Worldwide Occupy Movement?

grazz

PeadarCo wrote: »

What are its objectives? What would success be for the Occupy movement? Any time these questioned have been asked the questions been ignorned or goal posts shifted and thats before you even look for properly thought out proposals. Even the whole 99% v 1% thing there was a whole thread about that and no agreement was reached, the 1% kept changing.

Thats what I percieve about the Irish version. Obviously the Wall Street version has achieved international attention so it is a success in that sense. The problem is all they seem to do is protest and beyond that have no plans even the US one spent 3 months protesting before being hold to move(Also a sign of success that it managed to recruit enough people to inconviance the locals). Again basing from what I've seen from the Irish version the movement is not interested in democracy unless its them or their decsions.

As whole they seem a very well meaning group of people who are hopelessly nieve and at times don't seem to have done basic research about what ever they're protesting about. Look its nice to protest but unless you have an alternative idea thought out your're wasting your time as option 1 can't be changed without an option 2.

It is a movement long overdue, for too long we've had a culture that indulges in and celebrates greed and deems inequality and the position of the poor as been deserved. Large companies have also made a mockery of the democratic system having had politicians from all sides in their pockets since the 80s. In the US the Democrats and Republicans are no different at this stage. I think thats a scary Orwellian thought, and its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.

grazz

grazz wrote: »

It is a movement long overdue, for too long we've had a culture that indulges in and celebrates greed and deems inequality and the position of the poor as been deserved. Large companies have also made a mockery of the democratic system having had politicians from all sides in their pockets since the 80s. In the US the Democrats and Republicans are no different at this stage. I think thats a scary Orwellian thought, and its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.

For Ireland it matters not who occupies the White House, as long as he (or she) turns a blind eye to American jobs flowing out of the US and into our hedonistic little tax haven.

oscarBravo

grazz wrote: »

...its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.

Beyond underpants gnome logic, how are they a step in that direction?

southsiderosie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Beyond underpants gnome logic, how are they a step in that direction?

Um, I vaguely remember this from South Park, but what does 'underpants gnome logic' mean, exactly?

(I can't watch videos, so I'd appreciate it if someone could just say what it was).

oscarBravo

southsiderosie wrote: »

Um, I vaguely remember this from South Park, but what does 'underpants gnome logic' mean, exactly?

The general meme is a three step process:

1. Collect underpants.
2. ???
3. Profit!

In this case, it's:

1. Occupy Wall Street.
2. ???
3. Solve the world's problems!

In both cases, there's a small but probably important step missing. There seems to be a collective belief among occupiers that the process of occupation is an important step in the process of fixing a broken world, but I have an annoying engineer's habit of wanting to see the steps lined up in a staircase before I'm convinced that the first step is, in fact, heading in the right direction.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Godge was claiming that other Gardai police themselves, which I am pointing out is not the case, the Ombudsman is independent and only refers things back in cases of very minor incidents.

.

I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.


http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/GSOC/Five-yearReport2012.pdf

"The Commission has responded to 650 referrals from the Garda Síochána under Section 102 of the Act. "


My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants? If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.

Memnoch

Godge wrote: »

I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.


http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/GSOC/Five-yearReport2012.pdf

"The Commission has responded to 650 referrals from the Garda Síochána under Section 102 of the Act. "


My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants? If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.

I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?

Have you read the thread?

Godge

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?

The discussion arose from the following exchange below several pages ago.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is a thread about the worldwide occupy movement... so the damage it is doing to local businesses is important. I just heard about a story in the US where occupiers are throwing bricks through breaking restaurant windows.

They also caused random destructive acts. Source

davoxx wrote: »

i'm not sure what the point is here ... i mean there are corrupt police, does that mean that the entire police force should be dismissed?

Memnoch

Godge wrote: »

The discussion arose from the following exchange below several pages ago.

I see.

I think the point is valid. It's wrong to generalise an entire movement based on the actions of a few individuals.

You seem to have taken it into a very semantical and specific argument about the guards while missing/ignoring the broader general point.

This is only accentuated by the fact that the guarda are 1) employed by the taxpayer, 2) have statutory powers as well as obligations.

Memnoch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you read the thread?

I have not read every single post on 15 pages of discussion.

oscarBravo

Memnoch wrote: »

I think the point is valid. It's wrong to generalise an entire movement based on the actions of a few individuals.

You seem to have taken it into a very semantical and specific argument about the guards while missing/ignoring the broader general point.

This is only accentuated by the fact that the guarda are 1) employed by the taxpayer, 2) have statutory powers as well as obligations.

You're repeating the mistake made by an earlier poster of skirting around the actual point being made. The Occupy movement doesn't appear to take seriously the very real problem of violent and antisocial elements that may appear in its midst. It seems content to distance itself from those elements, shrugging them off with an attitude of "we don't condone violence, so it's not our problem".

That's an attitude that we don't accept from police forces, so we expect that processes will be put in place to deal with rogue elements. Occupy seems to feel it can evade the need for such processes.

If you want to use the argument that the police should be held to a higher standard, fair enough: but remember that the corollary to that argument is that the Occupy movement is accepting that the police have higher standards than they themselves do. Is that the message the movement should be sending?

Memnoch wrote: »

I have not read every single post on 15 pages of discussion.

You probably should, it saves the rest of us repeating ourselves.

20Cent

Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

Was called the world against apartheid check it out!

PeadarCo

20Cent wrote: »

Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

Was called the world against apartheid check it out!

Occupy and the anti-apartheid have very little in common. The anti-apartheid had a very specific goal equal rights regardless of race. Something which existed in other countries. The Occupy movement from what I've deduced from its supporters doesn't have any goals or a least anything that can stand up to critical analysis.

How does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?

20Cent

PeadarCo wrote: »

Occupy and the anti-apartheid have very little in common. The anti-apartheid had a very specific goal equal rights regardless of race. Something which existed in other countries. The Occupy movement from what I've deduced from its supporters doesn't have any goals or a least anything that can stand up to critical analysis.

How does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?

Equal rights you say? Sounds like communism you know some people work harder then others, but the ANC were violent, those anti-apartheid people were secretly run by communist Russia, where is the risk assessed and priced detailed report into exactly how apartheid could be ended, what will replace apartheid, its just hippies handing out flyers, there aren't very many of them are there, there's too many of them they are damaging business etc etc etc

Annoying isn't it.

Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

less of the "thieves" stuff please, no hippies or thieves or any other general insults, let's keep it all nice and civil

PeadarCo

20Cent wrote: »

Equal rights you say? Sounds like communism you know some people work harder then others, but the ANC were violent, those anti-apartheid people were secretly run by communist Russia, where is the risk assessed and priced detailed report into exactly how apartheid could be ended, what will replace apartheid, its just hippies handing out flyers, there aren't very many of them are there, there's too many of them they are damaging business etc etc etc

Annoying isn't it.

Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.

The anti-apartheid had a very clear goal which was that all races were equal in the eyes of law. That goal was achieved when all races were on an equal legal footing. It was achieved through a combination of external diplomatic pressure and internal agitation.

Occupy is nothing like that. Its for equality(I think but I wouldn't mind some clarification) but what type? income equality? but there are multiple causes for income inequality which of those does the Occupy movement feel it could remedy and how. It should be remembered that the anti-apartheid movement only solved one type of inequality(which was their aim) and didn't create absolute equality in South Africa. It was successful because its aim was very specific and easy to explain(meaning it was very hard for oppenents to make it look as if the movement supported something else other than its true aims). This is something the Occupy movement could learn from.

I would like to know the goals of Occupy and I wouldn't keep asking the question if I didn't. What would it take for their specific protest to stop? How does Occupy plan to achieve it goals? I'm not the only poster here who has a problem figuring this out. That implies that Occupy is not very good at communicating its message. Could you point me to specific post/external scource were a clear easy set of goals were laid out. I'm only applying critiquing the Occupy movement like I would the current gov/IMF or any other organisation.

The question which you didn't answer was how does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.

Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:

(1) Give us back our oil
(2) World Peace
(3) Something incoherent about equality

I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.

Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:

(1) What oil?
(2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
(3) Equality of what exactly?

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:

(1) Give us back our oil
(2) World Peace
(3) Something incoherent about equality

I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.

Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:

(1) What oil?
(2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
(3) Equality of what exactly?

The thread is about the worldwide Occupy movement. Each country has separate sub issues they wish to highlight. None of them are anything like what you have in your list above. They have been posted here many times. The Dame St ones can be found at the bottom of their homepage.
http://www.occupydamestreet.ie/

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The anti-apartheid movement was equally as colourfull, the average march would have had a lot of the groups you mention above. Even then I bet there was the Ian O'Doherty equivalent saying they didn't know what it was about and calling them communists (many in the ANC actually were communists).

Economic Justice is the goal the Occupy Movement has had since the start.
Or do you contend that all these different groups just simultaneously decided to gather together in the same place at the same time for some reason!!!!!!!!!

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's not like they are running short on real grievances in the states, though. Seems to me your problem is with each individual section here. Hippies! omg! maoists! omg! these people have a cheek existing!

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

Economic Justice is the goal the Occupy Movement has had since the start.

I don't know what that means.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what that means.

Obama does
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg

Ben Bernanke does
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rjqjr0An4

Patrick Hounihan does:
"While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."

Alan Dukes
he added, but acknowledged that many people would like to see more being done “to alleviate the burden that all of that stupidity in banking has placed on us.”

and many many more.

Valmont

The phrase economic justice to me seems to be a rather thin cover for the phrase redistributive justice, or am I wrong?

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

The phrase economic justice to me seems to be a rather thin cover for the phrase redistributive justice, or am I wrong?

No not at all, you can pick any two words an infer loads from them if you want. Its not anti-capitalism, just take a cursory look at what wall st has been up to and the fallout from it shows there is something rotten happening that needs to be changed or the exact same thing will happen again and again. On top of which its not capitalism at all anyway! In capitalism you lose bad bets not get paid. Good article about it here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

The influence of corporate money in politics is eroding democracy worldwide this is clear. Making private debt public is obviously wrong. No one wants to turn the world into Cuba or North Korea this is the same smear that is spread about anything that even questions the status quo. Get past that and see that the occupy movement is actually a good thing for everybody in the long run. Why does there have to be some sinister ulterior motive or conspiracy behind everything!!!

oscarBravo

20Cent wrote: »

Obama does
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg

I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip.

Ben Bernanke does
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rjqjr0An4

I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip either.

Patrick Hounihan does:
"While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."

I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote.

Alan Dukes
he added, but acknowledged that many people would like to see more being done “to alleviate the burden that all of that stupidity in banking has placed on us.”

I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote either.

So - in clear, consise and coherent terms - what does "economic justice" mean, and how do you plan to achieve it?

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip. I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip either. I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote. I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote either.

So - in clear, consise and coherent terms - what does "economic justice" mean, and how do you plan to achieve it?

Does it really matter if you are not hearing it when those in power are?

In the US the presidential race it has become one of the main issues.
Obama
For most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t - and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

Even the republicans are talking about it and are attacking each other for being greedy capitalist! Newt Gingrich made a half hour documentary about it.
A close connection to Wall St is becoming a hindrance to politicians instead of a benefit.
New legislation is being brought in the like Dodd-Frank reform bill which has passed and is being implemented right now.

In Ireland corruption and the influence of money is a big story, front page of the Indo today, surveys show 86% of Irish people think corruption is a big problem. The current gov want substantial changes made to the constitution and a citizens assembly in order to fix the democratic deficit.
Nama is being widely discussed and examined, it will be under the freedom of information act by the summer because people were demanding it.

How democratic is the whole eurozone is currently under discussion and debate!

You think politicians just decide to do all of this? Its just happening by accident or would have happened anyway!
Of course not its because many many people made it their business to Not claiming Occupy is responsible for all of it but it certainly played a role in encouraging it.

PeadarCo

A question. If Occupy can't define what economic justice is how does it know that the people who they claim support it are talking about the same thing and want the same result as Occupy?

Its an ambigous term and depending on the person could lead to very different results all in the name of economic justice. Obama and Alan Dukes could potenially both support that ideal but produce very different solutions neither of which might be to Occupys liking.