Bill Maher: Occupy should stop camping & start participating in the political process

[Broke Wave]

Lol this is complete bullshyt. There's probably a few hundred thousand occupiers in the entire united states, but they have successfully changed the debate and made this about income inequality. KEEP occupying, KEEP putting up tents. Protesting is what is making these people uncomfortable and putting the heat on them. How many people marched with MLK in Selma? Trick question, everybody who believed in the cause was there in some capacity.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Lol this is complete bullshyt. There's probably a few hundred thousand occupiers in the entire united states, but they have successfully changed the debate and made this about income inequality. KEEP occupying, KEEP putting up tents. Protesting is what is making these people uncomfortable and putting the heat on them. How many people marched with MLK in Selma? Trick question, everybody who believed in the cause was there in some capacity.

They don't have any legislative successes they can account for though and won't unless politicians are scared of what they can do. Right now, they're not.

 

[Broke Wave]

They don't have any legislative successes they can account for though and won't unless politicians are scared of them. Right now, they're not.

The "powers that be" made protesting illegal and disregarded the first amendment though and started doing mass arrests.


Imagine a STRONG occupy movement re-invigorated by the fall, espousing true liberal democratic principles, you don't think that would have an immeasurable impact on the election?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

The "powers that be" made protesting illegal and disregarded the first amendment though and started doing mass arrests.

That's not a win though. People are apathetic to that and it doesn't further their cause.

Imagine a STRONG occupy movement re-invigorated by the fall, espousing true liberal democratic principles, you don't think that would have an immeasurable impact on the election?

That's the thing though, they're not really a strong movement united by true liberal democratic principles of any discernible platform for that matter. It's seems they're mostly left-wing although they do include some Meta Reign types (where is dude?) and they seem to be a mish-mash of the Nader-Kucinich-type hard left, "old left"-type communists, anarchists, and whiny hipsters.

And the movement deserves some props for altering the debate. But I fail to see how they would have any significant effect on electoral outcomes and the legislative process if they only just keep up what they're doing now. Staying on message and visible is important though.

 

[Broke Wave]

That's not a win though. People are apathetic to that.



That's the thing though, they're not really a strong movement united by true liberal democratic principles of any discernible platform for that matter. It's seems they're mostly left-wing although they do include some Meta Reign types (where is dude?) and they seem to be a mish-mash of the Nader-Kucinich-type hard left, "old left"-type communists, anarchists, and whiny hipsters.

And the movement deserves some props for altering the debate. But I fail to see how they would have any significant effect on electoral outcomes and the legislative process if they only just keep up what they're doing now.

Any time a very large group of people hits the streets and is organized, they become legitimized in the mainstream (Ask the KKK).

I totally agree that without political organization, the whole movement is moot, but who's to say that they won't be about elections this time around, I mean the occupy movement was 2011, there was no vote to even influence.

Sidenote, I don't agree with your characterization of Nader-Kucinich as the "hard left", and infact I find that Nader is far different from Kucinich in many ways.


I only really don't like that piece of shyt Bill Maher anyway, so I'm very suspicious of anything that raging hypocrite says.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Eh...no. They get pundits talking and Democratic politicians to give lip service to their greivances, but that's as far as it goes. Democratic congressman X might come on CNN and say "income inequality and crony capitalism is a major issue in our country that needs to be addressed" then turn around get bribed by Bank of America. Only real, active involvement gets results.

It seems you and I have differing definitions of the political process. If you're appealing to politicians in office to change policies on your behalf and appearing on mainstream news programs to promote your policies, then you are indeed a part of that political system, in my opinion. You seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the political process ONLY includes electoral politics, and not the main media channels that greatly influence and sway the opinions of the populace voting.

I'll address the last sentence down below.

They could use SOME structuring. Right now they're a herd of cats. At some form of a concise platform on some basic general positions and demands and some charismatic, knowledgeable spokespeople who can articulate it.

Some essentialism is needed, I agree. But the disparate amount of opinions is actually a strength if utilized correctly, as it allows for multiple options to be considered without being expelled as explicitly worthless as is done so much in Dem-Rep discourse.

As for spokespeople, I'm ambivalent toward that, as that also dilutes the main strength of movements like these. I truly think that it's impossible to have one person be the embodiment of the organization of something like this, and Occupy should organize itself as such. Either that spokesperson should be faceless, and let the goals and policies of the movement speak as its main face, or it should be multiple spokespeople, representing multiple views coming together to propose a new form of government.

All of these people speaking for the movement now need serious training in articulating their views, regardless of how they organize in the future.

They could take still mobilize and propagate their message through media and hold demonstrations against government and corporations while actively involving themselves in political process. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Also the Zapatistas weren't exactly a stunning success, and their refusal to endorse Obrador, who lost a close election was an example of the perils of not involving yourself in the political process.

Regarding them "providing a prefigurative example of what a new political society should like," they just sounds like a lot of inconsequential fluff to me.

This is what I mean be "prefigurative": Prefigurative politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is why I'm so adamant about them not involving themselves in typical electoral politics. By the fact that your political agenda is taking the form of the same type of politics that led us to this point, you are missing a serious element of breaking it down. The form of something in itself is ideological content; the organization of something like Occupy should reflect this. I'd rather them simply organize into a commune that is indicative of the type of society that they would create than just involve themselves in the same form of politics as before.

That, in itself, is a political act if radically enacted enough outside of a "state space," so to speak.

As for Obrador: How much would Obrador have done for them? From what I can tell, Obrador, despite his reaching out to the Zapatistas and endorsing of their referendums, is still beholden to old, money involved politics. A key element of his run as Head of the Federal District was business-friendly economic policy, something strictly at odds with the way in which the Zapatistas work. There was no reason for them to really support them, because there was a possibility that it would have backfired on them in a way similar (though maybe not to the same extent) that the Egyptian revolution backfired on the populace once the military came to power.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you brought that up, because if Occupy goes with your ideas, that's going to be a major, possibly movement-shattering concern even if a candidate/leader comes from their own, because the form of government is so radically and ideologically different from the form of the Occupy movement.

Not a political organization, but the political process of elections and legislation, and you either have to participate in it or overthrow with force to change it in any meaningful way.

That still doesn't solve my issue. The process itself is an illegitimate, b*stardized form of democracy, and participating in it implicitly signifies that you approve of it. Why do you think that the Italians wouldn't let Communist parties involve themselves in parliamentary politics until they renounced their revolutionary ideals?

Is there a way to reconcile this and participate in the current form of electoral politics without approving of it? I don't think so.

It would have to be done with pooled resources and much less available funds. If you're going to go up against candidates funded by the banks, oil companies, etc, that's obviously going to be a huge uphill climb. You have a few people like George Soros and Peter Lewis, but not many. The first step would be getting onto ballots at the local level and at least getting some serious progressives to the table so they can be heard. People are already upset about all the money in politics and how elections are bought. There has to be a breaking point. Getting out your message with not much financing at a grassroots level is easier nowadays though all the technology and social media.

If a major element of the problem is the gross amount of capital influence in politics, then wouldn't alligning yourself with Soros and Lewis, despite their views, be a problem? You would be doing the same thing as Tea Partiers to some extent at that point. And if they're upset with money in politics, then wouldn't responding with your own superbillionaires be inherently ridiculous?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Any time a very large group of people hits the streets and is organized, they become legitimized in the mainstream (Ask the KKK).

I totally agree that without political organization, the whole movement is moot, but who's to say that they won't be about elections this time around, I mean the occupy movement was 2011, there was no vote to even influence.

The thing about economics is that it's complex and requires some research and thinking, and even then, there isn't clear-cut quantifiable solutions. Regarding the Selma example, equality for blacks wasn't a complicated thing for people to wrap their heads around. It was blacks deserve basic civil rights just like other Americans or they don't. It's not easy or emotionally appealing to argue for the return of Glass-Steagall.

As far as income inequality, there's no silver bullet for that. Perhaps they could rally around raising the top marginal tax rates, eliminating the loopholes, really regulating the banks, getting out of Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas, reform of campaign financing, and drastically cutting the bloated military budget, but that's where the need for real organization, vision, and participation in the political process comes in.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

It seems you and I have differing definitions of the political process. If you're appealing to politicians in office to change policies on your behalf and appearing on mainstream news programs to promote your policies, then you are indeed a part of that political system, in my opinion. You seem to believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the political process ONLY includes electoral politics, and not the main media channels that greatly influence and sway the opinions of the populace voting.?

You can argue the semantics of being involved in the political process, but appearing on TV shows is going to get anything passed through Congress. Also, if you're going to say that people running for office legitimizes the system, so is appearing on corporate-owned and corporate advertiser-funded networks.

But there's more ways than just elections. There should be grassroots mobilization around issues, lobbying of congresspeople, a media apparatus, formation of PACs, and demonstrations/protests.

Some essentialism is needed, I agree. But the disparate amount of opinions is actually a strength if utilized correctly, as it allows for multiple options to be considered without being expelled as explicitly worthless as is done so much in Dem-Rep discourse.

If there is no platform at the most basic level, I'm not sure how there's any method or solution-formulation to any of their concerns because their concerns aren't even clearly articulated.

As for spokespeople, I'm ambivalent toward that, as that also dilutes the main strength of movements like these. I truly think that it's impossible to have one person be the embodiment of the organization of something like this, and Occupy should organize itself as such. Either that spokesperson should be faceless, and let the goals and policies of the movement speak as its main face, or it should be multiple spokespeople, representing multiple views coming together to propose a new form of government.

A spokesperson in a mask like Ghostface Killah when Wu first came out would be dope.

But seriously, every movement needs some people who effective propagate their message. The Black Panthers had Newton, Seale, Carter, Hampton, etc. The Zapatistas had Marcos, etc. And everyone doesn't have agree with or revere the leader, and people should be skeptical of them, but you need somebody. A large part of the reason why Occupy's reputation has taken a huge hit is because people are like okay, what do they really want?

This is what I mean be "prefigurative": Prefigurative politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which is why I'm so adamant about them not involving themselves in typical electoral politics. By the fact that your political agenda is taking the form of the same type of politics that led us to this point, you are missing a serious element of breaking it down. The form of something in itself is ideological content; the organization of something like Occupy should reflect this. I'd rather them simply organize into a commune that is indicative of the type of society that they would create than just involve themselves in the same form of politics as before. That, in itself, is a political act if radically enacted enough outside of a "state space," so to speak.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the heart of your concern is that you're against capitalism altogether and you want Occupy to be part of overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with some form of socialism or anarcho-syndicalism maybe (personally if I was starting a nation from scratch I'd probably go with a Scandinavian democratic socialist model, but I'm pragmatic about over here).

Organizing into a commune in a display of prefigurative politics would be a specific form of protest tailored to your ideology, and not necessarily representative of the prevailing collective ideological makeup of the occupy movement.

As for Obrador: How much would Obrador have done for them? From what I can tell, Obrador, despite his reaching out to the Zapatistas and endorsing of their referendums, is still beholden to old, money involved politics. A key element of his run as Head of the Federal District was business-friendly economic policy, something strictly at odds with the way in which the Zapatistas work. There was no reason for them to really support them, because there was a possibility that it would have backfired on them in a way similar (though maybe not to the same extent) that the Egyptian revolution backfired on the populace once the military came to power.

I can't say with any sort of assuredness or specificity what Obrador would've or would've not done because I haven't researched it enough. I just have heard that he was a left-leaning pol who was more sympathetic to their cause then his opponent and Zapatistas refused to endorse or support him, and lost a close election and the movement came under heavy criticism for that.

Nevertheless, I'm glad you brought that up, because if Occupy goes with your ideas, that's going to be a major, possibly movement-shattering concern even if a candidate/leader comes from their own, because the form of government is so radically and ideologically different from the form of the Occupy movement.

I think your idea of forming a commune as a form of prefigurative politics would be more movement-shattering because probably most of the people involved would be like Everyone in Occupy isn't a revolutionary thinker. They're mostly just pissed off urbanites who are frustrated because they can't find a job while they see the rich get richer and richer off of a corrupt system.

But this goes back to why their amorphousness is problematic. We're both trying to define who they are and what they do because they have not made that distinction themselves.

That still doesn't solve my issue. The process itself is an illegitimate, b*stardized form of democracy, and participating in it implicitly signifies that you approve of it. Why do you think that the Italians wouldn't let Communist parties involve themselves in parliamentary politics until they renounced their revolutionary ideals? Is there a way to reconcile this and participate in the current form of electoral politics without approving of it? I don't think so.

That's where we diverge. You seem to want a revolution. I don't, and I don't think most of the occupy protestors do either.

If a major element of the problem is the gross amount of capital influence in politics, then wouldn't alligning yourself with Soros and Lewis, despite their views, be a problem? You would be doing the same thing as Tea Partiers to some extent at that point. And if they're upset with money in politics, then wouldn't responding with your own superbillionaires be inherently ridiculous?

Not at all. I see no problem with accepting money from billionaires if they want to contribute because they're funding policies that go against their profit motive. The problem with the tea party is that they have the Koch brothers, oil companies, banks, etc. funding them in order to take advantage of their misplaced sense of anger and disillusionment in order to fatten their wallets. If someone like Soros or these guys are providing funding to a political movement that would make them pay more in taxes and give them less loopholes, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[TrueEpic08]

You can argue the semantics of being involved in the political process, but appearing on TV shows is going to get anything passed through Congress. Also, if you're going to say that people running for office legitimizes the system, so is appearing on corporate-owned and corporate advertiser-funded networks.

Agreed on the last part. I never meant to say anything different from that. And my point with the TV shows thing is that while it doesn't directly influence the political process in ways like putting things through congress, it DOES have the most influence in ordering the ways in which we look at issues and candidates within the system. I don't know about you, but in a typically political conversation, you will always, ALWAYS have someone quoting views, statistics and opinions that originate through those channels. That type of control of opinion may not be totally direct, but is a HUGE part of the way the political process (in America, especially) works.

But there's more ways than just elections. There should be grassroots mobilization around issues, lobbying of congresspeople, a media apparatus, formation of PACs, and demonstrations/protests.

Again, not disagreeing. But protest itself is not enough. There has to be more decisive action than just that, especially since those politicians that a lot of these actions could and would appeal to would not listen at first. Protestors must create a world for themselves, to some extent.

The media apparatus thing is interesting, though...how would you suppose that would work?

If there is no platform at the most basic level, I'm not sure how there's any method or solution-formulation to any of their concerns because their concerns aren't even clearly articulated.

That's what I meant by "essentialism." Or rather "strategic essentialism." Do not subordinate your views or ideology to any one viewpoint, but instead come up with an at least temporary consensus (you would ideally want something more concrete, as that prevents infighting if you do achieve your goals) that all in the group would work toward. The disparate viewpoints is important for evaluation and reevaluation of that consensus.

A spokesperson in a mask like Ghostface Killah when Wu first came out would be dope.

But seriously, every movement needs some people who effective propagate their message. The Black Panthers had Newton, Seale, Carter, Hampton, etc. The Zapatistas had Marcos, etc. And everyone doesn't have agree with or revere the leader, and people should be skeptical of them, but you need somebody. A large part of the reason why Occupy's reputation has taken a huge hit is because people are like okay, what do they really want?

If it were me, I'd actually have it be a different person every time, as long as they were trained and articulate. Even the faceless Subcommandante Marcos became a cult of personality to some extent, and I'd like to prevent that. But that's just me .

As for the last part...not necessarily. You could organize it similarly to the Paris Commune, or even in the form of a nested council: Participatory politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be, nor really should be just one person representing all of these viewpoints. It should be more inclusive and consociational (can I use that word here...) than that. I do agree with that last sentence, and that is something that needs to be addressed no matter how Occupy organizes itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the heart of your concern is that you're against capitalism altogether and you want Occupy to be part of overthrowing the capitalist system and replacing it with some form of socialism or anarcho-syndicalism maybe (personally if I was starting a nation from scratch I'd probably go with a Scandinavian democratic socialist model, but I'm pragmatic about over here).

Organizing into a commune in a display of prefigurative politics would be a specific form of protest tailored to your ideology, and not necessarily representative of the prevailing collective ideological makeup of the occupy movement.

Well, nominally yes, I would describe myself as Socialist-Anarchist in my beliefs and believe that a potlach or gift economy system could be instituted in the place of the fiat system of money exchange (especially since I think we are closer to post-scarcity in some respects than we think...), but in action I wonder about myself. How do my political beliefs conflict with my vast knowledge and enjoyment of current pop culture (music, wrestling, film, etc.)? Can they be reconciled?

That's another thread, though...

ANYWAY, I'm not sure I exactly agree with that second paragraph. I believe it applies because, as you say, Occupy is a movement made up of disparate sects who have a problem with the current make up of the political system and want to change it. Strategic essentialism and prefigurative politics, I believe, are essential steps toward crystallizing that without losing the disparate opinions of the movement.

Would I like it to be a first step toward my desired political system? Would you like it to be a desired step toward YOUR political system? I personally believe that the formulation of a preferred society is the absent cause behind all forms of philosophizing and theorizing, but I was attempting to find a solution to what seems to be their main concerns mostly regardless of what I would like to see happen.

Mostly.

I can't say with any sort of assuredness or specificity what Obrador would've or would've not done because I haven't researched it enough. I just have heard that he was a left-leaning pol who was more sympathetic to their cause then his opponent and Zapatistas refused to endorse or support him, and lost a close election and the movement came under heavy criticism for that.

Center-Left, but that's mostly what it was. Honestly, I think there are bigger problems with the Zapatistas than them not endorsing Obrador because they did not believe that he would have really done much for them (which I agreed with), but that's just me.

I think your idea of forming a commune as a form of prefigurative politics would be more movement-shattering because probably most of the people involved would be like Everyone in Occupy isn't a revolutionary thinker. They're mostly just pissed off urbanites who are frustrated because they can't find a job while they see the rich get richer and richer off of a corrupt system.

But this goes back to why their amorphousness is problematic. We're both trying to define who they are and what they do because they have not made that distinction themselves.

It's not the amorphousness, it's the lack of consensus on that they will fight for (you might think that this is the same thing). I think the amorphousness is a positive thing and remember than an amorphous creature still can take a defined form. That is where I'm getting at in general with the "consensus on what to fight for, but don't subordinate their ideas and ideologies fully" thing. By your definition, they're more in a gaseous state, where they haven't even decided on what to really fight for, they're just a mass of ideas.

And I'm not saying they all are revolutionary theorists or want revolutionary change, I'm just looking for permanent solutions. Staying within the current political make-up will not a permanent solution make, and we will be here again down the line. I just want to prevent that.

That's where we diverge. You seem to want a revolution. I don't, and I don't think most of the occupy protestors do either.

Never thought you wanted one. I would prefer more revolutionary practice. But a permanent solution to the problems will be much more difficult without revolutionary actions taken, in my opinion.

Not at all. I see no problem with accepting money from billionaires if they want to contribute because they're funding policies that go against their profit motive. The problem with the tea party is that they have the Koch brothers, oil companies, banks, etc. funding them in order to take advantage of their misplaced sense of anger and disillusionment in order to fatten their wallets. If someone like Soros or these guys are providing funding to a political movement that would make them pay more in taxes and give them less loopholes, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Then let me ask you this: Would this (the fact that these billionaires are funding you only) not be seen as illegitimate image-wise? How would you deal with that if it came up?

(Note: Not that what they're doing isn't admirable. Hell, even Guy Debord had a patron who shared his views in Gerard Lebovici. I'm just the type that likes to avoid it if at all possible, as I think it is in this instance.)

 

[feelosofer]

I fukking hate Bill Maher but he does have a point.

Here is the problem, at least as far as I see it.

The Occupy Movement is still very young. These are essentially kids who feel that they are not on their way to a fair share of the American Dream. Right now they are still in the sort of whiny hipster phase and they need to make the transition to more sophisticated trains of thought. Now in doing these protests they have sparked a spirited debate in both major political parties, but I think they need to take the next step. Here is what I think should be a projected plan of action.

1. Start some sort of manifesto, right now they have a bunch of general ideas but they need concrete rules, goals and a plan of action.

2. Just taking up space a fairly weak form of protest, they need to picket, hold rallies and do more organized events, they need to march and let their voice be heard more, they also need to be a little more resistant to the law without resorting to violence.

3. They need some more unified voices, some people that can be indentified, well some may this dilutes their movement but I think that you can't be faceless the entire time.

4. They need to be a part of the political process, not be getting to the politicians but stoking the electorate, there well never be an Occupy candidate but they can get the people to stand by their ideal and pressure the politicians to follow suit or at least consider their concerns.

 

[OsO]

participate in the political process

political mobilization for voting purposes should definitely be in the discussion as one prong in a several pronged strategy, but by no means should participating in the political process be a main focus of the movement.

in the current paradigm money runs the political system, so dont chase the political power chase the economic power.

thousands of occupiers organizing and coordinating an economic network based on the principles of community economics or cooperative economics will be far more powerful at creating real change than thousands of occupiers rallying behind some politician who is probably getting a bigger check from some other lobbyist group anyway. so when your wishes come into conflict with the wishes of these other lobbyist powers with more money, who do you think the politician is going to obey? corporations= you=

these people PRINT the money... OWS aint fukkin with that

plus now corporations can donate almost unlimited amounts to political campaigns?! naw it's a wrap. this aint the 60s... political mobilization in this current paradigm is not going to be that effective

 

[john goodman]

They should focus on one issue. The movement is too vague to make a real difference


Simply make it all about campaign finance reform and they may have a chance to push in real change

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

participate in the political process

political mobilization for voting purposes should definitely be in the discussion as one prong in a several pronged strategy, but by no means should participating in the political process be a main focus of the movement.

in the current paradigm money runs the political system, so dont chase the political power chase the economic power.

thousands of occupiers organizing and coordinating an economic network based on the principles of community economics or cooperative economics will be far more powerful at creating real change than thousands of occupiers rallying behind some politician who is probably getting a bigger check from some other lobbyist group anyway. so when your wishes come into conflict with the wishes of these other lobbyist powers with more money, who do you think the politician is going to obey? corporations= you=

these people PRINT the money... OWS aint fukkin with that

plus now corporations can donate almost unlimited amounts to political campaigns?! naw it's a wrap. this aint the 60s... political mobilization in this current paradigm is not going to be that effective

You don't know anything at all about the political process at all though. You admittedly do not even pay attention to politics in the slightest. You're speaking from a perspective of total ignorance. You don't even understand how any of the problems take root in the first place because you refuse to educate yourself, so you couldn't possibly envision any solutions.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Maher's problem is that he thinks The Occupy movement should participate as an arm of the Democratic Party which shows he has no clue what the crux of the movement is about. If The Occupy movement wereto become full on participants in the political process than it would best be utilized as a rallying point for a legit third party. Maher comparing them to the Tea Party is just idiotic because all the Tea Party ended up becoming was a co-opted wing of The GOP.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Agreed on the last part. I never meant to say anything different from that. And my point with the TV shows thing is that while it doesn't directly influence the political process in ways like putting things through congress, it DOES have the most influence in ordering the ways in which we look at issues and candidates within the system. I don't know about you, but in a typically political conversation, you will always, ALWAYS have someone quoting views, statistics and opinions that originate through those channels. That type of control of opinion may not be totally direct, but is a HUGE part of the way the political process (in America, especially) works.



Again, not disagreeing. But protest itself is not enough. There has to be more decisive action than just that, especially since those politicians that a lot of these actions could and would appeal to would not listen at first. Protestors must create a world for themselves, to some extent.

The media apparatus thing is interesting, though...how would you suppose that would work?




That's what I meant by "essentialism." Or rather "strategic essentialism." Do not subordinate your views or ideology to any one viewpoint, but instead come up with an at least temporary consensus (you would ideally want something more concrete, as that prevents infighting if you do achieve your goals) that all in the group would work toward. The disparate viewpoints is important for evaluation and reevaluation of that consensus.




If it were me, I'd actually have it be a different person every time, as long as they were trained and articulate. Even the faceless Subcommandante Marcos became a cult of personality to some extent, and I'd like to prevent that. But that's just me .

As for the last part...not necessarily. You could organize it similarly to the Paris Commune, or even in the form of a nested council: Participatory politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be, nor really should be just one person representing all of these viewpoints. It should be more inclusive and consociational (can I use that word here...) than that. I do agree with that last sentence, and that is something that needs to be addressed no matter how Occupy organizes itself.




Well, nominally yes, I would describe myself as Socialist-Anarchist in my beliefs and believe that a potlach or gift economy system could be instituted in the place of the fiat system of money exchange (especially since I think we are closer to post-scarcity in some respects than we think...), but in action I wonder about myself. How do my political beliefs conflict with my vast knowledge and enjoyment of current pop culture (music, wrestling, film, etc.)? Can they be reconciled?

That's another thread, though...

ANYWAY, I'm not sure I exactly agree with that second paragraph. I believe it applies because, as you say, Occupy is a movement made up of disparate sects who have a problem with the current make up of the political system and want to change it. Strategic essentialism and prefigurative politics, I believe, are essential steps toward crystallizing that without losing the disparate opinions of the movement.

Would I like it to be a first step toward my desired political system? Would you like it to be a desired step toward YOUR political system? I personally believe that the formulation of a preferred society is the absent cause behind all forms of philosophizing and theorizing, but I was attempting to find a solution to what seems to be their main concerns mostly regardless of what I would like to see happen.

Mostly.




Center-Left, but that's mostly what it was. Honestly, I think there are bigger problems with the Zapatistas than them not endorsing Obrador because they did not believe that he would have really done much for them (which I agreed with), but that's just me.




It's not the amorphousness, it's the lack of consensus on that they will fight for (you might think that this is the same thing). I think the amorphousness is a positive thing and remember than an amorphous creature still can take a defined form. That is where I'm getting at in general with the "consensus on what to fight for, but don't subordinate their ideas and ideologies fully" thing. By your definition, they're more in a gaseous state, where they haven't even decided on what to really fight for, they're just a mass of ideas.

And I'm not saying they all are revolutionary theorists or want revolutionary change, I'm just looking for permanent solutions. Staying within the current political make-up will not a permanent solution make, and we will be here again down the line. I just want to prevent that.




Never thought you wanted one. I would prefer more revolutionary practice. But a permanent solution to the problems will be much more difficult without revolutionary actions taken, in my opinion.




Then let me ask you this: Would this (the fact that these billionaires are funding you only) not be seen as illegitimate image-wise? How would you deal with that if it came up?

(Note: Not that what they're doing isn't admirable. Hell, even Guy Debord had a patron who shared his views in Gerard Lebovici. I'm just the type that likes to avoid it if at all possible, as I think it is in this instance.)

So I think the divergence in proposed methodologies boils down to you would like to see a revolution and a socialist or anarchist paradigm rise in its place, whereas I don't want to go that far.

Not that I like what we have now. But like I said, if I was starting a country from scratch, I'd probably propose going with democratic socialism of the Scandinavian variety, but I don't think this country is ideologically anywhere near desiring anarcho-syndicalism or any political system rooted in marxist thought.

I would look to more pragmatic solutions that try to make the best out of what we do have as opposed to a full-blown revolution. I think the #1 poison plaguing our system is the corporate money in politics and that should be the primary issue for OWS or any other grassroots movement that seriously wants to change things.

I respect your political ideology, but I just do not think it could realistically gain any sort of traction. America's character is one of individualism and "don't tread on me" ethos. It's always been that way. Just listen to average discourse on talk radio or the internet or at your job or wherever. Ain't nobody living in any communes outside of fringe hippies bruh, lol. I'm farther to the left than most of the people in this country, but that's not for me or anyone I know.

The main thing is messaging, communication, and education. If you can't fight money with money, you have to fight it with ideas that resonate. The candidate with the largest war chest almost always wins. So the tipping point that would need to be reached in order to offset this would be to spread the good message as forcefully and ubiquitously as possible, and expose the fact that your ideas might not have as much money-backing them, but they're superior and better for the people. If you look at the WI recall, yeah it was a massive L for public unions and a win for Walker, but you think about it, dude barely won despite having outspent the other side $34 million to $4 million. People just need to pull back the curtain and expose that. That's why it is important for OWS or whoever is serious about changing our political process to have effective organization, involvement, and messaging.