‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously - you think Stonewall had a clear agenda. Nah, Mate. Judy Garland had just died and the NYPD raided the Stonewall Inn one time too many. The Diesel Dykes and Drag Queens vented all over the NYPD. It took a while for an actual agenda...

Do you think when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in 1955 she had an agenda that would see an African-American elected President of the US?

This is the birth of a global movement - just 6 weeks old.

Good point, Occupy Dame Street is just like Stonewall.

Bannasidhe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Good point, Occupy Dame Street is just like Stonewall.

Not as well dressed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nelson Muntz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A lot of people off their heads?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was asked what complaining had ever achieved - well in France it saw the collapse of a long established aristocratic elite and the destruction of an Absolute Monarchy. It also saw the establishment of the first state to declare total separation of church and state.
The Third Estate - the Commoners - complained that a minority elite (Aristocrats and higher clergy) had all the political power, paid the least amount of taxes and combined to prevent the middle classes from having any input and was using them as nothing but a cash cow. Sound familiar?

Nobody said non-violent complaints only .

Why do you question my use of the French Revolution but not the American? Both shared similar ideological goals - the fact that one of them later went a bit psycho and the other didn't is beside the point.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was asked what complaining had ever achieved - well in France it saw the collapse of a long established aristocratic elite and the destruction of an Absolute Monarchy. It also saw the establishment of the first state to declare total separation of church and state.

Nobody said non-violent complaints only .

Why do you question my use of the French Revolution but not the American? Both shared similar ideological goals - the fact that one of them later went a bit psycho and the other didn't is beside the point.

Which one is which?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which one is which?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Depends on whether you ask a Native American or a not Native American.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

AH - but Cowan and Louis XVI share a certain jowlesque visage.

Fact remains - about 99% of the French population felt utterly disenfranchised (mainly because they were) and complained.

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Depends on whether you ask a Native American or a not Native American.

Ah! The famous American Revolution, where the Native Americans bravely fought off the invaders!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said 99% of the French did - so they complained. Please do not twist my comments or take them out of context.

As for the Irish do you believe a significant percentage of the population feels enfranchised? Seriously?

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I said 99% of the French did - so they complained. Please do not twist my comments or take them out of context.

As for the Irish do you believe a significant percentage of the population feels enfranchised? Seriously?

Yes, I think they do. In what way do you mean 'disenfranchised' here?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

I see this whole 1% vs 99% nonsense is surfacing again

So according to @Bannasidhe the 1% are people who are satisfied with the government? Its interesting how this definition of this elusive 1% group keeps changing :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can we not do both at the same time? Are work and thought mutually exclusive activities?

I would certainly hope not - and I can't see where I've implied that they are.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do we know what needs reform unless we identify where the problems are and work out alternate ways to do things?

I don't see what's happening on Dame Street as an attempt to do so in any sensible way.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Occupy Movement has not, as far as I am aware, called for strikes - general or otherwise. It has not advocated everyone 'drops out'. It has called for accountability as to how our money is spent (we will have to pay back all of the IMF/ECB loans so I'm counting that as 'ours') and some accounting of how our money was spent.

It is also a focal point for dialogue - but lord, it ain't half annoying some people. I can't for the life of me understand why a movement with no political affiliation that exists only to enable people who feel voiceless to be heard and build a consensus among the citizenry as to how we want to be governed seems to cause such extreme reacti... oh, hang on... could it be fear of the unknown....?

Er, no. It's derision of the known.

To expand slightly on that, I don't think the Occupy movement - at least in the form it's taking here - is a process that will yield any meaningful programme of reform. I think it's far more likely to generate a lot of slogans based on wishful thinking and cheap rhetoric, as such processes have done in the past, and so far I can't say I'm being given any reason to change that view.

In certain senses, I regret the early demise of the last government, which I think was creating pressure for genuine reform. The election killed off a lot of nascent reform bodies which - to my mind - offered rather better possibilities in terms of hanging in there and creating broad consensuses on reform issues, and I think if the government had lasted another year the pressure for genuine reform would have been too great to be bought off with a simple change of government and a couple of exercises in populist window-dressing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hayte

I have serious doubts that anyone in government, prior current or future is capable of reform because it is part of the problem. By this I mean that regardless of the political party the aim is to buy (favourable) legislation.

I don't think the occupy movement is ineffective as a process. The problem is in its scale. i.e. it is too small and too politically and socially fractured. Overwhelming strength in numbers is really the key to any grass roots social reform movement.

Once again, I think mass media has been a barrier in all of this by establishing a narrative that is polarizing. Nowhere is this more evident than on this forum, where threads about this subject invariably split into sub arguments about political affiliation, anti/pro capitalism, anti/pro social security. Literally anything but our shared criticism and concern over the way our financial system operates.

I agree with Bannasidhe and in particular with this statement:

I can't for the life of me understand why a movement with no political affiliation that exists only to enable people who feel voiceless to be heard...seems to cause such extreme reacti...

I admit that I am perplexed at how a completely non violent, non disruptive social reform movement can be so maligned. They aren't knocking on your door shoving leaflets in your face. The movement is inclusive, not exclusive, participation is completely voluntary and nobody is guilt tripping the hell out of you for not braving the cold. It is an open discourse (which is the only way to approach a complex set of problems by allowing the possibility for multiple solutions). There is literally no coercive element to it at all. So why the hate?

Godge

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

You're wrong. People are protesting now because the conditions for protest exist now, they didn't back during the tiger years. Ignoring the protesters with a tough schiess attitude isn't going to make them go away and if held by those who are in charge will lead to an increase in the protesters' numbers and possibly an escalation to riots. Riots, largely meaningless or not are still riots. No offence but just because you fail to see the problem does not mean it will go away.

Do I read this correctly? Are you saying that if the small unrepresentative group down in Dame Street rejecting our democracy are not listened to, that they will then escalate their protests to rioting? Is that not a fascist threat reminiscent of the tactics of Hitler in the early 1930s?

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, I think they do. In what way do you mean 'disenfranchised' here?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dis-engaged from the political system.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Do I read this correctly? Are you saying that if the small unrepresentative group down in Dame Street rejecting our democracy are not listened to, that they will then escalate their protests to rioting? Is that not a fascist threat reminiscent of the tactics of Hitler in the early 1930s?

Unless every single participant in surveyed there is no way to ascertain how representative of society as a whole they are.

They are not rejecting democracy - quite the opposite - they are trying to create a real democracy where political power is not vested in unelected public/civil servants and the members of the Cabinet.

The movement is strictly non-violent so if there are riots - it will not emanate from the Occupy movement.

hmmm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are not rejecting democracy - quite the opposite - they are trying to create a real democracy where political power is not vested in unelected public/civil servants and the members of the Cabinet.

And how do they want to get there?

They can either
a) Create incremental change through the existing democratic system by getting members elected and having their views heard or
b) Collapse the current system entirely and rebuild their new system in the chaos that follows.

Typically in scenario b) a demagogue emerges and an unpleasant period of repression follows as the public looks for revenge on those who have upset the system. I can't think of a single example where a lovey dovey swiss democracy emerges.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where did I personally claim exactly 99% of the Irish were dissatisfied? You are once again taking a comment completely out of context. For the last time - it was a comment answering a question about what complaining achieved. I mentioned, in passing, the French Revolution - now you are like a dog with a bone. Let it go man!

So a poll stated last July 55% were dissatisfied and you dismiss them as a fringe element? Over half the adult population are radicals? Really?

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

And how do they want to get there?

They can either
a) Create incremental change through the existing democratic system by getting members elected and having their views heard or
b) Collapse the current system entirely and rebuild their new system in the chaos that follows.

Typically in scenario b) a demagogue emerges and an unpleasant period of repression follows as the public looks for revenge on those who have upset the system. I can't think of a single example where a lovey dovey swiss democracy emerges.

Switzerland. Power vested in the cantons, not central government. Met their president once - nice man. Had no idea who he was.

Option a) Do you believe change within the system is genuinely possible when the whip system stifles any hint of independent thought within political parties?

Option b) Although the Irish Free state had a civil war this was for political ideological purposes and the mechanics of the state continued fairly seamlessly during the transition from British to Irish administration. They adopted and adapted what was working and replaced what wasn't. The whole system doesn't have to be dismantled - it has to be reformed.

Hayte

hmmm wrote: »

And how do they want to get there?

That is a matter for debate (because it is a discourse). I can't speak for an entire movement of people though. I mean I can pitch ideas out there if you want but I ain't about forcing ideology on you.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dis-engaged from the political system.

So, not interested in, say, the Presidential election? Didn't give a toss about the general election in February, didn't care about Lisbon?

I have to say I take 'disenfranchised' to mean a good deal more than just "not really very interested in politics", because the latter is true of most people most of the time. 'Disenfranchised' would imply to me being unable to vote, or otherwise precluded from having any influence on politics, and I don't think that's remotely true of the Irish public.

Sure, they don't each get to make the decisions that determine the course of the country, but there's absolutely no system under which they can (consider electoral mathematics before claiming referendums achieve this).

In February, 70.1% of the electorate voted, and 72.9% of those voted for one of the three main parties (82.8% if you include SF). I can't see how that's disenfranchisement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy

Godge wrote: »

Do I read this correctly? Are you saying that if the small unrepresentative group down in Dame Street rejecting our democracy are not listened to, that they will then escalate their protests to rioting? Is that not a fascist threat reminiscent of the tactics of Hitler in the early 1930s?

Im not making a threat, I'm pointing out what I feel is obvious. If things continue the way they are, with more and more people percieving the status quo as grossly unfair and them taking to the streets, unless something is done to reverse that trend then riots are inevitable. Riots are even predicted in many IMF restructuring plans. You also make the mistake of failing to recognise that those on Dame street are only a small part of a global protest.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are not rejecting democracy - quite the opposite - they are trying to create a real democracy where political power is not vested in unelected public/civil servants and the members of the Cabinet.

Not all of them seem to respect democracy, I saw one holding a placard saying "Don't vote, it only encourages them!" What's worse is he seemed to be one the organisers. In my view an ignorant mentality that's partly responsible for getting us into this mess.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The movement is strictly non-violent so if there are riots - it will not emanate from the Occupy movement.

If things get heated, all that's needed is a spark. Plenty of those 1%ers are investing heavily in security so it can be argued that they're expecting the worst wherever it comes from. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/business/protests-are-a-payday-for-security-firms.html?_r=1

Besides, it's been show some of our Gards are without a huge respect for civil rights and it only takes one rotten apple whichever side of the fence it's on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say I take 'disenfranchised' to mean a good deal more than just "not really very interested in politics", because the latter is true of most people most of the time. 'Disenfranchised' would imply to me being unable to vote, or otherwise precluded from having any influence on politics, and I don't think that's remotely true of the Irish public.

Does having your vote ignored not count? How many times have we voted more than once on the European referanda...?

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, not interested in, say, the Presidential election? Didn't give a toss about the general election in February, didn't care about Lisbon?

I have to say I take 'disenfranchised' to mean a good deal more than just "not really very interested in politics", because the latter is true of most people most of the time. 'Disenfranchised' would imply to me being unable to vote, or otherwise precluded from having any influence on politics, and I don't think that's remotely true of the Irish public.

Sure, they don't each get to make the decisions that determine the course of the country, but there's absolutely no system under which they can (consider electoral mathematics before claiming referendums achieve this).

In February, 70.1% of the electorate voted, and 72.9% of those voted for one of the three main parties (82.8% if you include SF). I can't see how that's disenfranchisement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think many feel that the current system does render them 'otherwise precluded from having any influence on politics'. The last GE was an anomaly in terms of voter participation and much of it was an anger vote aimed against FF. Now that FG/LP are full steam ahead with basically same policies as the previous government and U turning on their pre-election(while chanting the same its the IMF/ECB making us do it mantra) promises I reckon that feeling of being precluded from having any influence has intensified.

hmmm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I reckon that feeling of being precluded from having any influence has intensified.

Here you go
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/national_elections/nomination_for_membership_of_dail_eireann.html

500 euro and you can run on a platform of direct democracy or communism or whatever it is you want. You can stand outside your local supermarket and make your pitch to potential voters, no-one is going to stop you.

That's a lot less glamourous and exciting than picketing the CB though isn't it? Fiery speeches about economics and debt and fiat money will probably not be appreciated by the potential voters coming out with their shopping. What you could do instead is pool resources with a group of likeminded people and find a greater audience, perhaps call it a "political party" or something along those lines.

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

Here you go
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/national_elections/nomination_for_membership_of_dail_eireann.html

500 euro and you can run on a platform of direct democracy or communism or whatever it is you want. You can stand outside your local supermarket and make your pitch to potential voters, no-one is going to stop you.

That's a lot less glamourous and exciting than picketing the CB though isn't it? Fiery speeches about economics and debt and fiat money will probably not be appreciated by the potential voters coming out with their shopping.

To possibly become a powerless independent in the National Talking shop or take the Healy-Rea/Micheal Lowry/ Tony Gregory cute hoor route?

Not every one wants to be a politician - doesn't mean they are not entitled to voice an opinion on how the country is run.

Since you advocate those who feel dis-engaged from the political process should run for election does that mean you believe the political system as it exists in Ireland is fit for purpose?