Occupy Dublin. Where are they now?

Three Seasons wrote: »

Bailing out banks is economically left wing. Letting them collapse would be right wing.

I think that is a point lost on most people ridiculing the occupy movement . . The phrase "socialism for the banks (and by extension financial investors), capitalism for everybody else" comes to mind.

In truth, it exposed how shallow, fickle and mindnumbingly idiotic most democratically run countries working off the capitalist "principles" truely are and for that most people felt ridiculing the movement was preferable to actually trying to have a debate on how society can progress. . .

This post is a case in point. . .How much progress could be made with any movement with so many people taking such ridiculous close minded views on the topic. . People want to be spoon fed -

• Whats the answer ?
• Whats the solution ?
• Whats the alternative ? (It must be communisim because theres no possible way anything else could be devised!:rolleyes:)

What is even funnier is that people are craving for change and when a completely radical movement (albeit not overly clear on a strategy) challanged the status quo, people got frightened simply because it didnt have all the solutions required. .

The occupy movement challanged the status quo - that was its success. Perhaps the reason why it was unemployed, students or hippies is because these sections of society havent been poisoned or conformed into group idiotic thinking. The are not putting their heads in the sand and working 40 hours a week, hoping that by 65 they will be able to retire. If thats your main focus, then how could you possibly comprehend any different from how you have lived your entire life?

People speak of this protest as if capitalism or banks are the ONLY way society can progress. Capitalism in its current format is an absolute mess because no government will allow a major financial institution to fail if it will have substantial ramifications on its economy. Nothing has changed since the collapse of 2007 because we all know that governments will continue to "ask" banks to do the right thing and let them do pretty much whatever they want and then bail them out when its required.

Ah but sure hasnt the world progressed so much better then it did under communism ? What a ridiculously flawed logic. The fundamental problem with any system (king, capitalism, communism, whatever) is usually the corrupted/flawed principles of those leading and those keeping them in charge. As a society, we have truely failed in this matter. Failed to have the foresight to encourage change (by how we vote and what we value), failed to encourage our children to not make our mistakes (financial education, more politically pro active) and failed to do anything other then follow the general consensus in how a country should be run (we are compleley reliant on USA/UK and Europe for prosperity).

For me, the occupy movement brought attention on the absolute comedic protection that financial services industries/investors get at all expense. Its not too different to the catholic church protecting abusive priests so their own house doesnt collapse . . Its really head in the sand stuff.

Perhaps the majority of people arent driven to have a swimming pool, 10 houses and 50 cars. Perhaps most people are happy just to live a frugal life where their children can get a good education , the best medical attention when required and basic ammenities etc. Perhaps the cream that people can make to get their 10 houses etc should be made after society takes care of its peoples basic needs and most importantly puts the health (mental) of its people ahead of everything else.

seamus wrote: »

No, you're right. People should just attach themselves to a protest regardless of what the aims of that protest are.

Occupy continually have failed to deliver any kind of cohesive message beyond, "We hate big business". They offer no solutions to the financial woes of everyday people, and as is evident in this thread anyone who even tries to ask the question is abused and called "sheeple" or whatever.

Occupy was an experiment in an open-source movement; a vehicle whereby people could protest because they're unhappy but have no real ideas on how to fix their unhappiness. It failed, for the simple reason that moaning and protesting alone accomplishes nothing when you have no solutions.

I dont think its message was "we hate big business", it was more questioning the power of "big business" in society.

It failed ? It got a worldwide message across that no political party or individual has managed. Many people are not happy with the status quo and expect change. Just because there hasnt been widespread revolutiond doesnt mean that something wouldnt happen in the future.

Perhaps future change will be brought about by tapping into what worked for the occupy movement. Perhaps future generations will focus on some of the ideas of the movement (big /directors exempt from moral hazzard) , instead of focusing on the clothes age of the members or how many zits they have on their face!

I dont believe anything can snap this current generation out of their conformist, closed minded ways to the status quo, but slowly we can bring in strategys to encourage future generations to be less stupid . .