Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is this a socialist movement or not?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 22, 2012, 3:18 a.m. EST by Breadwinner (33)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So, I have been on here for quite some time now and always here that this isn't a socialist movement. I was just watching CSPAN and Dave Welsh (SF Labor Council) was speaking about OWS at the Politics, Activism and the Occcupy Movement seminar and said he hopes it continues to push a socialist movement but hasn't gone far enough. Dr. Margaret Flowers (Occupy DC Organizer) agreed with him. So what is it? A movement to change the two core issues of corruption in government and to remove corporate money from our political system as originally touted or is it a socialist movement as these OWS Leaders are saying?

94 Comments

94 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Socialist and socialism, have been equated with communist and communism here in America for many years, and the meanings of these titles have been dragged through the mud, and slandered until any use of them is associated as 'bad' and 'anti-american' (what ever that means).

If you want to know what is socialist then you really need to define the word, and remove all the bull sht baggage that has been attached to it.

At base, it simple means some form of common ownership (although that is also a tricky word) of some things. 100% private ownership of the whole world is corporatism (fascism) and is not even possible, nor should it be. Every country on the planet has some mix of private and public ownership of things. Public parks, fire departments, sewer systems, water systems, etc. Since people are social animals and since we are all born naked and penniless, I find the idea of private ownership of anything a difficult concept, especially land and natural resources. In my mind these things are, and should be in law, publicly held. I will always push in this direction, as it is the only logical solution. We have lost our democracy to private greed and corporatism, and we are beginning to see more and more where this leads. Witness the rise of private for profit prisons, and the outlawing of poverty to fill said prisons. Farming has been largely taken over by gigantic monopolistic trans-national corporations, and we are all dependent on food, so this is another method of the greedy building in control systems where we once had social democratic setups.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

interesting perspective

the greedy building in control systems where we once had social democratic setups.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Sinister Look up sinister at Dictionary.com

early 15c., "prompted by malice or ill-will," from O.Fr. sinistre "contrary, unfavorable, to the left," from L. sinister "left, on the left side" (opposite of dexter), perhaps from root *sen- and meaning properly "the slower or weaker hand" [Tucker], but Buck suggests it's a euphemism (see left), connected with the root of Skt. saniyan "more useful, more advantageous." The Latin word was used in augury in the sense of "unlucky, unfavorable" (omens, especially bird flights, seen on the left hand were regarded as portending misfortune), and thus sinister acquired a sense of "harmful, unfavorable, adverse." This was from Greek influence, reflecting the early Greek practice of facing north when observing omens; in genuine Roman auspices, the left was favorable. Bend (not "bar") sinister in heraldry indicates illegitimacy and preserves the lit. sense of "on the left side."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sinister

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

So you are against liberty and for equality?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How do you equate community ownership of a park as anti-liberty or unequal? You fear something that does not exist. 1% of the population owning 90 % of our wealth is clearly "against liberty and equality". That does not bother you?

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

Well yes it somewhat shoots in the face of Liberty and clearly opposes equality, but I don't concern myself with equality. Obviously people are equal under the law and things of that nature, but I believe if we achieve a pure free society then social equality will follow. Not saying it will be easy but people will achieve it without the help of government and forced integration. I don't support government forcing "equality" on us. That is a violation of our liberty. So all in all I put liberty miles ahead of equality.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

It does not come from the 'government' it comes from your neighbors. The rest of the people in the society you benefit from.

All the right-wing indoctrinated folks (no offence), I keep hearing from seem to hold this monolithic view of the great evil 'gov.' However in reality, when you get to a consensus based system; a direct democracy, there is no gov. only the people coming together to decide how we as a group choose to deal with an issue. It is not the 'gov. imposing equality on us' it is us deciding together, that for the collective good, some limits need to be observed. Limits we will all enforce, in our daily lives, whenever confronted with inequality we will apply effort to rectify it. It is quite simple really. Change is here, don't fight it, ride it.

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

First I'm am not conservative I am a Libertarian. My problem with Direct democracy is that it is they majority ruling over the minority. The minority really don't have a voice in this system. I support the republic that was set up when the constitution was signed in. Officials represented the people and voted along the line of the constitution even if it is not what the public wanted. Why? because the majority in so many things are not right. People need to realize the majority vote does not make it right and just.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Consensus is not arrived at through simple voting, it is through discussions and debate, the ever evolving direction is chosen. Everyone down to the individual has a voice, a minority of one is able to convince others of the rightness of their ideas, gain support for them from others outside that minority. The representative system with all its entrenched powers, is much worse in this regard anyway, so I don't really see the point.

I never said you where conservative, I spoke of right-wing culture.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

and how does it fit into the constitution? or is that irrelevant?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I did not write it or sign it or was I ever asked, how does it bind me?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

are you a citizen of the U.S. ? Well it's the law of the land - or at least it is supposed to be.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

So that makes it ok? A law I never signed on to? It is historical baggage, a anachronism written by slave owners who thought only male land owners should be given the vote.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

Where did you get the idea you get to sign on? you can always move if you dont like it. Or you can move to make the appropriate amendments. That's the process until you come up with something better.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you are so funny. Socialism is looked down upon in America, because Americans look down on free loaders

[-] 1 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

Whatever happened here, you seemed to be right. lol.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

The free loaders are the 1% who just take, and do not contribute to society. What a silly argument, public ownership of resources somehow leads to freeloading? Is there even an argument there? I think not.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Hewlett, Packard, all 1 percenters and they contributed nothing, they just freeloaded.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

No one achieves in isolation, it takes a whole society for any achievements to matter. The vast majority of the 1% don't make money by "producing" things, they make money by already having money (capital gains) and manipulating markets. You point to a small group of entrepreneurs who may have advanced technology, or just road the waves of advancing tech. to amassing their fortunes. All these people did nothing by themselves. They benefited from all the stuff they where given freely by those that went before.

Citibank, Chase, Goldman, etc. What have they produced? Where is their contributions to society?!? These are obviously the 1% we are talking about. Inane arguments about dudes what invented a fancy calculator really don't factor in.

For every greedy capitalist Gates or Jobs, closing down intellectual-property access with greedy copyrights and patents, there is a Linus Torvalds or and Eben Upton expanding freedom and opening technology for all, without any wealth sucking sound of greed.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Have you ever worked for a manufacturing company or any private enterprise that produces a product? If you think that its easy or that society is really doing the work, you have no clue what it takes to be successful. Trust me, i don't like the financial industry, but to be anti-business is really counter productive. OWS needs to focus on the financial industry, target the criminal people in that business, be the financial version of Simon Wiesenthal (nazi hunter) and hunt down (legally) the financial criminals.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

What ever are you talking about?

Being for collectively-owned and worker-run businesses is anti-business? No, it is about how we choose to organize ourselves, we can see that rugged individualism is a mythic sob story of the 1%, with little connection to reality, the reality that we all benefit from the rest of society. It trickles up not down.

Socialism is not anti-business, that is simple minded to say the least. We can choose to work with other like-minded folks and build our lives in a more collectivist way. Choosing to work as a full member of a collective business rather than an employed cog in an anti-democratic corporate machine, the choice is simple, yes.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

show me a successful 'collectively-owned' and worker run business that isn't really a subsidized government run company.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Really, you have the power of the internet in front of you, and you can find none? Sad that is;

http://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/about_us.html http://www.pvsquared.coop/about_us.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i said successful.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Oh I see, you are a mentally challenged individual. Lets see if I can brake it down so your reasoning retardation will not confuse your understanding.

Many businesses are based on a single rich capitalist, using some of 'daddies money' to build a factory, where they alone are the one and only true power at the top, while all workers, are hired and fired at whim, having no input into the products produced or the manner in witch they are produced. The rich capitalist is the freeloader in this design as they exploit the efforts of workers while not contributing to the effort of producing the widgets. The rich capitalist gets richer and the rest get to almost stay afloat.

Other businesses are created when a group of like-minded individuals comes together to build a company that they are all owners of, and all have an equal say in the daily operations. The collective, or coop is focused not only on creating a good product, but as well on the conditions of production and external effects of how that product is created.

These are two models; Why is your private capitalist one a "better" model?
I simple say it is not and it will fade away. Time will tell, so we will see what model the people of the world actually prefer.

Good luck learning reasoning and debating skills. I know it is hard with you limited mentality, but persevere and you may succeed.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

it is better because it is successful. Did Henry Ford use daddies money? Did Jobs, Did Hewlett? Did Packard? No. How can you comment on private enterprise when you have no experience in it? If you did you would know that public companies are owned by share holders. These share holders are average American's that own stock in their 401k and other holdings. So you picture a single rich capitalist is something out of a monopoly game, or a century ago. I know that liberals think conservatives are dumb, and it goes against a basic liberal concept--being open minded but that was the liberals of old now they are just a bunch of communist and anarchist

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Wow, you live in a nice little TV dreamland, don't you. And I suppose that that good stock broker is investing your 401k money to help you? You have bought in, hook, line, and sinker.

The fact of the distribution of wealth in america (99% compared to the 1%) is a fact, period. The system we have used concentrates wealth in the hands of the few by removing it from the many. People are no longer simply willing to let the 1% take what is not theirs, and destroy what belongs to all.

"i said successful." Really? That the best you got? The world look successful to you? I am forced to point out again, you seem to lack normal human brain function. This is the world you want to live in ??

And who said I was a liberal? You partisan hack./ Keep your left/right system promoting to your self, no one cares. Representative government is over.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you have no idea what the real world is like. Have you ever worked in a private sector job? Do you have a 401k? Savings? Investments? Sorry but a little bakery is cute, but you ain't going to build a nation with collective bakeries.

You might want to calm down and make sense of what you write. For example you (jph) write 'The fact of the distribution of wealth in america (99% compared to the 1%) is a fact, period' ?? Not clear what is being said here. What percentage of the wealth does the 1% have versus the 99% i think is what you want to say. You would have to say 99% of (the population? , ) have x% of the wealth, and 1% of the population have x% of the wealth. as it is you sound like Maxine Waters or Pelosi,, i'll give you some time to think it through and correct your incoherent sentence.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Why do you insist on showing how weak-minded you are? You can not figure out for yourself the wealth distribution in america? There loads of sources for info on how the wealth is distributed, you may choose to look to official sources, tax reporting that sort of sht, or you can simple look around. The disparity is getting more and more grotesque.

So my sentence, that you have trouble understanding, is quite clear "The fact of the distribution of wealth in america is a fact, period." You can not argue that your 'faith' in a purely capitalist system, or your unfounded fear of a socialist one, have wrought an equitable arrangement for all the people living here. You are spitting into the wind.

Lets look at a little thread history now, you demanded; "show me a successful 'collectively-owned' and worker run business" And so, I posted a link to just that a business that has been in operation since 1979, and employs over a hundred people. And the response "i said successful.", is a complete denial that I just prove you wrong, and you then go on with such wisdom as; "Sorry but a little bakery is cute, but you ain't going to build a nation with collective bakeries." Well that was not the point, was it. You seemed to think that a worker owned and operated business could just not exist at all, that the infallible laws of the 'free market' would not allow for this type of socialistic abomination. When in fact this way of democratically organizing a business is as old as time and persists in the face of uninformed opposition such as yours, and organised opposition from the 1% who would benefit if they could stamp out all memory or imaginings of any system, other that the one where they control all that matters, and continue to take take take, more for themselves.

I do hope in your lame and backhanded attempt to sht on people with valid ideas, that are not exactly the same as yours, you learned something new. I suspect you will just continue making nonsensical statements that do not take into account any FACTS, so I will simple bid you good day sir. I said good day. <waves hand in face, walks away>

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

do i have to repeat myself, my Labrador learns faster. You sentence makes no sense, you might want to work on it for better clarity. If you don't get it, well not much i can do. Good luck.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

if someone could dig ditches twice as fast as you and 100 times faster than a lazy person, should they all get paid the same? And if they did why would the faster digger even try? Nooo, socialism breeds laziness. Or maybe we could put weights on the fast digger to slow him down (like Kurt Vonnegutt's fictitious United States Handicapper General.). Come on you don't know what you are talking about.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you got it backwards. in true socialism you would give have the good students sharing their good grades with the bad students so there would be more equality. this would kill personal motivation. Kurt Vonnegut had it right, bring out the ankle and arm weights to equalize the more successful.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you just contradicted your original idea or dividing up the rewards to be more equal.

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

works really well, i imagine.

[-] 3 points by randart (498) 2 years ago

It is a social movement in the sense that it has not been run by the government or the banks. If there are a few "Socialist" ideas then maybe it is time to consider that we actually do need a hybridized system. The wealthy and the corporations seem to operate as though it is a Socialist system but for the "regular" folks it is a "Democracy".

Until there is a sense of fairness that spans the whole spectrum of our society there will be discontent and civil unrest. The key to this movement is to keep it in that zone where everyone has a feeling of growing equality. Can it be done? Who knows?

[-] 2 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Social concern does not equate to a socialist government. Limiting the power of corporate entities does not equate to state owned and managed business. Attempts to label the people who are concerned and tired of being run over, taken advantage of, left out of the political conversation, and having their rights and futures ripped out from under them as socialists is a propagandist tactic of creating division by outcasting, and diversion.

[-] 1 points by jdp505 (1) 2 years ago

I feel that this movement has slowly become more and more socialist. which has turned many people off, but at the same time energized its base. I think its best for ows to adress piratical ideas that the majority of the 99% can agree on. That way we would almost be guaranteed success. The first few months were filled with everyone speaking out about these common social problems. and now it seems to me that most everyone left is a college student who is either a social democrat, socialist/communist and anarchist etc some of these non mainstream beliefs really turn others away including myself and im a college aged liberal!! I feel that the more agressive and violent protesters especially some anarchists who have done things like vandalize property and burn american flags have given the rest of us a very bad name.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

define socialist movement

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

OWS is clearly anti-corporate, which naturally attracts radical tendencies, but in no way is it explicitly socialist or even socialistic. It has created the first alliance between the radical intelligentcia and sections of organized labor since the 1940s, which is the basis for any modern socialist movement, but there is not a single American labor union or nationally elected union leader that would characterize itself has socialist at this historical juncture.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What socialists have any influence whatsoever within OWS? A significant number of fairly anonymous anarchists and folks influenced by anarchist social thought have considerable influence in OWS, and that is essentially because they were present from before the beginning, are well organized, and coherent and reasonable in their approach. I can't think of any socialist tendency that has anywhere near as much influence in OWS, though they often are able to express their views through the labor committees and working groups of OWS.

The vast majority of OWS activists I think are either politically unformed or liberal, but are unable to exert the influence in OWS that their numbers would suggest because their views lack the clarity of the radicals and they are often at odds with each other.

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Then why are they allowing these clearly socialist people to be there mouth piece in public forums? Why is no one else from OWS speaking out against it?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

The rest of the 99% are capitalists and are off doing capitalist stuff. Lots of those lost interest and moved on realizing OWS won't focus on the single issue of campaign finance reform.

[-] 2 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Yeah, that is a very unfortunate downfall.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

True that.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (267) 2 years ago

This is a real socialist movement better than those of the past.

[-] 0 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Better how? Because I sure wan't convinced with what Dr. Flowers was saying.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (267) 2 years ago

In past socialist movements were not well equipped with (advanced) ideas that we have to day like designing a currency less systems,giving credit to good actions/deeds/social work in addition to good ideas and good intentions.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

I hear you but that still requires that the majority of the society agrees and adhears to it. Unfortunatly, you don't and won't ever have that in this country.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I look at it this way, we are in negotiations,and what better way to highly leverage, then to threaten the worst case scenario. SEE, we are good little capitalists. It is never wise to take anything off the table, and that is a little political wisdom I have acquired.

[-] 1 points by Revolutionary (267) 2 years ago

That is what we people are struggling for-otherwise (that is without any ideas) what is the fun of struggling.Our struggle is so to say our worship.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The only political document that OWS has produced as a movement of which I am aware is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City passed in the first week of the occupation by the NYC GA. My reading of it is that while it is a very anti-corporate document it is neither explicitly anti-capitalist nor pro-socialist, which is as it should be. Virtually everyone from anti-corporate liberals to anarchists can agree with the anti-corporate message embodied in the Declaration, which would not be the case were it an explicitly socialist document.

I do think that at its "core" the Declaration (passed very early on in the history of the movement) is considerably broader than criticizing government corruption or the influence of money in politics, but neither is it explicitly socialist.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

I agree, however, now more and more the people that are going on TV "Representing" the movement are almost explicitly talking about it as a socialist movement and that is why I raised the question. My thoughts on it after talking to some and reading some of the responses on here are that the more moderate people have left the group or are just not participating. The problem with that theory is even if you are not participating I would think that you would at least hear someone come out and oppose that stance if it were not the case. I haven't heard anyone come out to bring the "Core" message back to the forefront rather, the silence could lead one to believe that it has manifested itself into a socialist movement and that faction has now taken control of the movement.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I haven't seen any people characterizing themselves as "representatives" of the movement going on TV to say anything at all about the movement, particularly not since the evictions. The fact is that most of the initiators of the movement are strongly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition, a fact about which they are quite open. They also continue to be the movement's dominant intellectual force and its best organizers. I suppose that most American socialists are involved in the movement, but they don't amount to much as a political tendency. The next biggest tendency in the movement are probably liberals and trade unionists attached to the Democratic Party. This is by far numerically the largest political tendency in the movement but it is also the least coherent in terms of what it wants for the movement, excepting perhaps to attach it to the Democratic Party.

At the core of the movement are not exactly anarchists but definitely people openly influenced by the anarchist intellectual tradition. That was true at the beginning when it was they who initiated the movement, it is true today and it has always been true. It is these folks, who, while clearly a minority of movement activists, are also its best organizers and who have come up with the movements key ideas. It is they who were able to inspire, recruit and mobilized the much more moderate forces and liberals who very quickly formed the mass base of the movement.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Here is what socialism is really doing to America (note that the url title might be misleading):

http://www.madatoms.com/site/blog/socialist-agencies-destroying-america

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There you go with that confusion again.

It's a social movement. All things that aid the commons are not socialist, nor are they communist.

In fact, it's an American way of correction.

[-] 0 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

Americans believe in individual over whole. That is our core value.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Pretty much. It's like communism repackaged for the 21st century.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

pretty much what?

[-] 2 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Revolutionary socialism type stuff.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Well, it was certainly founded - and you would know :) - on Anarcho-syndicalist principles, also known as libertarian socialism. But, as the movement has grown and attracted more participants, followers and supporters, I don't think it would be accurate to say that is what it remains. The core group in New York is still of the One True Faith, but in the spring, when the GA's become more attended, even that might change.

I think OWS has become larger than an expression of a single viewpoint. David Graber is still central, but he is, or soon will be, no longer alone.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Was David grabber the person who was kicked out of Russia ?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

David Graber is a Professor of anthropology, currently teaching in, I believe Oxford, and one of the original founders of OWS. He is a brilliant thinker and tactician, so I'm sure you wouldn't understand what he is about at all.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Would it help the movement if David set himself ablaze !

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, but it would help the entire world if you did.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

If I set David ablaze ? Wouldn't even consider it.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You should try to light a match to yourself. It wouldn't work too easily, though, since shit is hard to light on fire. But keep at it. The world would be grateful.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It would help the movement if you set yourself ablaze.

Hurry now. Times-a-wasting. You could be a hero. [/sarcasm].

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Anarcho-syndicalist isn't a good term to use when describe the principles of the movement because we haven't really been organizing labor.

The core group in New York is still of the One True Faith

I find this statement insulting.

but in the spring, when the GA's become more attended, even that might change.

Occupy will always be a brand for far left organizing. Right now it's the only viable way for the far left to organize. You don't have to be on the far left to participate, but people who'd rather help get democrats elected should join one of the thousand other political organizations instead of trying to co-opt occupy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I absolutely agree that Occupy is the main, best way for the far left to organize. But since there is no restriction to participation, it will grow beyond the narrower frame of reference that was its beginning. It is simply inevitable. I don't see that as co-option, but evolution, and an indication of the strength of the movement. What's more, those participants who work to get Democrats elected don't necessarily do so instead of OWS, or try to make OWS the bearer of that message, but in addition to it. They don't see the need to choose either activism or participating in elections: they choose to do both.

My apologies if you felt insulted. But the insistence on revolution as opposed to reform is something a small core is holding on to, and may not be the future of the movement as it grows in membership. The belief is sincere, and I think necessary as an ideal, but it is a kind of fundamentalism nonetheless. I think it will continue to be a touchstone, but will, as the movement grows larger, be moderated by a majority of the people it attracts, who will more likely be reform, rather than revolution, minded. It's akin (to me) to Hasidic Jews. Most Jews, like myself, are orthodox, conservative, or reform, and have even dabbled in other traditions, but all look to the Hasidim as an end point on the distribution scale of Judaism. That is what I believe will eventually happen in terms of the Occupy movement as it becomes more broad-based.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

I guess my follow up to that is why is it now being put out that way when originally that type of statement against OWS would have been denied so strongly?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

It is most definitely a socialist movement. And that is why it may very well succeed.

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

YES! We want democratic socialism and to never have to work any harder than posting on the internet!

Where do I send the bill of exchange for my I-Pad II for this post?

I'd also like a raise and will take 6 months of BC pills, an extra-strength HPV vaccination and two cases of Maxi-Pads with wings (left wings baby) and call it square!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yeah, that Dr. Margaret Flowers...............have to watch her especially because we have no idea what she is all about.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

wow, they really demonized the word "socialist" and you fell for it sucker.

we have always been a partially socialist country... ever heard of welfare, social security, medicare to name a few... the latter two comprise the largest portion of the budget.

[-] -1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Has nothing to do with falling for anything. It has everything to do with 5-6 months of complete denial of something only now to be embraceing the very thing that was so strongly denied. Interesting.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

i interpreted it to be a derogatory characterization of the movement as socialist, which is how i hear many (ignorant) people suggest about obama or democrats... however, it is very clear both socialism and capitalism co-exist in complex blends all over the world.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Your understandable confusion lies in the fact that support has fallen way off. There were many more supporters 5 months ago that are gone now. That had more mainstream, centrist views. Mainly to end government corruption by getting money out of the political process. Even the far left elements mostly agree with this as well I think.
But as support has fallen off, the more far left views are more prominent.

[-] 0 points by human6 (88) 2 years ago

I hope its not

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

The only accurate answer is yes/no/maybe. At its heart and to its detriment, OWS is an anarchistic organization. Anarchistic philosophy is one that sounds great on paper but has no practical application in the real world. It relies on universal compliance to the precepts and cannot adapt to pressure from without (or within for that matter). It espouses true democracy, but can't adjust to a scenario where modifications are needed. If a group of anarchists were secluded on an island together, the island would be peaceful, well-run and happy. But it can't respond to another group from the outside coming in and taking over. By the time they could organize resistance they would be gone. Anarchy promises far more than it could ever possibly deliver.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"has no practical application in the real world" Really? Cause it seems to work much better than top down rule of elected individuals, if you want to be actually democratic that is. You speak in opinions, as if they are truisms, I have seen many groups of people self organize by anarchistic principles and very successfully. And in the "real world" no less!

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

If I was a member of one of your alleged groups and I disagreed with the opinion of the majority, what would my options be?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

There is much written on the subject of 'consensus decision making' try a web search to learn about it.

Generally when one individual differs from the rest they have some opportunities to make their case, often a compromise can be achieved. If they can not live with the will of the group, they are free to leave. This happened once in a community space project I was involved in, where one individual that had experience childhood abuse from an alcoholic parent was not able to be involved in the space when the consensus was to allow alcohol to be consumed in the space. They later returned after seeing that not all peoples experience with alcohol lead to such extreme abuses, and that the group could deal with individual cases as they arose.

The way consensus works is by the group being committed to the way we make our decisions, as much as the decisions themselves.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Who are these groups? Are they nations?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, many first nations use consensus process,. or do you mean only nation-"states" entities that only exist under military/police controls, and are therefor illegitimate to the people.

In one case the group was over 20,000 individuals.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

So under your system there are no nation states. Let's say the U.S. dissolves as a nation and follows an anarchy system. How do you deal with all the other nation states? Ignore them?

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

I don't have a system,. anarchy is a simple concept not a object. When the nation state dies, it will do so on a world wide scale. People will co-exist in various affinity groups, cooperating as the needs arise. Many groups will be world wide, and only have a few members in various locations, some will be largely localized with many members in one place, yet still some more far flung. People are not members of any one group, but of all groups they share affinity with. There are no membership cards, or lists. Anyone who feels the affinity of that group will work with it, or not. This is already happening by the way, the nation-states are like an elephant shot through the hart still standing, but loosing power as the blood that once gave it life slowly drains away. It it the ebb and flow, to quote that great fool/poet "the tide goes in the tide goes out".

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21086) 2 years ago

I like this post. This is forward thinking. The nation-state will eventually die. It is just a phase of history.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Interesting but deluded. Ain't gonna happen it's a waste of time .

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ok, then we will stop it since it is a 'wast of time'. How by the way can time possible be 'wasted' as it is a measure of intervals and nothing more.

Read; The Diamond Age by Neil Stephenson
Just an interesting fiction book, that looks at some of these issues, although not specifically what I was on about. Did come to my mind,so perhaps is helpful.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Then by all means stop it and come up with something useful and productive that can actually help the people.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hi jph,

Just commenting on your comment's question: How by the way can time possible be 'wasted' as it is a measure of intervals and nothing more.

Time is indeed in many ways an abstract thing. But you can only move in one direction and you only occupy 1 space at any given moment ( time again ). So the only possibility for wasted time I see is the time in which you do nothing. Although doing nothing sometimes can be beneficial to your mental and physical health.

Sorry not very helpful but I thought you might like the thought.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Exactly, time spent working to a fail, is time spent learning. Time has a property like that of the mater-energy conversion constant, where nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed. But, yes this has nothing to do with anything. It just comes form BlackSun's pointless dismissive "Ain't gonna happen it's a waste of time." just another eeyore inspired none-point, some folks seem to use when they have no arguments to deal.

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28443) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Breadwinner

No Profile Information Private Messages

Information

Joined Feb. 22, 2012 Your statement at the biginning of the post above: "So, I have been on here for quite some time now and always here that this isn't a socialist movement. "

Yeah you may have been here awhile just not as this personality.

For those who truly do wonder about the designation to give the OWS, Occupy, 99% movements. Chalk it up to people against corruption.

I mean if you really need to have a title.

[-] 1 points by Breadwinner (33) 2 years ago

Yup, had to create a new profile because I couldn't log in via the one I was using. To answer your question, it's not about getting a title, it was a question about why the change in acceptance of this public claim now where as before it was constantly denied.