Occupy Galway Group (mod note added)

inisboffin wrote: »

Again, how do we know what is going to be 'relevant'. If there wasn't a specific parallel protest sometime somewhere to what's going on globally, why does that mean it can't happen for the first time? I'm sure if there was a thread about dumping boxes of tea or sitting eight seats up on public transport, a 'whole hape' of people on boards would be jumping in with their tuppence about it asking for 'relevant' examples.

Those references were protests for something attainable and viable. To make demands to run the IMF out of the country and to take all the money back out of the banks is insanity and would hurt everyone include those the protests are trying to protect. Where do the protesters think their dole money will come from while they mess around on the square. Social welfare would be one of the first things on the chopping block considering a welfare spend of 21B euro which is insane! If the protestors got their way they would consign a lot of people including themselves to the breadline and will find that a tent will be where they will live permanently without IMF dole money!

Capitalism never paid for anything. Common work paid for them tents.

inisboffin wrote: »

This is a circular argument imo. Also not everyone involved in the Galway protests is on the dole, like you keep mentioning. Nor are they all 'serial protesters'. We see what we want to, don't we?

I agree, it is circular. There are dividing opinions on this and they will not change - that's life. I keep mentioning the dole because i personally know some of the lads down there quite well and they haven't had a job in years. Those same lads haven't tried too hard either to find work. And of those lads 2 of them are serial protesters - FACT!! I know them and know they are bandwagon protesters. I will say that not everyone down there is the same, but if you can squat on eyre square 24x7 then you are on the dole - FACT! There are those who come and go but the majority are permanently placed and the IMF are funding this party of theirs every dole day. Why have they not mentioned welfare reform? When they add that to their list of demands they will earn my respect but if they were told tomorrow that IMF funding was being used in the next budget to give a 100% increase across the board in welfare payments then their tune would change quite quickly as they have a vested interest in this.

inisboffin wrote: »

I'll repeat. Not everyone down there is on the dole - also FACT from knowing people myself.
I'm not doubting you know someone who is but you can't sweepingly refer to everyone involved in the same way. Not everyone is there 24/7 either.

I never said that all were there 24x7 nor did i say all were on the dole. I suggest you read what i say more carefully before incorrectly responding. Would all those protesters suddenly stop being anti-capitalists if a large global organisation went down their and offer them jobs with six figure salaries? I stand by my opinion that if any of the protesters were offered the opportunity to leap into the so called "1%" they would do it without a 2nd thought for their 99% peers.

zarquon wrote: »

I never said that all were there 24x7 nor did i say all were on the dole. I suggest you read what i say more carefully before incorrectly responding. Would all those protesters suddenly stop being anti-capitalists if a large global organisation went down their and offer them jobs with six figure salaries? I stand by my opinion that if any of the protesters were offered the opportunity to leap into the so called "1%" they would do it without a 2nd thought for their 99% peers.

Ah. Now you're clear.

inisboffin wrote: »

Ah. Now you're clear.

Of course, we are all discussing our opinions here, that is the purpose of a forum. Every ideology is an opinion. Your posts are your opinion too so i guess you're clear now also

Canvasser wrote: »

They're making Eyre Square look like a halting site :mad:

In fairness, there are more (badly written) signs that you see in the average halting site. And less rubbish.

But I wonder what proportion of Galway's tents are occupied? Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8846402/Only-one-in-10-St-Pauls-protesters-stay-overnight.html

biko wrote: »

Capitalism never paid for anything. Common work paid for them tents.

Capitalists (i.e. those that hold capital) paid for the materials & wages of those common workers.

Therefore capitalism (i.e. the creation of capital) has paid for a lot of things that workers have produced (unless the workers live in a communist country).

padraig71 wrote: »

You have it back to front. Where does capital come from, except from the exploitation of labour? As for materials, they derive ultimately from the natural ecology to which all human beings belong, and which has finite resources - whereas the current system demands exponential growth and is therefore unsustainable.

No, I don't have it backwards.

Here's the simplistic version:

I make something, I sell it and generate profit. I use the profit to make more items for sale. If I make profit than I can spend with my current resources this becomes becomes capital.

I use this capital to expand my production resources, meaning I can employ people (labour) in order to produce goods generating more profit. My employees get rewarded for their work through various means, among these salary, shares in the company, profit sharing schemes etc.

I strike a balance between paying the workers enough to keep them motivated and keep the costs down. We generate more profit, hence more capital.

Captialism did pay for the tent (unless it was made in China).

The materials may well be derived from nature, but they do cost money (capital) to process into usable form.

Next you'll be telling me that the marxist theory of utility (equating an apple tart to a mud pie) is valid.

Shakti wrote: »

Theres quite a difference between the 'fianna fail' ahem.. "fundraising" (bribery) tent at the Races and the tents in Eyre Sq. Also illuminating that people are more 'occupied' sic with their own sense of the public cosmetic than they were about the nepotism, solicitation etc. that went on under the formers particular flapping canvas of Ballybrit.

The funny thing about the Ballybrit tent was it was there oin the open and nobody (that I remember) said a word about it.

Oh yeah and the fact that it wasn't breaking any laws.....

antoobrien wrote: »

No, I don't have it backwards.

Here's the simplistic version:

I make something, I sell it and generate profit. I use the profit to make more items for sale. If I make profit than I can spend with my current resources this becomes becomes capital.

I use this capital to expand my production resources, meaning I can employ people (labour) in order to produce goods generating more profit. My employees get rewarded for their work through various means, among these salary, shares in the company, profit sharing schemes etc.

I strike a balance between paying the workers enough to keep them motivated and keep the costs down. We generate more profit, hence more capital.

Captialism did pay for the tent (unless it was made in China).

The materials may well be derived from nature, but they do cost money (capital) to process into usable form.

Next you'll be telling me that the marxist theory of utility (equating an apple tart to a mud pie) is valid.

Thank you, I know how the capitalist system works. The trouble is that it is has several key features that make it unsuitable for the problems now facing the human species, such as climate change and diminishing natural resources. Here are some of them:

1. It is unsustainable because it relies on exponential economic growth. This is driven by consumerism, i.e. people buying things they don't need and that don't make them happy, to the detriment of the planetary ecosystem.

2. It is dishonest in its accounting, because it does not include 'external' costs such as damage to the environment. Nor does it place any value on useful activities that do not produce profit, e.g. volunteering or housework.

3. It is amoral, because it does not distinguish intrinsically good from intrinsically bad profit-making activities - e.g. selling cluster bombs from selling cakes.

4. It tends towards more unequal societies, with various undesirable consequences for people's wellbeing.

Anyone who is interested in learning more, here are a few books to start with:

'Small is beautiful' by EF Schumacher
'Prosperity without growth' by Tim Jackson
'The spirit level' by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett

The people who are camped outside St Pauls Cathedral in London agreed last night according to Sky News to take away the tents, I think its time now for the people in Eyre Square to do the same, as I said in previous posts nothing can come out of this and it looks like a kip.

I realised capitalism does not work earlier this year when I met an American military person on holidays in Switzerland who started giving out about Irish banks when he heard my accent.

The 'poor sod', on leave from terrorising people in Iraq, told me he lost a lot of money on AIB and BOI shares. I asked him had he ever been to Ireland or did he know anything about Ireland, but he hadn't.

All he knew is that he got 'burned' because he speculated on what was supposed to be a booming investment.

The problem is that people like him (shareholders) are deemed to be more important than the people who actually work for companies and actually 'make' products.

So fair play to the people in the tents at Eyre Square.

At least they stand for something other than cronyism, corruption, offering builders access to Government ministers, and laughing at the ordinary people outside.

celty wrote: »

I realised capitalism does not work earlier this year when I met an American military person on holidays in Switzerland who started giving out about Irish banks when he heard my accent.

The 'poor sod', on leave from terrorising people in Iraq, told me he lost a lot of money on AIB and BOI shares. I asked him had he ever been to Ireland or did he know anything about Ireland, but he hadn't.

All he knew is that he got 'burned' because he speculated on what was supposed to be a booming investment.

The problem is that people like him (shareholders) are deemed to be more important than the people who actually work for companies and actually 'make' products.

So fair play to the people in the tents at Eyre Square.

At least they stand for something other than cronyism, corruption, offering builders access to Government ministers, and laughing at the ordinary people outside.

That's actually captialism at work. The person you were talking to is just a f**king idiot.