Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[scaredyclassic]

Or a sodden mister.

[paramount]

The CSU protests this past week shoud have been directed at the public employee unions – they are the main reason tuition and fees are being jacked up.

[sd_matt]

To me this whole protest is like the chicken protesting the fox when the chicken should be protesting the farmer for lifting the fence.

[scaredyclassic]

Chicken run was a really good movie

[an]

[quote=sd_matt]To me this whole protest is like the chicken protesting the fox when the chicken should be protesting the farmer for lifting the fence.[/quote]
That would require some connecting of the dots. Way too complicated and time consuming. Chickens don’t think that deep.

[Arraya]

[quote=AN][quote=sd_matt]To me this whole protest is like the chicken protesting the fox when the chicken should be protesting the farmer for lifting the fence.[/quote]
That would require some connecting of the dots. Way too complicated and time consuming. Chickens don’t think that deep.[/quote]

Maybe some of the chickens might ask why the farmer is controlled by the fox? What is the motivation for the farmer lifting the fence? Let’s connect some dots.

Here is some video of the farmer abusing the chickens again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-pepper-spray-video_n_1103075.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=Arraya]Maybe some of the chickens might ask why the farmer is controlled by the fox? What is the motivation for the farmer lifting the fence? Let’s connect some dots.

[/quote]

Bingo. I think that’s exactly what this is about. It’s the evil fox AND the farmer who has more than just lifted the fence, he has served the chickens on a silver platter. While the farmer is telling the chickens to renew his contract, because he knows what’s best for them.

And some chickens, who believe they sit at the top of the roost and are safe, argue that letting the foxes have free reign of the hen house, and sacrificing the bottom rung of hens, cull them, so to speak, is the solution. Destroy their nests, evict them from their shelter, and somehow equilibrium will be restored. Gold feed. No more fiat feed. With carcasses everywhere. Problem solved.

Who wants wings?

[an]

[quote=Arraya][quote=AN][quote=sd_matt]To me this whole protest is like the chicken protesting the fox when the chicken should be protesting the farmer for lifting the fence.[/quote]
That would require some connecting of the dots. Way too complicated and time consuming. Chickens don’t think that deep.[/quote]

Maybe some of the chickens might ask why the farmer is controlled by the fox? What is the motivation for the farmer lifting the fence? Let’s connect some dots.

Here is some video of the farmer abusing the chickens again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-pepper-spray-video_n_1103075.html%5B/quote%5D
Maybe the fox and the farmer are both in cahoot all along. The farmer is just smarter at getting the chickens to be mad at the fox. How many chickens actually see past the deceptions from both the fox and the farmer? What’s even worse is, some chickens vouch their allegiance to the fox and some to the farmer. All thinking if they stick to one or the other, they’ll be saved. All the while, skewering the chickens who are trying to speak about the deceptions from both the fox and the farmer.

[Arraya]

http://vcnv.org/intellectuals-and-occupy-seven-reasons-to-reject-condescension

But the real problem, good Marxists know, isn’t simply or primarily selfishness and avarice. It’s structural and systemic. It is the de facto class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, rooted in capitalism: the private ownership of the means of production and distribution and their operation on behalf of the creation and accumulation of surplus value and profit, leading by its very nature to the ever-greater concentration of wealth, the rise of gigantic corporations, and the inter-penetration of corporate, financial, and state power. The solution is what Dr. Martin Luther King called “the real issue to be faced…the radical reconstruction of society itself.”[2] It isn’t simply less greed and materialism. It’s popular revolution leading to democratic control over the economy and a new politico-economic order that privileges the common good over private profit.

Exposed! Girls of occupy gone wild!

Oh great! The hippies are back.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]But the real problem, good Marxists know, isn’t simply or primarily selfishness and avarice. It’s structural and systemic. It is the de facto class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, rooted in capitalism: the private ownership of the means of production and distribution and their operation on behalf of the creation and accumulation of surplus value and profit, leading by its very nature to the ever-greater concentration of wealth, the rise of gigantic corporations, and the inter-penetration of corporate, financial, and state power. The solution is what Dr. Martin Luther King called “the real issue to be faced…the radical reconstruction of society itself.”[2] It isn’t simply less greed and materialism. It’s popular revolution leading to democratic control over the economy and a new politico-economic order that privileges the common good over private profit.

[/quote]

The other real problem, as good Marxists know, is that Marxism, while defining the problem, offers no good, workable solution for fixing it.

While Russia, China, Cuba are all poor examples of Marxism at work (largely because Marxian/Marxist goals weren’t truly pursued, power was), they are emblematic of the “structural” and “systemic” problems one encounters when trying to create large-scale change.

And that is exactly what OWS is trying to do: Create change. Unfortunately, all the good articles in Progressive Magazine to the contrary, they (the movement) don’t have a clue as to how to do this. Many of the demands that OWS has cohered around: $20 Living Wage, $1T in infrastructure investment and $1T in environmental investment, has to come from somewhere.

So where? Does OWS advocate working within the present capitalist system to achieve its goals? Is it advocating a move to a Marxist system? Or, does it have something completely new in mind?

Even an eminence grise such as Paul Krugman doesn’t seem to have an answer to that one, and I’m pretty sure OWS doesn’t, either.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The other real problem, as good Marxists know, is that Marxism, while defining the problem, offers no good, workable solution for fixing it.

While Russia, China, Cuba are all poor examples of Marxism at work (largely because Marxian/Marxist goals weren’t truly pursued, power was), they are emblematic of the “structural” and “systemic” problems one encounters when trying to create large-scale change.
[/quote]

I agree, Allan. That’s why I believe that we need progressive change, not revolutionary change.

Revolution only leads to poverty and chaos. The problem view revolution, IMO, is that it sweep away the establishment and intelligentsia and installs ignorant people in power who don’t any have any clue how run and manage a country or an economy.

But we do need to reform the system and rein in the power of Wall Street.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Even an eminence grise such as Paul Krugman doesn’t seem to have an answer to that one, and I’m pretty sure OWS doesn’t, either.[/quote]

An eminence grise is someone who runs the show behind the scenes.

Krugman has no power. I don’t believe that he has any influence over policy or that anyone at the White House listens to his advice.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
I agree, Allan. That’s why I believe that we need progressive change, not revolutionary change.

Revolution only leads to poverty and chaos. The problem view revolution, IMO, is that it sweep away the establishment and intelligentsia and installs ignorant people in power who don’t any have any clue how run and manage a country or an economy.

But we do need to reform the system and rein in the power of Wall Street.

An eminence grise is someone who runs the show behind the scenes.

Krugman has no power. I don’t believe that he has any influence over policy or that anyone at the White House listens to his advice.[/quote]

Brian: Progressive change? Within the existing system? I’m presuming you mean the current system, because in your next breath you mention reform of the system. Okay, I’ll bite. What change? What reform? No more aphorisms or tautologies, please, but actual ideas.

And, the use of “eminence grise” was entirely sarcastic. Krugman is the Rush Limbaugh of the economics “profession”. He’s an eminence grise like Rahm Emanuel has “principles” (remember that one, Brian?).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Revolution only leads to poverty and chaos. The problem view revolution, IMO, is that it sweep away the establishment and intelligentsia and installs ignorant people in power who don’t any have any clue how run and manage a country or an economy.
[/quote]

Brian: Examples, please.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The other real problem, as good Marxists know, is that Marxism, while defining the problem, offers no good, workable solution for fixing it.

While Russia, China, Cuba are all poor examples of Marxism at work (largely because Marxian/Marxist goals weren’t truly pursued, power was), they are emblematic of the “structural” and “systemic” problems one encounters when trying to create large-scale change.

And that is exactly what OWS is trying to do: Create change. Unfortunately, all the good articles in Progressive Magazine to the contrary, they (the movement) don’t have a clue as to how to do this. Many of the demands that OWS has cohered around: $20 Living Wage, $1T in infrastructure investment and $1T in environmental investment, has to come from somewhere.

So where? Does OWS advocate working within the present capitalist system to achieve its goals? Is it advocating a move to a Marxist system? Or, does it have something completely new in mind?

Even an eminence grise such as Paul Krugman doesn’t seem to have an answer to that one, and I’m pretty sure OWS doesn’t, either.[/quote]

Alan, as usual, you bring up points that would take me hours to properly respond to.

I will say this about OWS for now… It is a thought convention at the momement. They are largely clueless and disorganized, as a whole, for the most part. With a growing uneducated element, which makes thing even more difficult. Looking at the economic horizon I don’t see it diminishing too soon, though.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya]
Alan, as usual, you bring up points that would take me hours to properly respond to.

I will say this about OWS for now… It is a thought convention at the momement. They are largely clueless and disorganized, as a whole, for the most part. With a growing uneducated element, which makes thing even more difficult. Looking at the economic horizon I don’t see it diminishing too soon, though.[/quote]

Arraya: So we’re clear, I wasn’t trying to sandbag you, but simply make a point. That point being: You have a number of groups, most notably the Democratic Party, trying to co-opt (or hijack) the OWS for their own gain. But they’re trying to co-opt a largely leaderless, rudderless and amorphous group. Much like Obama’s “tabula rasa” speech, its without substance and without direction.

I hear what you’re saying about OWS being a thought convention and I don’t think you’re far off the mark. But, even within OWS, there is a sense that this group is somewhat protesting against itself. The grievances they’re airing and the demands they’re making can only be redressed by participating within the very system they’re decrying. If we look at the counter-culture’s condemnation of the “Establishment” during the late 1960s and their subsequent participation (i.e. those folks in their 50s and 60s who are now affluent, mainstream and, in all likelihood, voting GOP) in that very same system, you can see the inherent contradiction.

Not sure how you resolve that, but I think the Dems are playing with fire. Just like they did in 1968. Nixon, anyone?

[Author]

Posts