb.
I was unaware they had written demands at this point, and I’m actually upset that they did. However, I still view most movements as an opportunity to engage in dialogue with folks. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if anti-authoritarians come out of this movement after their reformist demands inevitably fail to get the job done.
Given that this is a protest of already existing capitalism, and most people aren’t aware of the capitalism advocated here, I was shocked to see absolutely no one suggesting that this was an opportunity to engage in diaogue with protesters. The immediate condemnation of an entire group based on a few internet pictures was probably what lead to most of my initial reactions.
The Tea Party can be easily traced back to a few think-tanks and big money. This protest can’t. It can be traced back to AdBusters, who simpy called for it and did little to no actual organizing, and then anonymous who are probably the grassiest of grassroots, so much so that they have no face.
anonymous who are probably the grassiest of grassroots
Anonymous is grassroots? If Anonymous isn’t a conspiracy, I don’t know what is: a small group of people wielding great power over others, bringing down corporations and governments.
I don’t know why BP even bothers at this point. Rejecting property, you have virtually no reason to speak to us lower beings.
For one, the whole “grassiest of grassroots” was suppoed to just be goofy. But Anonymous is essentially just a group of people. It’s whoever decides to be anonymous. There are no “core members” or leaders, and most anonymous attacks have a range of different people.
Second, for someone who doesn’t like Anonymous, it’s ironic that your avatar is the lulzsec (a splinter of anon) guy.
Third, that I reject property, or at least the notion of it popular here, says nothing about how some of the conversations can be stimulating or insightful, even when I don’t agree. For instance, the thread Bert started on Hegel was pretty interesting to me. It’s a shame they got temp banned.
Anonymous is essentially just a group of people. It’s whoever decides to be anonymous. There are no “core members” or leaders
Do enlighten me about their internal structure, since you appear to know so much about it.
Second, for someone who doesn’t like Anonymous, it’s ironic that your avatar is the lulzsec (a splinter of anon) guy.
I find them amusing. Nothing more. Plus, the guy is amusing.
Third, that I reject property, or at least the notion of it popular here, says nothing about how some of the conversations can be stimulating or insightful, even when I don’t agree
The way I think you would be seeing the argument is “these people want other people’s stuff. Ok. Move along.” End of discussion. The fundamental difference in belief in property rights renders further discussion quite useless unless we want to disucss practical aspects (does X lead to Y).
The internal structure of anonymous is that there is no internal structure of anonymous.
Just because I disagree, and know I disagree, does not mean I won’t voice my opinion. Spending some time articulating why I’m offended helps me think about it in other situations and really test how far I’ve thought out some of my arguments, especially when debate is heated and fast paced.
“How the hell is that a “however” to the first statement? You admit something is the result of your own choices and your responsibility, and then try to talk about how bad the result is as a way to skirt your responsibility for it? Seriously what you just said is the equivalent of: “To some extent, yes, the jail time we incur is of our own doing. However, for many there is no way out of jail time that can realistically happen in our lifetimes.””
I think the analogy you’re looking for would be if someone walked into a jail cell and then found that they had been locked in as a criminal. Yes, getting a loan was a choice. No, working for the rest of your life to pay off someone else is not an example of choice. It’s the complete negation of choice.
Please explain how you have “state-owned means of production” without a state.
I don’t think anyone said anything about protesting traders (although I don’t see what that even means…you’re against trading on Wall Street and think it should be abolished?)…what people take offense to is the demands made by these protestors…which essentially is “stealing your shit.”
And yet you had no problem backing, defending them, and attacking any who would criticize, without any pause at all. Again you should see my big surprised face. You might actually try educating yourself even slightly about something before you speak on it (which I know would be a new thing for you, but still. There’s a first time for everything.)
I didn’t realize anyone condemned an entire group. Reading through this forum it sounds as though you were the biggest driving force behind conflating the criticisms about the complaints raised by the people in the photographs into the voice of an entire group of people. (So that you could attack people here for not being sympathetic to a large mass of people, and make your veiled populist threats.)
I would love to see this trace. Please do share.
Great. So stop saying you have a “right” to the services of others.
You got that right. I saw clips from a L.A. city council meeting where self-identified “occupiers” were making statements to the city council. This can only mean good things for Ron Paul.
So let me get this straight. Entering a contract to borrow money and then pay it back is a choice. But paying it back is not a choice. Yeah I suppose that figures. It makes just as much sense as pretty much anything else you’ve ever said.
