Do you think you're clever posting this shit, retard?

"Hi, I some Hipster Faggot, making fun of protesters! Because it's not like protesting's a major tenet of democracy or anything!

What I'm not telling you is that, for the reasons I so cleverly sarcastically criticised the bourgeoisie protesters for, the having of the ipods and whatnot, is precisely the reason the actual poor don't have a say in the USA! I mean, it's not like they have the capital for anything, and that's why they're poor, so just as the revolutionaries of old had to march in the streets paid for by the bourgeoisie, the poor, to speak, need the petite bourgeoisie and the means of mass communication produced by the forrunners who monopolized capital into their greedy hands!

It's not like May 68 was without a few red flags hanging from the homes of the sympathetic bourgeoisie!

I'm so rich, I don't need to take responsibility! I can just blame scarcity and shortage - the defining issues with respect to economics - on those filthy whiny Mexican African Canadastani whatevers, the poor. It's not like Jews have been oppressed for a couple of millennia and are just as much part of the protestors as anyone else! I mean, fuck them for... not already having shit! And... Not manipulating, exploitating, and outright stealing the capital necessary to live happily! I shouldn't have a real job! I'll just dick around putting all their jobs in danger, I should take their money and their profit and spend it on fancy vacations and shit.

Fuck the Poor! Let the Unfortunate drown! Lynch them niggers!

I'm also claiming that everyone part of a population group screwed over by sickness, scarcity, and severe lack of error checking in businesses that run in a way that if it were government, would be called an authoritarian dictatorship, has the time, energy, information, and money to attend protests when in fact the only one who do are the sympathetic bourgeoisie.


It's not like the rich have monopolised Human capital, so that if you want to be aware of the issues, you have to already be bourgeoisie. It's not like I'm projecting much, either. And it's not like there must exist some real human suffering to risk one's life and quality of life to make it known that there's something wrong!

But, hey, it's not access to the information network isn't actually a privilege, but rather necessity in the ever-growingly complicated world, and that this necessity is making it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper to gain access to!


So I'm going to post this wa~a~acky picture to some obscure chan and make fun of human suffering because -obviously- I'm not, and I'd rather some hugbox or a couple of easily defeated idiots with their hearts in the right place come around me and reinforce my pathetic misanthropic hateful beliefs instead of going somewhere populous and risk my hate actually being challenged!"


I'm not going to claim that you don't highlight some cognitive dissonance. But you yourself are guilty of some. And projecting, hells yeah, you're painting others as bigots because you can't see yourself as one. And you're just as guilty of whining as the next person.

So, why did you post this? Because you yourself were jealous of all the hipster faggots on Wall Street and decided you were going to be one yourself? Did you really think yourself the epic ween troll posting some inflammatory shit on an obscure section of an obscure chan?

What? I'd really like to know.


Is it brain sickness? Cause I have a remedy for that! Go down to the farm, right? Find the bloodiest bit of swine stool you can find, eat it, and contract brain worms. The brain worms will eat at the diseased part of your mind, until, eventually, you're so overcome with joy you decide to go jump in a fire.

>>116
It's the truth. I'm calling them racist bigots because they ARE racist bigots. I can link you to video after video of the protesters blaming Jews or the problems.

Poor people aren't at the protests, you're saying the rich kids there are sympathetic to them? Yet, they're claiming it's their problem. They don't represent 99%.

They're protesting Wallstreet, but where's the corruption? Why are they to blame, and why are they entitled to their money?

Here's a hipster in designer clothes with a ring on every finger screaming at an elderly Jewish man that he's a Jew, can't speak English, and should go back to Israel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnKetznvdUE

Here's three more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZF4FJ2eUA

Loudest guy saying it's all rich white people, and economics don't matter to a black man from Brooklyn.

Here's a whole group of them singing a memorial to Troy Davis, a black man who killed a cop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YXdXPjcB3w

Here's Roseanne Barr, later quoted on a Communist show as stating she was part of the protests because she believed what you get paid should be limited and controlled, and if you make more than a certain amount of money you should automatically be executed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Zyz8njQb8

Here's a whole gaggle of idiots all saying they want Capitalism replaced, but unable to put into words what they want it replaced with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDuHqntfqUI

Here's a retard repeatedly screaming "FUCK YOU!" at a cop that isn't even engaging with him, trying to force a confrontation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bFsUMZ6nyQ

Here's a guy holding a sign calling Wall St. Nazis and repeatedly screaming "FREE SPEECH! THIS IS NOT ISRAEL! WALL STREET JEWS! WALL STREET JEWS!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W_36RgcEok

Some of them are paid to be there, some of them don't even know why they're protesting. They're idiots, it's not a legitimate movement. Pointing out that they're idiots doesn't make someone else a hipster.

Nice try though, imbecile.

How is it not legitimate, when it's exactly like every other single fucking protest of the last 50 years?

Here's the deal. There are racist bigots in every political movement. Get enough people together and it's bound to happen. This is the "left"-wing TEA party - should I point out every bigot associated with the latter movement? Or should I go and find racist idiots being interviewed for every demonstration?


The media is mindless. It doesn't look for the the average protester, the fairly aware person demonstrating for well-thought-out goals; it always looks for the hypocritical idiots who can't tell the economy from their own shit. Over half of the people interviewed isn't over half of the movement, it's only over half of the clowns the journalists thought would be interesting to interview. I don't watch Leno or whatever those late-night variety shows are, but some years ago I remember how my history teacher decided the world was stupid, because of the interviews of people who literally couldn't tell Germany from the pacific ocean. Forgetting that the cameras interviewed likely upwards a thousand people to pluck out the few sour grapes. I have to wonder how many 4channers are involved with the protests.




To this:
>They're protesting Wallstreet, but where's the corruption? Why are they to blame, and why are they entitled to their money?

How about the whole fiddling while Rome burns thing that went on while people were losing their jobs? You know, the story after story of execs going on expensive as fuck vacations and partaking in giant ass luxuries while what was equivalent to not even half of their expenditure was being cut in the form jobs? You know, the taking of taxpayer stimulus to pay for this bullshit, while the whole "let's cut back jobs to save the company money" created an employer's market, leaving many hard-working - if sometimes sick, is sometimes unfortunate not to have been born as rich some others - out of a job in climate unsuitable to finding jobs? How about the theory of surplus value thing? You know, how, despite it being the working class who creates the commodities, it's the management who takes the profit from sale (because of the tendency of profits to rise, the phenomena that causes inflation) and reimburses the worker not with profit, not even equal reimbursement, but rather the bare minimum it can in order to avoid choking on it's own fat? How about the fact that many of the so-called "entrepreneurs" didn't get rich from having ideas, but rather got rich from stealing other people's ideas (e.g Steve Jobs, Bill Gates). And the fact that the whole relative collapse of Wall Street that went on in 2008 to the present was not only seen a mile coming, but was exploitative to it's fullest. And all because some callous idiots with titles like CEO decided to game a broken system for maximum profit instead of fixing the system to ensure a better world further.

To me, I find the better question not "why do the protestesters deserve the Geld?" but rather "why does the management deserve it?"

The person saying that economics doesn't matter to him, is a victim of the whole human capital thing I was talking about. He didn't have access to the information that, say a harvard man has, largely because there was no capital to begin with to send him to those sorts of colleges, or even more fundamentally a lack educational system that could work through with the working-class black culture - one of different priorities, different means, different... really everything. Not to mention the infestation of Poshlost´ at every level, that comes with that different priority ("we can't waste time with books when we can't even get food on the table"). Because he hadn't the same access to an education you and I have likely had, he's had to have been educated by the idols of the marketplace and idols of the theatre. And since these are communicated through media - owned by the like of Rupert Murdoch, Bob Iger, and so on - of course they're only crude perversions of actual hierarchies. Hence white man instead of rich white man.


The thing with Troy Davis is, he most certainly wasn't guilty. The cops pressured witnesses into giving false testimonies against him. Beyond that, they was absolutely no evidence to convict him. After the court decision was made to murder him (because two murders apparently make a right), the decision was appealed to no avail despite each of the witnesses recanting their testimony as having been pressured by the police to lie under oath. And the state of Georgia murdered him anyways.

The beusage of Roseanne Barr should've showed that the media was only interested in controversy, not reasonable people protesting exploitation and mismanagement.


And... I don't know... I mean, how can our systems be bettered? Capitalism leads to exploitation and mismanagement in the name of profit. Communism... lead to mountains of skulls. Fascism was far worse, and seems to actually be what those fuckers insulting the Jews are asking for, damn. I mean, I myself don't support Israel, but it has nothing to do with it being a Jewish state (systematic murder of Palestinians, actually)... but... damn.

My point, I think, was that neither side really is pretty or frei from wrong.

I am an idiot, though. So I'm probably wrong. Sorry for the flaming earlier. I just... I don't know, took offence at approaching an /id/ board that flamingly. Sorry.

Reposting this here, you might be interested:

"So, ugh, gift for you, maybe (I haven't been able to read them yet):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/gerald-caplan/this-is-what-democracy-looks-like-occupying-wall-street-and-bay-street/artic
le2198405/page1/

http://www.occupytogether.org/

http://www.occupytogether.org/faq/

http://www.occupywallst.org/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/oct/07/checking-claims-occupy-wall-street/

http://www.care2.com/causes/right-wing-media-infiltrates-occupy-wall-street-to-discredit-it.html


I should say, these are mostly cribbed from RationalWiki, a "skeptic" mostly liberal (and sarcastic, most of the time) hugbox concieved as the ideological opposite to Conservapedia.

I've been sick as hell the past few weeks, and haven't really been following the protests like I should. Maybe these will get you somewhere you'd like to be."

First link keeps breaking; it's too long. Copy the little bit right after too and paste it all into the addresse bar. The bar won't interpret the return, so it should come out as all one string.

>>119
First link 404's (I'm copying the whole thing too.)

Second link just tells you how to organize and get into the protests, most of the posts seem to talk about maintaining the site and how to get involved, but there's little in the way of specifics as to what the protests are about.

Third link specifically says they're neutral and not in any way linked to the protests, and thus provides no information on what the point of the protests is.

Fourth link says they're protesting foreclosure auctions. That'll help the economy. And it's totally the fault of the lenders, and not the people who got loans they couldn't afford.

Fifth link's interesting, if not troubling. It says so far the protests are so disorganized it's near impossible to fact check their claims, and the closest thing it has to a leader right now is Michael Moore. It points out that he says he's protesting because he wants everyone in Wall St. arrested. The site points out there were actually some arrests, though of minor players.

Sixth link says some Conservative guy writing a column tried to get into the protests for a column he was writing. Doesn't sound like infiltration so much as a guy trying to get a story.

In case anyone is interested, the whole Soros connection is starting to come under scrutiny:

www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1009617

Also, Business Insider published an article breaking don the Occupy grievances:

www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

>>128
So the protesters are upset about the banks being bailed out...

...And they blame the top earners for being successful...

...Despite the fact that 47% of the country doesn't pay taxes, and so none of their money went to the bailouts...

...And the top 5% pay like 70% of the taxes in this country...

...So it was already money taken from the rich that was used?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJgBb3-z8w

Something for you to dissect.

>>129

(This is too long, so it's going to be broken into two parts.)


But you see, not everyone buys that theory of distribution. It has not been shown that the people rewarded with wealth are the ones who have made it.

Economists as diverse as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Stanley Jevons have noticed a long-run empirical trend for the internal rate of return on capital invested to produce industrial products to decline.

With this in mind, we should look at alienation.

The theory of alienation is founded upon the observation that, within the current mode of production, workers invariably lose determination of their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions, to determine the character of their actions, to define their relationship to other actors, and to use or own the value of what is produced by their actions. After all, the shoemakers don't sell their shoes, management does.


Workers are autonomous, self-realized human beings, but are directed and diverted into goals and activities dictated the owners of the the means of production -the people who can already buy the factories, the materials, the education, etc. - in order to extract from workers the maximal amount of surplus value (profit) possible within the current state of competition between industrialists. By working, each contributes to the common wealth, but this wealth isn't given to reemberce the worker, no, it's given to the management, who give the absolute minimum to their employees and take essentially as much as they can. CEO's decisions are analogous to a dictator's or perhaps more accurately to the party-head's in a single-party state; yes, it's a hard job, and a good CEO is serving the people he represents (his work force and lower and upper management) and should have some re-compensation, but ultimately his position is a largely redundant one whose powers can easily be decentralized into the lives of the people he represents. If you don't believe me, just look at companies like REI, the Mondragón cooperative, King Arthur Flour, the reclaimed factories, etc, etc.


Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because the worker can only express that fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not collectively, but privately owned; a privatised asset for which each individual functions not as a social being, but as an instrument.


Essentially, a management that decides it's own pay has all the problems of an authoritative government that decides it's own pay.

Then there are the problems with capitalism's means of re-compensating the entrepreneur. I think this one more easily speaks for itself: think of everything Thomas Edison "invented", and contrast that figure with what he actually invented- i.e. didn't steal.

So workers and entrepreneurs don't make their wealth.


Wall Street is not run collectively. The top earners do not earn and the top earners only success is their ability to exploit. The burden of this exploitation is falling on the worker, and do the whole "whoops, you're failing, here's free basically unregulated taxpayer money" thing that gave these people - who's mismanagement and failure to act against the recession and resultant economic mess is at least partially to blame for the disparagy and crises of the mess today - millions of dollars in bonuses.

Some citations:


http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


(I'll just include this because this is where I found the statistics: http://www.alternet.org/economy/152601/5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthiest_one_percent_of_americans/ There's more out there, but I'm a lazy fuck, sorry.)



Your claims about the 53% of taxpayers; that slogan has also suffered criticism due to its failure to acknowledge that even those who are exempt from paying federal income tax may be required to pay other taxes, including payroll taxes and state income tax.

Thing is that that's just a dishonest little slogan from a blog not really understanding what they're talking about.

The blog, kicked off by conservative filmmaker Mike Wilson and conservative blogger Erick Erickson of RedState.org, aims to be representative of the 53 percent of Americans who pay more in federal income taxes than they receive back in deductions or credits. The figure is based on a report from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that said 47 percent of Americans did not pay federal income taxes in 2009, an unusually high percentage due to the fall in incomes resulting from the Great Recession.

The Americans who do not pay income taxes are those who are either so poor that they are exempt, or those who are the beneficiaries of enough tax breaks and deductions to cancel out their income tax payments.

The blog, however, does not emphasise the fact that the 53 percent figure only applies to federal income taxes. The introduction to the blog, clearly written in a way to mock the hippies and degenerates its creators believe are representative of the 99 percent movement, states: "So if you're like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53 percent of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don't just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day ... like, here's the hashtaggy thingy," followed by the #iamthe53 used on Twitter.

The creators of the blog either do not understand taxation, or they simply do not care. Even the 47 percent of Americans who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 still paid state, local and payroll taxes -- so, saying that only 53 percent of people paid taxes that year is a lie. Even the poorest Americans, those who make an average of $12,500 a year, still pay about 16 percent of their small earnings in taxes, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

(Con't)

Moreover, data from the Institution on Taxation and Economic Policy indicates that in every state except for Vermont, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy. In Alabama, families making less than $13,000 a year pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.

At the end of the day, yes -- the wealthiest Americans still actually pay more. But, $1,430 -- the average amount that the poorest Alabama citizens pay in annual state and local taxes -- means a lot more to someone making less than $13,000 than it does to the 4 percent of annual income that the highest earning citizens lose to state and local taxes.

The "We are the 53 percent" blog seems to be full of comments made by people who are part of the very 47 percent of Americans that the blog basically classifies as parasites. Many of the contributors appear to be students, the unemployed or the under-employed, who still end their stories by declaring "I am the 53 percent" even though, by their logic, they are not, if they were also exempted from federal income taxes due to their income bracket.


The contributors often boast about how they have worked themselves to the bone, often without vacations or benefits, but still have never turned to government social programs, implying that the kind of people who support the 99 percent movement simply want a free ride.

It would be interesting to see how many of those people have received unemployment insurance, Pell Grants, home-mortgage-interest deductions or any of the other government programs that many people have relied on as stepping stones to get to the state of financial independence the "53 percent" celebrate.

What they don't seem to understand is that the 99 percent movement is demanding those same things -- namely, the ability to receive an affordable education, affordable health care and a livable wage -- in short, all of the things that allow Americans to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" (whether all of the protesters' demands are actually possible right now is another story).

These days, it is difficult for many low-income and middle-class Americans to obtain those basic services, especially with a national unemployment rate that doesn't seem to be budging.

The 99 percent movement is asking for reforms not only on Wall Street, but in the federal government as well, so that, once again, the U.S. will be a nation that is productive, employed and not overwhelmed with growing social tensions due to rapidly widening income-inequality rates. And then, maybe all of us -- even the righteous 53 percenters -- will be able to take a vacation once a while. (Okay, so I admit, I stole the last few paragraphs - this way I figure you have no choice but to read it).

Here: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/230011/20111012/we-are-the-53-percent-conservative-response-to-99-percent-movement-occupy-wall-street-99-percent.htm?c
id=2



As to the movement's goals:

According to Adbusters, a primary protest organizer, the central demand of the protest is that President Obama "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington": http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html


Documentary film maker Michael Moore said that this protest, unlike others, represents a variety of demands with a common statement, about government corruption and the excessive influence of big business and the wealthiest 1% on U.S. laws and policies: http://www.youtube.com/occupytv

Moreso, it seems it's a movement for a more direct democracy:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday?blend=8&ob=5#p/u/9/EkZ08J7j9So

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-mainstream-propaganda-machine/

http://rt.com/news/occupy-wall-street-obama-887/

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/10-2

As much as I hate the Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-protesters_n_999289.html



Ultimately it's a protest against bad capitalism - the reason they don't say bad is the same reason we don't say bad feudalism or bad slave societies or bad (soviet) communism.


America is the richest country in the world, so when it hits hard times, and those hard times hit a wide spectrum of people including a petit bourgeois with comparative free time - and more importantly, AWARENESS - needed to form a movement, the protesters are going to look somewhat richer than in other countries. Keep in mind devices like iphones carry access to information - often critical information to the modern age. Poor people need access to the internet, often to look for jobs. And it's just classist prejudice to think that everyone who's poor looks like trailor trash rednecks or inner city gengbanging colored people. You can't judge people by their appearance. You can't tell if they're poor or not.

As to the idiots like ADF - it's been said before that media goes after whatever story will sell better. That's why you'll see Beck arguing with idiots like ADF, and not the man in the c0ct0pusprime video above.



Looking forward to your response(s, others too).

(Ich frage mich aber, wann die Zeit ist, in der amerikanische Demonstranten deutsche Leute hassen werden, denn Deutschen besitzen Wall Street.)

>>132

>(Ich frage mich aber, wann die Zeit ist, in der amerikanische Demonstranten deutsche Leute hassen werden, denn Deutschen besitzen Wall Street.)

I didn't realize the Germans owned Wall Street. At various times different countries had different levels of influence on Wall Street, though. I was under the impression that China basically had dominance now.

>>133
Yep. A company by the name of Euronext now owns the NYSE.

>>131
>>132

Friendly tip: Don't overuse big words. The best writing is concise and forceful, not inflated and bloated. Like a fine watch with no extra gears or parts, a fine sentence should contain no unnecessary words. Besides, using big words doesn't fool anyone. Those who don't know the jargon are simply left confused (and therefore struggle to understand your point), while those who really know the jargon instantly know you're posing (and ignore your point).

For instance:

>>who's mismanagement and failure to act against the recession and resultant economic mess is at least partially to blame for the disparagy and crises of the mess today
Vs
>>whose inept management and inability to foresee the crisis contributed to the recession affecting millions across the globe.

Or:

>>Alienation in capitalist societies occurs because the worker can only express that fundamentally social aspect of individuality through a production system that is not collectively, but privately owned; a privatised asset for which each individual functions not as a social being, but as an instrument.
vs.
>>Alienation in a capitalist society arises from the clash between worker and corporation: a worker believes his output is an expression of his individuality while a company believes his output should be conformist.

>>135 here, regarding the issue at hand, I agree that the system itself is shot, and I know exactly how people feel. They're let down by a system that promised them so much but gave them so little. And for that, I applaud the movement.

However, the movement is beginning to straddle the line between protest and chaos. They have no clear motive, no endgame. What do they hope to achieve? The dismantling of corporations and the loss of millions more jobs? As it stands, the movement is defined by collective anger against the way things are channelled into a message sent through the disruption of stability and normalcy.

There is another, uglier name for this type of movement, something the protest is slowly evolving into: a riot. And with each passing day it begins to assume more and more of its qualities.

>>135
Uh, okay, but the latter I copied and the former is not what I said. Actually neither are right the way you've changed them. Mismanagement, which is an actual word, is different than inept. Inept means unskilled, essentially, while the mis- is more like it's being skilfully used badly. That subtlety is important; while some of the problems are due to people being stupid economically, most of the time it's because people, in pursuit of profit, forget that their tools are human beings and game the system at everyone else's expense. More mal-management than inept management, but not so thoroughly done with outright evil intentions. Mismanagement. The second half of that sentence then shifts the time frame I was talking about. Technically, the great recession is over, and much of the mismanagement occurred during that time, leading to today. But the rewrite sounds more like that's all farther in the past, and doesn't connect it to the Arab Spring or any of the subsequent developments.

As I said, the second sentence isn't mine, and there's actually an important distinction to made between private ownership and corporate ownership. Not all of the former is the latter.


I will admit that half the time I fuck grammar up three ways to Berlin (I haven't spoken German in long enough that I've utterly lost my fluency, but there's a substratum of V2 word order affecting my English), but the way I was using those words carried important fundamental semantic subtleties, and I chose them for that reason.


>>136
Their clear motive is to send the message to the upper(most) classes that enough is enough. They want to "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington". Others want reforms for more referenda, more direct elections, and a greater number of issues to be held not at the federal level like it is but at the local. So that and less buying out politicians.

The news aren't a great place to get information on movements like this. The best way is to talk to the organisers directly.


Normalcy isn't stable, and that's the problem. We can't keep spending and buying the way we are, scarcity ensures we're going to hit bubbles like brick walls, and that's going to cause the loss in jobs and devastated families.

Not to mention, if WSM catches on (yeah, it probably won't, but I can hope), then when the factories/hotels/etc are run into the ground, the people who worked there can join forces and re-take it, à le Hotel Bauen.

>>137
>>Not to mention, if WSM catches on (yeah, it probably won't, but I can hope), then when the factories/hotels/etc are run into the ground, the people who worked there can join forces and re-take it, à le Hotel Bauen.

Did you just say you hope this disrupts business enough that people will lose their jobs, and then those whose livelihood is destroyed by these petulant trustfund babies will just automatically join with them, and attack and take over their former place of employment?

What in the FUCK would that accomplish? Why would they possibly want to join the people who cost them their jobs?

>>138
People's jobs are already being lost. I don't want it to be bad. Nobody wants it to be bad. But when the shit hits the fan, we need a course of action to remedy the problem, and returning to the status quo does not address the problem.

And just because the only fucking thing you watch is Fox News doesn't mean that the entire fucking movement is composed of "trust fund babies", jackass. Just because you disagree with a movement pushing for political accountability and more democratic means of passing legislation doesn't mean they're all hipsters.

It accomplishes making sure they still have a fucking job when the idiots far away mismanage and cost them their jobs under the upper echelon corporate leadership. With the place of business is closed, the workers let go - the lowest tiers of management and the producers and operators - continue on, taking in revenue and distributing it proportionally and democratically amongst themselves via WSM, instead of accepting poverty, unemployment, and lack of self-determination. The people who lost them their jobs are the upper-tier management who fucked up in sales and decided to cut the jobs instead of taking a pay cut.

Do you even know what I'm talking about?

Yes, I understand this does nothing to remedy the banking crisis (crises), and is only applicable to firms operating in industry or service, but all that it was was a little aside, not representative of my position as a whole. It's just that I believe that best way to bring about equitable representation (legitimate democracy, and, by Locke's terms, legitimate government) is to reform and prevent politicians in the USA from being bought and sold. Which is what the protesters mean when they want Obama to ordain a commission. And what the rest of the movement is talking about when they say more democratic legislation - not to mention the introduction of referenda at the federal level.

It's just... self-evident that economic democracy is as vital as social democracy to democracy as a whole. And America is seriously lacking means for people to decide how much money to make in their lives.

>>Uh, okay, but the latter I copied and the former is not what I said. Actually neither are right the way you've changed them.

How humble of you. But no matter, it's not the issue at hand, you can take my suggestions or leave them.

>>With the place of business is closed, the workers let go - the lowest tiers of management and the producers and operators - continue on, taking in revenue and distributing it proportionally and democratically amongst themselves via WSM, instead of accepting poverty, unemployment, and lack of self-determination.

I...what? The company would simply cease to function. Who would be held accountable? Who makes decisions? Suppose a factory fucks up and accidentally dumps poison into baby products. Who would have the authority to fire the worker that screwed up? Suppose a bank makes a bad bet and wipes out their customer's savings. In such a structure, there is no leader to fire or rogue trader to prosecute: the blame lies with every employee and no employee at the same time. Customers realise this and stop doing business with them. The bank falls, millions more become homeless.

A reasonable analogy can be found in war: Every ship has a captain because it needs a single decision maker with vision and foresight. Imagine a ship run only by four sailors, every man equal. Where does the ship go? One sailor wants to go home, another wants to bide time and observe the enemy, a third wants to attack, a fourth wants to resupply and call reinforcements. Each reason is legitimate, and the sailors endlessly debate their decision even as their ship is torpedoed and sinks.

Assume someone steps forward with decisions only when needed. How would this scheme differ from the current setup? This is the key of the issue: Companies are run like dictatorships, but the difference is that you (as a worker) have a choice: to accept and execute the decisions of the leader in exchange for money, or to quit the job and cut all obligation. Don't like my decision as the boss? Form your own business and fight your own way to the top. Just don't expect any guarantees.

I honestly can't believe I typed all of this out. I really don't want to be rude, mate, but you seriously need to review how a business operates. You're essentially suggesting (pure) communism as a solution to businesses when the nature of humans and businesses make that an impossibility. It's the same reason why so-called "communist states" like China, the former USSR, or N. Korea have leaders in a supposedly equal society: In a power void, someone will try to take advantage of the system.

>>Normalcy isn't stable, and that's the problem. We can't keep spending and buying the way we are, scarcity ensures we're going to hit bubbles like brick walls, and that's going to cause the loss in jobs and devastated families.

No, you're right. Before the crisis, people bought too much, saved too little, and threw a little too much caution to the wind, and something must be done about it. But there is a danger in large crowds, and why I always turn a cynical eye to protests even before thoroughly understanding them: Imagine holding a microphone to a speaker. One whisper, a fringe idea or conspiracy, becomes a loud screech, repeated, distorted, amplified, and repeated again. This is both the nature and danger of collective organisation: hostility begets hostility, protests turn into riots, and no one raindrop says it alone caused the flood.

>>The news aren't a great place to get information on movements like this. The best way is to talk to the organisers directly.

True, but any movement that underestimates the power of mass media, or otherwise fails to harness its potential, is killing its chances of succeeding before it even starts.

>>140
You know this has all happened before, right? It's happened, and it works? It's happened with the recuperated factories, Hotel Bauen, countless other places... It's fundamental structure is very similar to the business model of many companies called coops here. It was one of the principles that prevented the SFR Yugoslavia from turning into a soviet hellhole. It was the reason you could've bought a Yugo at one point in time.



>Who would be held accountable? Who makes decisions? Suppose a factory fucks up and accidentally dumps poison into baby products. Who would have the authority to fire the worker that screwed up?

The workers. Everyone is subject to the punishments of over/underproduction, bad service, so on. The same forces they currently face. What happens, is, because everyone in such a system is participating in the decisions made, everyone is held responsible by each other. Because of this, everyone keeps tabs on each other - manage each other, in a way - meaning that when something bad happens, the group has the documentation to protect them from legal/financial harm.

>Suppose a bank makes a bad bet and wipes out their customer's savings. In such a structure, there is no leader to fire or rogue trader to prosecute: the blame lies with every employee and no employee at the same time. Customers realise this and stop doing business with them. The bank falls, millions more become homeless.

Except there is. First of all, there's no one leader with whom that great amount of responsibility is placed. Since it ideally goes through a council of qualified traders (economicists), the chances of error go down drastically, as more people check each other's ideas for errors. And even if that group fails to catch every error, the rest of the firm - admittedly subject more-so to bad knowledge - has the ability to vote the decision down. When a rogue trader does something stupid anyway, the rest of the firm has been keeping tabs on him, as no decision is made without the firm's approval, they can fire him. As to customers realising that every employee is to blame and not wanting to do business with them, I fail to see how that's different than what already occurs; when a higher does something different, the name of the company is still damaged, as consumers do not have perfect knowledge and will often choose not to do business as it is.


>A reasonable analogy can be found in war: Every ship has a captain because it needs a single decision maker with vision and foresight. Imagine a ship run only by four sailors, every man equal. Where does the ship go? One sailor wants to go home, another wants to bide time and observe the enemy, a third wants to attack, a fourth wants to resupply and call reinforcements. Each reason is legitimate, and the sailors endlessly debate their decision even as their ship is torpedoed and sinks.


Yours is just a criticism of democracy as a whole. Measures must be taken to ensure a minimalization of filibustering and grid-locking. And I don't think you seem to understand that simply because it involves all workers in the decision-making process, that every worker necessarily has equal say. It's just that all workers are consulted in open fora. For every instance that a battleship may be gridlocked to death, consider every time a general has sent his troops into a strategically bad situation. Leaders are nothing more than other human beings; there chances of error are great. Expanding the number of eyes looking for error, and the chances of finding increase.



>Assume someone steps forward with decisions only when needed. How would this scheme differ from the current setup? This is the key of the issue: Companies are run like dictatorships, but the difference is that you (as a worker) have a choice: to accept and execute the decisions of the leader in exchange for money, or to quit the job and cut all obligation. Don't like my decision as the boss? Form your own business and fight your own way to the top. Just don't expect any guarantees.

Except that that seems to assume no start up costs. It assumes no roadblocks to business; it's too idealistic. It costs money to be an entrepreneur. But when you don't have the money to speak against them, there's no convincing and short of abandoning the position your education qualifies you for for something you can work without the requisite eduction - 9 times out of 10 a minimum wage job that fails to pay a living wage - you're going to be trapped in a crashing plane (and 9 times out 10 on a crashing motorcycle). You're not really doing something good for you or your family if you leave. And those that fail to see the error that you do because they are not informed by the system end up suffering when the company goes under.


>I honestly can't believe I typed all of this out. I really don't want to be rude, mate, but you seriously need to review how a business operates. You're essentially suggesting (pure) communism as a solution to businesses when the nature of humans and businesses make that an impossibility. It's the same reason why so-called "communist states" like China, the former USSR, or N. Korea have leaders in a supposedly equal society: In a power void, someone will try to take advantage of the system.

I want to say that there's no such thing as human nature, other than perhaps our nature to adapt. That it's a popular assumption and oversimplification born out of ease. But that's a whole other thread.

But the reason the so-called communist states have dictators is because of Leninism. Lenin had more in common with the ideas of Blanqui (whose ideas would provide the foundation for the ideology around leader worship - i.e. fascism) than Marx. He hated parliamentary democracy or bourgeois democracy partially because it could be bought and partially because of the supposed inefficiency. So, instead of Marx's direct/worker's democracy, his ideas were formed around a cult of personality and something called centralised democracy - where all of the decisions were debated within the party and applied top down. The leaders didn't take power in a power void, Lenin took it in a coup (the October Revolution) and the rest - Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim, etc. - all took power by copying Leninism.



>No, you're right. Before the crisis, people bought too much, saved too little, and threw a little too much caution to the wind, and something must be done about it. But there is a danger in large crowds, and why I always turn a cynical eye to protests even before thoroughly understanding them: Imagine holding a microphone to a speaker. One whisper, a fringe idea or conspiracy, becomes a loud screech, repeated, distorted, amplified, and repeated again. This is both the nature and danger of collective organisation: hostility begets hostility, protests turn into riots, and no one raindrop says it alone caused the flood.



Thing about this is that every criticism of the mob is equally if not moreso true for the individual. Just as a group of a thousand people is able to fall for the idols of Bacon, a single individual is a thousand times more able because he lacks the other 999 to convince him he's wrong.



On a side note, I find it interesting how these posts ebb and flow from violently confrontational to friendly debate. Peace to all, I suppose.

>>On a side note, I find it interesting how these posts ebb and flow from violently confrontational to friendly debate

That's because I only wrote >>135, >>136, >>140, and >>141. That being said, while I wouldn't have used the caustic language of >>138, I agree with where he's coming from.

I'd namefag, but to me that goes against the whole point of an anonymous image board's truly free speech.

Not gonna argue every point, it's futile and exhausting. However:

>>It assumes no roadblocks to business; it's too idealistic. It costs money to be an entrepreneur.
Sure it costs money. But do you think every business leader of today started with billions in hedge funds? This is actually how most businesses start: Some random dude comes up to a bunch of rich guys and says "hi. I have this great idea for a device that miniaturises a mainframe and puts it onto a single PC card, but I need money to get started." Rich guy says "fuck off," dude moves on to the next rich guy and the next until one of them says "hey, that's pretty clever. Here's a thousand. Get it started and give me back a thousand two hundred." Few years later, the investor's richer, dude's got a company, and Apple is raking in the cash. It's not cash that's the scarce resource in this equation, it's effort. It takes effort to think of a good idea and bring it to market, effort to refine it and sell it, and that effort is what most people lack, why most ideas are shot down.


>>consider every time a general has sent his troops into a strategically bad situation.

So I suppose a better idea is to just drop all your troops leaderless onto the battlefield in one big mass and pray that you win? If every worker is consulted, you DO get the best insight. You also get it about three months too late. For instance:

>>Since it ideally goes through a council of qualified traders (economicists), the chances of error go down drastically, as more people check each other's ideas for errors.

Imagine, all this effort. Asking five expert economists simply to buy or sell. These five must assess the market, assess the stock, assess the financial forecast, and cast their vote. They disagree and so the decision is passed down into a subcommittee of 15, who must go through the whole process again 15 times over. Just for one, single decision. Keep in mind that during all this time, the market is moving at it's own tempo, not waiting for you to decide. Does that sound efficient? The scale you would need to make a company like this function, much less market-ready, boggles the mind.

At the end of the day, all your counterarguments suffer from the same fundamental flaw. They're inefficient. Take your highly regarded co-ops. They survive even in highly competitive markets (The Co-Operative, for any britfags out there), but they don't THRIVE. They're not as efficient as capitalist endeavours, with high labour costs driving up shop prices and democratic decision-making hindering the firm's ability to react to market conditions. Hell, Co-Op can't even decide whether it wants to appeal to the posh Waitrose crowd or the budget-cutting Asda shoppers. Some suggest the solution is to turn EVERY business into a co-op, but then someone (whether greedy, desperate, or opportunistic) will undercut the system and we're back to capitalism.

>>Thing about this is that every criticism of the mob is equally if not moreso true for the individual. Just as a group of a thousand people is able to fall for the idols of Bacon, a single individual is a thousand times more able because he lacks the other 999 to convince him he's wrong.

That...makes no sense. You need to re-write it.

>>144
I didn't realize these businesses made their decisions three months too late:

http://www.kingarthurflour.com/

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/

http://ramwools.com/

http://parit.ca/

http://www.ruraldevelopment.org/FQB.html

http://www.akpress.org/

http://www.cupidcourier.com/

http://www.inkworkspress.org/

http://naturalhomecleaning.com/

http://pacocollars.com/

http://pedalexpress.com/santacruz/

http://www.localsproutscooperative.com/

http://www.pvsquared.coop/

http://www.valleygreenfeast.com/

http://www.firestormcafe.com/

http://www.ronin.coop/

http://www.unioncab.com/



Honestly, too many of these are post-hippy run, but you get the picture. Most of these are just because I was lazy and only went to a site or two to get a list.


But in the case of the Mondragón corporation, one of the most important if not the most important employer in the Spanish Basque region, when things get too large to handle, the solution is what the US practices (in theory, at least): Representative democracy.

Yes, most of those businesses are small, but that's kinda the point. The large corporations tend towards monopolistic practices, and centralise the livelihoods of it's many employees into the hands of a few. Which is part of the problem. Occasionally, an idiot will undercut the system, but criticising that is basically criticising embezzlement.

It happens, therefore it can't be stopped is a heavily flawed argument. It does not follow.

>Thing about this is that every criticism of the mob is equally if not moreso true for the individual. Just as a group of a thousand people is able to fall for the idols of Bacon, a single individual is a thousand times more able because he lacks the other 999 to convince him he's wrong.


Not really sure how to clarify. Have you ever written an essay? You know how some errors will always escape you, so you need someone else to proofread your paper? It's that principle I'm talking about.

>> when things get too large to handle, the solution is what the US practices...: Representative democracy
>>centralise the livelihoods of it's many employees into the hands of a few. Which is part of the problem.

Wait, what? So your solution is also your problem?

>>I didn't realize these businesses made their decisions three months too late...
>>Yes, most of those businesses are small, but that's kinda the point.

Great! Lemme run down to the shop and buy their products! Oh, wait. Economies of scale make it impossible for these businesses to be anything but small. And you still haven't addressed the fundamental issue: they are naturally inefficient and unsuited for all but the nichest of niche markets. The large ones, hate to break it to you, have executive board and management in all but name. And before you whip out your "but they were elected democratically" argument: how is that any different from choosing to walk into work and follow your boss's instructions?

I don't think I can get you to realise any of this short of dropping you in front of an economics textbook for an hour, with possibly a business text thrown in too. So far, the only thing your posts have proven is how far removed your knowledge is from the way a business operates, even the ones you praise for being bastions of "truly flat organisation."

>>116

> Implying hipsters exist

Unless something profound happens, the Occupy movement just took a major step to irrelevancy.

<- Pic related. Now that the leeches are coming, the movement either has to find it's footing or dissipate.

so the protestors complain about the "greedy corporations" not saring their wealth with "the people", but when homeless street nigras want to eat their lunch cart they don't want to share?

IRONY CUBED

>>164
source?

>>164
But most homeless people are the scum of the earth. The ones who are living on the street while working day labor to keep their starving family fed only live in Detroit and Hollywood fantasies.

>>166
Whatever validity this might have had went out the window with the development of the ongoing economic crisis. I know at least one person who was temporarily homeless (with a wife, no less) because of multiple companies he went to work for that subsequently downsized. Getting hired then let go repeatedly can seriously affect the bottom line and as a result he couldn't pay rent. He's landed on his feet since, but for a while life was in a car for shelter. Parts of the United States are still at, what, 9% unemployment? Doesn't look like a big number, but it's quite significant.

http://october2011.org/99

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/99-s-deficit-proposal-how-create-jobs-reduce-wealth-divide-and-control-spending

Two things to consider.

There's a vid where a guy rants a bit before reading alound some of the statements. He's kinda off the wall, though. Kinda crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ItJmc9CQ


Cheers.

>>167
I was referring to the homeless people panhandling on the side of the road. Wasn't clear about it, sorry.

Hurrah for common sense.
OP got the nail on the head, well done.

lol i agree with them about the jews, but otherwise they are a bunch of angryrumped hippy libber assburgers who need to go back to their dang ol' hugbox!

>>116
>>117
>>118

>>first id like to say: any "/id/" is usually decent reading. a cross-section of literal aptitude, and occasional intelligence. this thread was/is particularly nice to read. i personally find expressing myself more challenging than the two major contributors of this thread do, and often fail to research the subject at hand to any end worth writing about to begin with. im not well read nor educated in the matter(s). ill just say you two have sparked an interest, and well, im also compelled to contribute. i preface my remarks this way to maybe say that i am not resolute in my opinions, leaving them open to influence -as that seems healthy- ,but maybe to provide another angle. shit needs a changin':

I think that any economy that doesn't serve The People equally, and to a gross profitable end, is wrong.

I believe that any group trying to change the way shit is done has to approach that job with more organization than the 99% movement has shown. i neither personally support nor oppose it, as -honestly- that would require more energy than it seems to deserve.

i think a deserving target for a groups energy would be to effect wholesale change. i honestly think we (USA) base too much of our government on laws and such that were written while we were socially less mature, as a people.

i think we should rewrite the entire book, but that could make for a thread of its own (if not for lack of energy, as i mentioned before).

a chapter to be re-written: Government Involvement in the Free Economy - and vice versa.

first of all, NO VICE VERSA. call it quippy, but gov't should make us money, not our money making us gov't.

>>excuse me, this is the part where i have trouble expressing myself...

the government should protect those that aspire to make the world better, and punish the opposite. especially in business and economy.

co-ops, as stated previously in this thread, are stunted in a way that could keep them from expanding to meet a global market. so maybe lower tariffs? keep local tax-payment local? required corporate transparency if you are publicly traded?

jesus, sorry if this is kind of jumbled. i hereby self-diagnose: A.D.D. haha

anyways, just wanted to voice some shit.

>>307
>I think that any economy that doesn't serve The People equally, and to a gross profitable end, is wrong.
By that definition, almost all economies in the history of the
civilization are wrong. There will never be a broadly existing economy that provides equality in wealth distribution. The fact that we keep trying to tweak and refine economic theory bears this out. The fact that we have multiple economic systems (capitalism, communism, socialism) also bears this out.

>I believe that any group trying to change the way shit is done has to approach that job with more organization than the 99% movement has shown.
I've posted elsewhere that, while the Occupy movement did a great deal to push discussion of wealth disparity into mainstream media, it was largely a consumerist movement. By that I mean it was mostly people sitting around complaining about the product they were given (the government and economy) and demanding a new one from the powers that be rather than pushing forward an idea of how to realign the system to something amenable to them. This is quite embarrassing since it's coming from citizens of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world. Moreover America has fostered this image of being doers and innovators, and there was no real doing or innovating on the IRL side of things (although I think the distributed online management of the group is a template for future movements)

For what it's worth, the Occupy movement has been trying to realign itself. Members of the movement have been trying to incorporate or support local causes to become a grassroots support system. When the weather becomes a little more amenable, they'll go back to sitting around and complaining.

>first of all, NO VICE VERSA. call it quippy, but gov't should make us money, not our money making us gov't.
In any capitalist system, the one with money is the one with power. The original mandate for the US government was that it was not to make money at all, but to leave that to private corporations. The use of taxes was the only way for the US government to make money to support itself. This proved difficult as the government expanded, so various changes were made to allow the government to create services it could charge for. The point is, if you look at the original charter, the government was not supposed to make money at all. As it should be, in fact. Look at what the influx of money has done to the US political system.

>the government should protect those that aspire to make the world better, and punish the opposite. especially in business and economy.
I disagree with this based on the fact that the government - any government - should not meddle in ideals to a certain degree. Especially in a democracy. The point of a government, at it's heart, is simple: the people give up a certain amount of control to the government, and the government uses that control to provide protection and services that could not be done on a more fine-grained basis. A military, for example, or aid to a state when others have been unaffected. In a democracy, the ideals, and therefore direction of the government, need to be made by the people and their decisions, not by a politician. To put it another way, most politicians are in fact aspiring to make the world better and punish the opposite. They simply have a different idea than you on what "better" is and, thanks to the current breakdownof politics, know that you can't or won't do anything to stop them. That's why "government" and "ideals" should remain reasonably separate. It's not possible in true pragmatic reality, but the attempt must be made.

I'd like to close with a reminder about Theodore Roosevelt, arguably one of the greatest Presidents the United States has ever had. He was a robust man who believed in being a person of action, but at the same time believed in being a person of intellect. He believed that if someone didn't serve in the military, then that someone should serve in politics. It didn't have to be national politics. He just believed that all citizens of a democracy have a duty to serve their country. If not by war, then by work to ensure a more perfect union. He spoke in his speeches that if you were an immigrant, but were dedicated to helping America become a better place, then room would be found for you. He also believed if you were a citizen who had no interest in helping America, then you should leave.

Roosevelt believed that people should join or form groups to improve their neighborhood, city, state or country. He also advocated leaving the group if paths and goals are no longer aligned. Most importantly, he advocated that these groups are by their nature political groups and as such every American should consider it their job to be literate in politics. He thought that if a political system was found to be corrupt, one doesn't give up and walk away, one jumps in to inject integrity into the system.

Roosevelt said a lot of things. But that's not America today.

>>308
>I disagree with this based on the fact that the government - any government - should not meddle in ideals to a certain degree.

well, yes, but i can tollerate a little humanity (desire, imperfection...) in my govt. a bleeding heart will survive any reform, indoctrination, or coup. and everyone wants the greater good.

if i am to be honest, id prefer a tribal system of govt, with its roots -and lowest level of deligation- with a family unit. a household. doesnt get much done in the way of large hadron colliders and hoover dams and national space agencies, but... well, its simple. and of course, ill take a private island to call my own, but digress.

i beleive it can be tweaked to an even playing field, but it would devoid a populace of a sense off accomplishment.

i know why i have such ADD about this stuff. i havnt a single clue as to how it could be better, and without seeing any partial ideas to fruition (my antfarm ants have trouble grasping concepts like free trade and collegiate election), its pretty fucking pointless. well, thinkers will be thinkers. you two are better at the articulation part, and entertaining to boot. ill just lurk moar.