It should hit the media today: a Global Manifesto, presented "by local Occupy press teams around the world". A clear set of demands crafted by an international organization, of local social movements, including but not limited to Occupy.

This document will get trolled heavy on the net. I hope people read it with open mind and heart. Look to the truths before discarding the whole as utopian pipe dreams. There is truth here. And know that these ideals will set free the free market, such that capitalism and democracy will flourish unlike the world has ever seen. This is not "attack of the socialist anarchist neo-hippy drop outs". This is Global Solidarity! This is human. This is for real. And it is happening now.


The Manifesto preceded by history of the documents crafting:
http://interoccupy.org/please-help-communicate-this-international-occupy-statement-to-media-in-the-us/

A direct link to the document:
http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2012/05/may-12th-globalmay-statement/
.

We are living in a world controlled by forces incapable of giving freedom and dignity to the world´s population (if, indeed, they ever were). A world where we are told ‘there is no alternative’ to the loss of rights achieved through the long, hard struggles of our ancestors.

Hear, hear. Weregild4lyfe.

That list is adorable.

Edit: substantively:
There isn't a single mention in the whole article of trade policy or immigration. For a group that supposedly cares about the poor, they seem to be doing a mighty fine job of targeting upper-middle-income individuals in rich countries.

That list is adorable.

Edit: substantively:
There isn't a single mention in the whole article of trade policy or immigration. For a group that supposedly cares about the poor, they seem to be doing a mighty fine job of targeting upper-middle-income individuals in rich countries.

Considering the occupy movement had members from every side of the political spectrum, I'm surprised they even managed to come up with a "global" manifesto in the first place.
The list is cute though, I wonder if most of the occupy members still believe in Santa :lol:?

I liked Occupy more when its agenda was focused.

There isn't a single mention in the whole article of trade policy or immigration. For a group that supposedly cares about the poor, they seem to be doing a mighty fine job of targeting upper-middle-income individuals in rich countries. Did you bother to read it before pouring scorn on it?

"We condemn the current distribution of economic resources whereby only a tiny minority escape poverty and insecurity."

"an ideology at the service of financial power, seeking to impose measures that stifle billions of people, without asking their opinion."

"Every human being should have access to an adequate income for their livelihood"

"Rich governments cannot have more votes because they are rich. International Institutions must be controlled by the principle that each human is equal to all other humans – African, Argentinian or American; Greek or German."

"radical reform and democratisation of the global trading system and the World Trade Organization must take place. Commercialization of life and resources, as well as wage and trade dumping between countries must stop."

I like this reply from the link.
There are so many things wrong with this statement it would be a neverending chore to knock you down peg by peg. The only diff between gov. and your movement,is they are in power and you lack power. Everyone thrives to be at the top,but not all make it. Just vote for who you want and let whoever gets in do what they have to do. Whether polotics or your local factory,to many chiefs and not enough Indians can only spell disaster and things will falter.

There is nothing new in the document that various governments have tried and failed to deliver. Some are just so outrageous that they are not workable.

Summary:

"GRRRR, I am angry, oh and I want money too but for no particular reason, GRRRR"

Summary:

"GRRRR, I am angry, oh and I want money too but for no particular reason, GRRRR"
Summary: "I don't want to address their legitimate criticism so I caricature their demands to distract" :rolleyes:

@brennan

The five bullet points you mention are, to put it kindly, cheap talk (with the notable exception of #4, which I admire for being actionable). If they wanted to show solidarity with the other 80% - the 80% of the world that isn't in the G20 -- they could have made proposals on trade and immigration that were at least as specific as their proposals on universal healthcare, universal higher education, universal pensions, and universal child care. Something as simple as a single bullet point demanding the abolishment of trade barriers or relaxation immigration controls would have been enough. No, vague rants about the international financial elite don't count.

They find room to make "separation of commercial and investment banking" one of their main bullet points, and also reference the wealth-weighted apportionment of votes in the IMF, so don't tell me that trade and immigration policy are too technical for a manifesto. But I forgot; free trade and open borders aren't on the agenda. Free child care is.

The manifesto makes relatively specific demands for pensions, healthcare, education and child care. These are squarely directed at rich countries, because poor countries simply cannot afford those luxuries. They rail on the international financial system, the WTO and IMF, because those are easy targets; yet they don't make even the simple demands to reduce immigration barriers or eliminate farm subsidies. Their choice of demands, and their choice of which demands to make specific and which general, tells me a lot about their relative concern for rich and poor nations.

The Manifesto is aimed squarely at the 99% of the 20%. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I certainly think it's disingenuous to call it "global".

(The child care thing really rankles. I'll get over it. It smacks of "everybody ought to get a free iPad!" There are so many bigger issues facing the world right now.)

--

Critiquing the manifesto line-by-line is proving to be exhausting, time-consuming and not particularly enlightening. I see a few gems in the list, in the same way that a broken clock is still right twice per day. I can't on the whole endorse it, and am becoming quite disillusioned with the movement's direction.

But I doubt I was their target audience in the first place. ;)

Back to dynamic game theory...

Some nice sentiment, but at its core utterly naive and ignores hundreds of years of history.

If they wanted to show solidarity with the other 80% - the 80% of the world that isn't in the G20 -- they could have made proposals on trade and immigration that were at least as specific as their proposals on universal healthcare, universal higher education, universal pensions, and universal child care. Something as simple as a single bullet point demanding the abolishment of trade barriers or relaxation immigration controls would have been enough. No, vague rants about the international financial elite don't count.

You're building strawman to attack them. There is no world government, therefore it's pointless to make a proposals applying to people on countries where there is no influence by this "movement". They're targeting their own governments, and that is politically correct, for those are the only ones they can hope to influence. The only thing with an international impact they're calling on is a reduction on the voting rights of those rich countries in come international institutions: that is something they are able to call for, for it is about their own governments giving up something, not about imposing policy on others.

Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever that the simple abolishment of trade barriers is in the best interests of poorer countries. The opposite is more likely true: developing countries need tools to selectively encourage some economic activities. It would not be correct to deman of the governments of rich countries that they imposed (through use military and economic might?) on the rest of the world such an abolition of trade barriers. In fact accusations have been made that rich countries have pretty much been doing that in order to better control the resources of those poorer countries, against the interests of their populations!

As for "open borders" in the "rich world", you know that is not doable, and implemented in a limited way it serves mainly the purpose of depressing the negotiating power of the poorer classes in those wealthier countries. Obviously they're not calling for it. And you should not call for it either, because wherever it is done in a crisis context you will get the results the greeks (for example) are seeing: the rise of neo-nazi parties.

So, you're criticizing them for... being realistic in defending the interests of the vast majority of the population of the countries they're operating in?


The manifesto makes relatively specific demands for pensions, healthcare, education and child care. These are squarely directed at rich countries, because poor countries simply cannot afford those luxuries.

The world is made up of different regions, organized into different countries, and requiring different policies. Duh! Any other complaint?

They rail on the international financial system, the WTO and IMF, because those are easy targets; yet they don't make even the simple demands to reduce immigration barriers or eliminate farm subsidies. Their choice of demands, and their choice of which demands to make specific and which general, tells me a lot about their relative concern for rich and poor nations.

The Manifesto is aimed squarely at the 99% of the 20%. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but I certainly think it's disingenuous to call it "global".

Reduce immigration barriers - I already addressed that. Eliminate farm subsidies: are you aware at all that agricultural productivity in the rich world is still much higher that that of the poorer world? That in a world without any trade barriers what little farming exists in Africa would absolutely be crushed, with the exception of extremely large farms, probably owners by foreign corporations, used for the cultivation of a few select cash crops? Independent farmers, who make up a large portion of the population, would absolutely be crushed. Some countries in South America, which are already relatively rich, might benefit vis-a-vis Europe and the USA. The rest of the world, especially the poorer countries, would lose, badly, by losing the ability of regulating trade that some of them use to control their own equilibrium between local food production and price (through cheaper imports).
And we can open a thread specifically about this issue (agriculture across the world) if you want!

This manifesto doesn't try to score any points with cheap shots at such a complex issue as agricultural policy? Good for them, they should be praised for that!

They would have more support if they just targeted the banks.

If they wanted to show solidarity with the other 80% - the 80% of the world that isn't in the G20 --

I agree with your general points. I just want to point out that 66% of the world belongs to the G20. If we accept that all people should have equal political power, that's what matters. I find the notion that say Tuvalu should have the same weight as China or India in international negotiations laughable.

I find the notion that say Tuvalu should have the same weight as China or India in international negotiations laughable.

So do I; and I cannot find any sentence in the manifesto that implies that!

A well-meaning document, but it contains a number of 'gimmes' and contradictory demands, e.g. demanding a universal basic income and free universal healthcare while simultaneously demanding a massive transition towards renewables and taxation that seems to penalize people specifically for being economically productive.

The demands for "fully democratic" political systems are naive, because they are based on the assumption that more democracy is always better. The creators of this Statement don't appear to be aware that political systems face a trade-off between the degree of democracy/diffusion of power and the ability to actually get anything done. I also get the sense that, like many others across the political spectrum, what they really mean by "democracy" is "the things that I want and like." Overall I get the impression that the GlobalMay Statement was written by sanctimonious green-left university students.

It's inappropriate, and in fact dangerous to human freedom, for the Occupy movement to be listing "demands". Doesn't matter what those demands are, and in fact I didn't even bother to read the links. The links are unimportant. In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".

In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".

Would this rule also apply to Tea Party demonstrators and hate-spewing "news" pundits?

I'm glad these kinds of things are published; it makes it easier to dissuade people from supporting these kinds of movements.

Therefore, we demand the progressive reduction of working hours, without reducing income.
Just look at that sentence. It's total economic illiteracy, yet it was written and approved probably by a committee of people with college degrees.

I'm a pretty big hellbound lefty commie bastard but... a lot of this stuff is ludicrous.

I particularly dislike:

At all levels we ask for the development of a democracy that is as participatory as possible, including non representative direct democracy.

Protip: People are actually too dumb for this to be a good idea.

Also:

As long as social inequalities exist, taxation at all levels should maintain the principle of solidarity. Those who have more should contribute to maintain services for the collective welfare. Maximum income should be limited, and minimum income set to reduce the outrageous social divisions in our societies and its social political and economic effects.

Complete crap. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being rich.

Full respect for children’s rights, including free child care for everyone.

This is dumb. I'm for a lot of really left wing things, including single payer, but :crazyeye:

Apart from bread, we want roses. Everyone has the right to enjoy culture, participate in a creative and enriching leisure at the service of the progress of humankind . Therefore, we demand the progressive reduction of working hours, without reducing income.

I don't even... what? :crazyeye:

On the other hand, I do like a few things. Still, the stupid bleating dumbshit parts of it drown out the few good parts.

Ethnic, cultural and sexual minorities should have their civil, cultural, political and economic rights fully recognized.

This makes me a little nervous. If they mean homosexuals and transsexuals then I agree, but written the way it is one could easily accuse them of referring to pedophiles.

Also, how do you reconcile At all levels we ask for the development of a democracy that is as participatory as possible, including non representative direct democracy. and Ethnic, cultural and sexual minorities should have their civil, cultural, political and economic rights fully recognized. if you are a gay couple in Texas?

An awful lot of this just smacks of 'yes, we'd all love that, dear, but how do you intend to pay for it?'

I'm a pretty big believer in the old slogan that you have to be "realistic- demand the impossible", and I think that the demands have some merit within those terms. If the majority or even a simple plurality gets behind them- and let's not ague about whether they're "reasonable" or not, because the world has never functioned according to that sort of naive corporatism- then the failure or refusal of the powers that be to address them shifts the political terrain pretty significantly. The problem, if anything, is that they are too conservative, that the authors seem to believe that there's actually a hope in the hell that these demands might be fulfilled, that the existing political and economic structure is in fact capable of responding to them. That just invites the sort of quibbling that we've seen in this thread, as if the point of the OWS was actually to produce a series of centre-left policy goals rather than to deliver a punch squarely to the jaw of the hegemonic politics itself. At the risk of leaving a few more posters furiously uncomprehending than may be considered polite, we shouldn't make these demands because we think the system can meet them, but because we know it can't.


In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran.
Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?

Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?

If the things being shouted are the will of the people, the government is by definition oppressive.

What is "the people", and how does it formulate a coherent "will"?

They "demand" it? Its one thing to demand another to get. Also this is a manifesto? Shouldn't it be a bit longer.

It's inappropriate, and in fact dangerous to human freedom, for the Occupy movement to be listing "demands". Doesn't matter what those demands are, and in fact I didn't even bother to read the links. The links are unimportant. In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".

That is a really, really pathetic statement. What are political campaigns and party agendas but lists of "unilateral demands"? What is any political activity but lists of demands - which may or may not go through, obviously?

And what would voting mean if you would censor any political speech? Because that's what you are calling for here. Do you really think that the people reading your drivel are stupid enough to fall for it? And your insinuations that this "occupy movement" is able to coerce anyone through force... :rolleyes: every single instance of violence I've seen in the last months has been directed against them. But that doesn't worry you the least bit, does it?

"Do you really think that the people reading your drivel are stupid enough to fall for it? " is over the top, please be civil.

Protip: People are actually too dumb for this to be a good idea.

So dumb that all the flaws of solely focusing on representation become irrelevant? How exactly did you reach this conclusion? Especially if we consider the vast myriads of ways representation sucks and the negligible experience we had the chance to collect with direct democracy? Ah I see, you don't have any actual coherent reasoning, but I understand how cool it is to have yourself appear aware of the dumbness of the masses and it is a trendy argument to make against direct democracy. Especially in the USA, where arguments seem to be all about fashion, especially with the masses.
I wonder if someone is as dumb as you (but still seems to think to be some sort of "pro") - can he really judge the bearability of dumbness involved in direct democracy?

I feel better now.

Sorry that I made you so angry.

Look, I was being cutesy when I put it that way. There are, however, really good objections to direct democracy.

Perhaps the biggest danger, to my mind, is the tyranny of the majority. It's the two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner problem. The temptation to simply trample unpopular minorities is too strong, and I do think it weakens constitutional protections when we go too far in this direction.

Do you have any objections to direct democracy that don't amount to gut-instinct and misanthropy? Nothing in the above post suggests that you do.

Tyranny by majority is a serious threat without constitutional protections, he is correct (simply look at gay marriage votes). People voting away their rights in a panic when something bad happens is also a threat. Direct democracy with constitutional protections would be more reasonable.

Do you have any objections to direct democracy that don't amount to gut-instinct and misanthropy? Nothing in the above post suggests that you do.

You must have responded to my pre-edit post. Sorry about that.

Yeah. They're pretty simple objections and you might not agree, but I do.

I fear the power it would give to all sorts of unpleasant demagogues during times of crises. Corruptible or not, I'd rather have some older, calmer hands at the switch.

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?

Put bluntly, if you ask 'the people' to make all of their own decisions, they make some horrifically stupid ones. Politicians in general are better at making decisions than the average voter, which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?

I was going to use a hypothetical example, but I Googled and found a more concrete one.

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

Basically, panicked property owners grieved by something called the Rumford Fair Housing Act wanted to amend the California state constitution to allow them to discriminate against non-whites. I have an absolute belief that gay marriage is a right and consider Proposition 8 to be a similar example.

This was just a quick Wikipedia dive, but take it for what it's worth.

EDIT: Linky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%281963%29

I don't understand the alleged relationship between direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority". Would it be possible to explain to it me, preferably with minimum references to your contempt for the swinish multitude?Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.

Politicians are a buffer zone that sort of cools down the primal emotion of the voter before it becomes law. Imagine right after 9/11 when people were terrified and angry what sort of direct votes we would have had on muslims.

I commend your irony, sir.

I'd rather not turn the Republic into an unmixed "best demagogue 2012" contest. What we have now is certainly flawed, but I don't think going from bad to worse will fix it.

I commend your irony, sir.

Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.

Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.

This may not be true, but I would be very surprised if it wasn't.

As bad as things got, we never passed any laws discriminating against muslims. Did horrible things like the Patriot act and the Iraq war, but muslims were never legally reduced to 2nd class citizens. I honestly believe that had people been allowed to directly vote while everyone was in a panic, there would have at least been officially legalized profiling and possibly even worse things. I also think the Patriot act would have been even more frighting in terms of the government powers it handed out.

Speculation of course, i dont actually KNOW any of these things.

Put bluntly, if you ask 'the people' to make all of their own decisions, they make some horrifically stupid ones. Politicians in general are better at making decisions than the average voter, which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.
What examples of each system are you comparing?

I was going to use a hypothetical example, but I Googled and found a more concrete one.

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

Basically, panicked property owners grieved by something called the Rumford Fair Housing Act wanted to amend the California state constitution to allow them to discriminate against non-whites. I have an absolute belief that gay marriage is a right and consider Proposition 8 to be a similar example.

This was just a quick Wikipedia dive, but take it for what it's worth.

EDIT: Linky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_%281963%29
I'm afraid I don't follow. What does this have to do with direct democracy?


Politicians are crap, but they are a buffer zone. As bad as some of the post 9/11 laws were it would have been even worse if panicked average citizens were voting on things.
A buffer zone between what and what?

I'm afraid I don't follow. What does this have to do with direct democracy?

It was a California ballot proposition. Is that not direct democracy?

Fair point; what I mean is, what does that have to do with the sort of comprehensive direct democracy proposed by the manifesto? Simply pointing out that people have voted for objectionable things doesn't say anything more more conclusive than pointing out that they've voted for objectionable people or parties.

Direct Democracy erodes some of the checks and balances we have put in place in our current Representative systems, it's just people voting for or against laws. While I do believe in a direct democracy people would be more invested in the what is happening and make more of an effort to educate themselves on the issues they are voting on I don't think they would do it to the extent necessary for it to be better than the current system.

What examples of each system are you comparing?

Shall we say Athens in 480 BC versus America in 2001? Alternately the 'popular sovereignty' over slavery in 19th Century America, which allowed slavery to persist in much of the country thanks to the unwillingness of the political classes to interfere with the direct wishes of the voters.

Direct Democracy erodes some of the checks and balances we have put in place in our current Representative systems...
How so?

Shall we say Athens in 480 BC versus America in 2001?
If we're going to take into account that there was a greater difference between the two than just the system of government, sure.

Alternately the 'popular sovereignty' over slavery in 19th Century America, which allowed slavery to persist in much of the country thanks to the unwillingness of the political classes to interfere with the direct wishes of the voters.
Surely that represents a failure of representative democracy as much as direct democracy?

Surely that represents a failure of representative democracy as much as direct democracy?

No; direct democracy, enshrined in law and custom, allowed slavery to continue.

Why wasn't it challenged by the elected governments, then, if they were as stoutly anti-slavery as such a claim would imply? After all, if they were pro-slavery too, then there would be nothing much unique about the role of direct democracy in maintaining the institution, so by the fact that you're making a big deal of it, I can only assume that they were not.

A buffer zone between what and what?

I believe I said in an earlier post a buffer zone between people's raw emotions and the law. I am not that concerned about direct democracy in relatively good times, but as soon as something bad happened I just dont trust its ability to prevent panicked mob mentality, especially against groups too small to effect the vote.

Representative democracy is of course flawed, but Ill take its checks and balances over a potential emotional free for all.

Sorry that I made you so angry.
That honors you, though your pre-edit post read a little different ;) Direct democracy is in general a quit emotional topic for me but your in my eyes totally misplaced arrogance was the trigger, however "cutesy" you want to portray it in the aftermath. But well, now I had my share of arrogance and arrogance quickly gets stale and bitter (not to mention unproductive).
If you are further interested in discussing with me, I'll make my stand down below.
which is why representative democracy tends to get a better outcome.
This isn't established the slightest. Also, we argue in very unrealistic and unproductive ways. Which is to assume some extreme form of direct democracy and its supposed horrors.

Instead I think we should focus on what works well in indirect democratic ways and what may benefit from more direct ways. Meaning how about incorporating both systems? For instance, to rule out tax schemes as a means of direct democracy strikes me as a good idea. kramerfan86 articulated his fear that the right of minorities get stamped on, so did AlpsStranger. And I think those are good points! (though this isn't actually tyranny of the majority, just as we don't have a party tyranny) So, have a constitution that prevents that and make representative components a necessary part of any constitutional change. It really is not that hard to think that far, is it?
But in many cases it isn't that clear-cut what direct democracy actually would mean, all we have is baseless fear mongering like we have it since the very introduction of democratic thought. But we didn't never give direct democratic elements an actual shot. I wonder why? It can't be because it is so obviously wrong. There simply is no basis for this assumption. Freaking none.

Of course, there is Switzerland. And they did some stupid things. Minaret ban, woman suffrage quit belated. However, first of Switzerland is of course not able to represent what various possible ways of direct democracy in various different nations actually would mean. It is just one tiny country and in various ways very special. What it can demonstrate is that direct democracy is not actually the end of the world, that it can cause political parties which are way less partisan (Switzerland is quit unique in this instance from what I have gathered), that it can also screw up (no surprise there, every political system will do that) and that it can also excel.

To illustrate the last one: Social contributions are capped in Germany. Why? It literally means that once you have reached a certain wealth, you have to give up a smaller share of it for the common good. Where in God's name is the sense in that? The better you are of, the less is the share you contribute. Ha, those representative elites and their wit, I can not even grasp it.
In Switzerland, they also had it capped, but a popular vote ended it. Horrible tyranny of the majority? Well in this case it seems to me Germany has a tyranny of the minority (not that anything of that is real tyranny to begin with, I happened have made a post on what this actually means, or at least orginial meant when it still made sense here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10532743&postcount=62)). Alright, I get a little populist here, but I think you get the idea.

But we again argue in extremes. One system is good, the other bad. The to me most likely truth lies in between. And instead of getting hooked on imagined horrors, we should get on our way to find this position in between.

Would this rule also apply to Tea Party demonstrators and hate-spewing "news" pundits?
:coffee: Dunno and don't care, because this thread isn't about the Tea Party.

Who gets to decide which states are "free", and which are "oppressive", I wonder?
It's obvious: just observe the voters. A nation is free if voters don't get arrested and shot when they vote "the wrong way" (which, for example, happens in Iran fairly frequently). I know the United States is free because American voters haven't been getting arrested and shot for opposing President Bush Jr., President Obama, or any of their predecessors.

:coffee: Dunno and don't care, because this thread isn't about the Tea Party.



Good, I'll take that as a yes :beer:

Nope. You can only take it as a "yes" if I say "yes", and I didn't.

I will not be answering the question you asked, because that question was a "pointing-the-finger" debate fallacy: an attempt to put the bullseye on somebody besides the Occupy movement. This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about Occupy.

Nope. You can only take it as a "yes" if I say "yes", and I didn't.

I will not be answering the question you asked, because that question was a "pointing-the-finger" debate fallacy: an attempt to put the bullseye on somebody besides the Occupy movement. This thread isn't about the Tea Party. It's about Occupy.

I wasn't pointing the finger at anyone. I was just wondering if you had any interest in applying your edict fairly and consistently regardless of whether the group in question holds views that you agree with. However it sounds like you're happy to go down the cognitive dissonance route. Yet again.

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not.

I already said I didn't read Occupy's manifesto. Most likely there are a few things in there I actually agree with. But that's the thing: whether I agree with any given item in the manifesto is irrelevant. Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement. Therefore, regardless of what the manifesto contains, any political material in it should not be presented as unilateral demands.

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not....Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement. Therefore, regardless of what the manifesto contains, any political material in it should not be presented as unilateral demands.

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you simply choose to be in denial and bury your head in the sand. Fine whatever. But I would hope that in the interests of not being a hypocrite you would apply the same principled standard to a manifesto written by, say, Tea Party types who take their loaded guns to public rallies and get all riled up about fake birth certificates. Not trying to derail the thread here, just saying...

And know that these ideals will set free the free market, such that capitalism and democracy will flourish unlike the world has ever seen. This is not "attack of the socialist anarchist neo-hippy drop outs". This is Global Solidarity! This is human. This is for real. And it is happening now.

If that's what all this hubbub is over, defending that system of oppression, then the Occupiers really have no clue. Do you realize that if Occupy resorts to "defending capitalism" then it's no different, just as reactionary, and just as bad (I might even say [i]worse[/]) than the Tea Partiers. Fortunately much of the American Occupy movement seems to be shedding its liberal roots, I suggest you move with them, if you want to remain relevant.

It's obvious: just observe the voters. A nation is free if voters don't get arrested and shot when they vote "the wrong way" (which, for example, happens in Iran fairly frequently). I know the United States is free because American voters haven't been getting arrested and shot for opposing President Bush Jr., President Obama, or any of their predecessors.
So you would regard China as a free country, given that citizens are free to vote for candidates who are not members of the ruling party?

Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement.
Are you saying you don't vote?

You can only claim cognitive dissonance if I actually answer your question. I have not, and will not.
Can we claim that you're chickening out then instead?

If that's what all this hubbub is over, defending that system of oppression, then the Occupiers really have no clue. Do you realize that if Occupy resorts to "defending capitalism" then it's no different, just as reactionary, and just as bad (I might even say [i]worse[/]) than the Tea Partiers. Fortunately much of the American Occupy movement seems to be shedding its liberal roots, I suggest you move with them, if you want to remain relevant.
Oh please, by nature almost all systems invented by humans have lead to oppression. If you are going to be hyper-optimistic and ignore history, suggesting idealized capitalism is not inferior to suggesting idealized socialism or communism.

Oh please, by nature almost all systems invented by humans have lead to oppression. If you are going to be hyper-optimistic and ignore history, suggesting idealized capitalism is not inferior to suggesting idealized socialism or communism.
I never really understand why people appeal to "history", as if that in itself means anything at all. Unless there are some specific details that you're able to sketch out for us, it really just reads as "I'm right because I'm right". :dunno:

Isn't your criticism based on history, too?

I certainly think that paying reference to history is necessary for constructing valid political criticism, I just don't think that you get very far by asserting that "history says X". It may not be wrong, for all I know, but unless you can tell us how history says X, it's bugger all use to anyone. It's just an appeal to authority, and an absurdly nebulous authority at that.

I never really understand why people appeal to "history", as if that in itself means anything at all. Unless there are some specific details that you're able to sketch out for us, it really just reads as "I'm right because I'm right". :dunno:
And I dont get how people can perpetually think human nature has radically shifted and therefore the corruption flaws that have shown up in every single attempt at human government in known history suddenly wouldnt show up this time. The oppressor isnt capitalism or socialism, its corruption. Both ideas are great in silly idealized form which has never happened and never will.

Well, the obvious objection would be that there's no such thing as "human nature", at least not in the sense of a pre-cultural essence that you're talking about. Humans don't really work that way outside of 18th century political just-so stories.


At any rate, as I said, if you want to convince anybody, you need to actually explain what you're saying, not just state it as self-evident fact. What "corruption" are you talking about? What form did it take? How do you identify it in the first place? What obstacles does it present to the organisational models you're criticising? These are necessary explanations that you're just not offering us.

I tend to run on the fact that people have a novice enough understanding of history to see the things that have gone wrong without needing a history lesson to recap. For instance the fact that in all attempts to create it, communism has through human power hunger been mutated into dictatorships should be a warning flag to people. By the same token capitalism, which in theory is a system that allows anyone to climb up the ladder with hard enough work gets corrupted to where those at the top of the ladder do things to prevent those lower down from joining them. That is why I snidely mocked the idea that "oh well capitalism is terrible what sort of idiot wants to try and preserve that" when the alternatives have just as bad of track records historically speaking.

All human government systems: Republics, dictatorships, democracies in capitalist, socialist, and communist forms have an idealized state their supporters sell and then the real world versions that have repeatedly popped up throughout history.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except all the others that have been tried!"

I tend to run on the fact that people have a novice enough understanding of history to see the things that have gone wrong without needing a history lesson to recap. For instance the fact that in all attempts to create it, communism has through human power hunger been mutated into dictatorships should be a warning flag to people. By the same token capitalism, which in theory is a system that allows anyone to climb up the ladder with hard enough work gets corrupted to where those at the top of the ladder do things to prevent those lower down from joining them. That is why I snidely mocked the idea that "oh well capitalism is terrible what sort of idiot wants to try and preserve that" when the alternatives have just as bad of track records historically speaking.

All human government systems: Republics, dictatorships, democracies in capitalist, socialist, and communist forms have an idealized state their supporters sell and then the real world versions that have repeatedly popped up throughout history.
All you're doing is repeating yourself in more words. Answer the question I gave you and we might actually be able to carve a decent discussion out of this, but if you all you do is making a series of sweeping, wholly non-explanatory claims about all human societies everywhere ever then I honestly don't know what you expect anyone else to say.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - except all the others that have been tried!"
Not that Churchill, a staunch public defender of Mussolini, was in any sense opposed to trying alternatives.

So you would regard China as a free country, given that citizens are free to vote for candidates who are not members of the ruling party?
They're not. China's elections are a sham, and people who vote the wrong way frequently get arrested, imprisoned without trial, and, sometimes, made to disappear.

Are you saying you don't vote?
Nope. I was saying Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement.

Can we claim that you're chickening out then instead?
No, you cannot.


But I would hope that in the interests of not being a hypocrite you would apply the same principled standard to a manifesto written by, say, Tea Party
This thread is not about the Tea Party.

Not trying to derail the thread here, just saying...
Well, that's the effect you're having.

Some food for thought, G-Man: if the OCCUPY Movement (rather than the Tea Party) unilaterally demanded something you don't approve of (tax cuts for the rich, an end to all abortions, take your pick), would you support or oppose it? Why? Because you oppose the specific policy?

If you support Occupy's current demands (or most of them), why do you support them? Is it because you approve of the specific policies they advocate? Do you want to see those policies implemented? By any means necessary?

(Don't answer any of that; that way the thread can't get derailed. Simply consider the above stuff in the privacy of your mind)

That boldface part a few lines up is the problem with the Occupy movement (and many others, but this thread is not about them). They didn't get what they wanted in the 2008 or 2010 elections (Obama pretty much flaked), and so they're trying to get what they want some other way. In the United States, that's not appropriate. The correct venue for deciding government policy is in the voting booth.

They're not. China's elections are a sham, and people who vote the wrong way frequently get arrested, imprisoned without trial, and, sometimes, made to disappear.
I had a citation. Do you?

Nope. I was saying Occupy is a political, and frequently violent, movement.
Just like voting, yes.

All you're doing is repeating yourself in more words. Answer the question I gave you and we might actually be able to carve a decent discussion out of this, but if you all you do is making a series of sweeping, wholly non-explanatory claims about all human societies everywhere ever then I honestly don't know what you expect anyone else to say.
At this point you are just being intentionally difficult. You seemingly want a play by play explanation of how every human society had an ideal form and step by step explanation of how they moved away from that ideal form which is an utterly ridiculous demand. My example of communism was a perfectly reasonable example of what I was talking about. if you cant see how a system which is supposed to be a worker's paradise mutating into a dictatorship like the Soviet Union isnt an example of history showing ideals get corrupted, then I dont know what exactly you are expecting.

All right then, we'll specifically address Russian socialism; I suppose that's probably as good a working example as any. Paraphrasing my earlier questions, what is the "corruption" you identify as emerging in Russia between 1917 and (say) 1926, and how have you identified it? What were the "ideals" that Russian socialists began with, and how did the eventual reality diverge from those ideals? How are the soviets, the fabzavcom, the various parties and the Soviet governments related in this process of "corruption"? What role did external affairs, such as the Civil War and the collapse of the German insurrection, have in the development of Russian socialism? Was this form primarily social, economic and political, and how did the multiple dimensions relate to each other? It's not necessary to answer these questions directly, but they describe the sort of issues that I think any effective explanation would cover.

Certainly, I don't disagree that something happened between 1917 and 1926, and I suppose "corruption" could be an at least suitably poetic way of describing it, but simply saying that this is so isn't actually an explanation, and that's what we need before we can hope to evaluate the significance of such a development, or to infer from it (if this is at all possible) any general lessons about human social and political organisation.

I honestly wouldnt say it was that corrupt at that point, to me you have to look at the total lifespan. The goal of the communist revolution was a worker's paradise I believe, correct? It was a noble goal, one which they were still attempting to work towards in the time frame you mentioned. However, the original leadership eventually died out and Stalin took over. The stalin who killed millions and was infinitely more concerned about keeping power than he was the workers. That is the moment that I think it got corrupted, when power shifted to those more concerned about their own standing then the original goals. At that point I would say you can safely say the ideal was lost and the goal instead shifted to those being in power remaining in power and projecting their power around the world as opposed to actually helping out the workers.

You probably raise a fair point that just saying history without explanation is a bit of a vague comment, but I wasnt responding to a particularly detailed comment in the first place so I wasnt exactly going to delve deeply into it.

You made some pretty sweeping claims, though, so I would have assumed that you'd have some sort of supporting logic grounded in empirical sociology and history to back it up. I'm not asking for a monograph, just an attempt to flesh out what you're actually claiming occurs and some very briefly worked examples- an explanation, rather just a description. But if the best you can do for as complex a topic as Russia 1917-1926 is "Lenin died, whoops, STALIN", then do you really expect to convince anyone?

It's inappropriate, and in fact dangerous to human freedom, for the Occupy movement to be listing "demands". Doesn't matter what those demands are, and in fact I didn't even bother to read the links. The links are unimportant. In a free nation, political change MUST NOT EVER take the form of unilateral demands issued by shouting demonstrators waving signs. That method is only useful in dealing with oppressive totalitarian governments such as that in Iran. In free nations, political change MUST BE the sole prerogative of voters cloaked in the anonymous safety of the voting booth--where the demonstrators can't scare the voters or take revenge on people who vote "the wrong way".

That doesn't take into account the shenanigans of the plutocrats to engineer elections to their work in their favor.

You made some pretty sweeping claims, though, so I would have assumed that you'd have some sort of supporting logic grounded in empirical sociology and history to back it up. I'm not asking for a monograph, just an attempt to flesh out what you're actually claiming occurs and some very briefly worked examples- an explanation, rather just a description. But if the best you can do for as complex a topic as Russia 1917-1926 is "Lenin died, whoops, STALIN", then do you really expect to convince anyone?
Best I can do and what I am willing to do to satisfy your standards on an internet forum are rather different creatures. You seem to want the equivalent of a fairly well written college history essay on, by your own admittance, a rather detailed and active time in history. Its a fairly unreasonable standard. I am perfectly willing to admit my original comment was broad and vague, but your demands for how detailed of an explanation you want are over the top, or at least they are for the level of effort I intend on putting into a topic about a broad manifesto full of demands with no actual solutions.

Kramerfan, Traitorfish summed up your point IMO just fine with "Lenin died, whoops, STALIN" (made me laugh, too :mischief:). If you think to expect more than this means to overburden you, than as Traitorfish himself says, you shouldn't expect to convince anyone with your opinion (and I add) who is actually interested in widening his or her horizon in a sensible way.
The underlying problem is (for some reason Traitorfish is very reluctant to speak his mind, but I think he will agree here), that history is very, very, very, yes very very much circumstantial. Which makes it very very very hard (Dachs would probably say futile) to derive universal lessons which are not obvious and profane. Hence, any such claim to have done so nevertheless by definition requires some good explanation. I realize that not everyone does that. With regards to Communism, it is very fashionable to not do so. But frankly, that's stupid. That's intellectually lazy.

And like I said I agree its a fair point I was vague in my original comment and would agree JUST because something failed in the past is no guarantee it will perpetually. I think it shows the odds are high, but not impossible.

I suppose a better way to put my original post which he was hammering away at is that there is nothing any more wrong with idealistically hoping to fix the current system than there is hoping to learn from the past mistakes in other systems. Either way IMO you are going against the odds. Neither are total impossibilities though.

Replacing impossible with unlikely isn't really addressing the issue. What I personally actually find likely is unless you have a profound reasoning in your head you just don't want to bother to share, that your conclusions with regards to Communism and its compatibility with human nature are not valid. And Communism being as a word raped and deformed by decades of idealogical warfare surely does not help the matter.
However, if you want to narrow it down to incredible idealized versions of Communism, which surely are out there, I think there in deed is a good case to be made for how that does not harmonize with human nature. But more because of the profane nature of such a revelation rather than historic incidents. Like expecting that human nature allows for a fundamental abstinence of selfishness seems very unlikely, because the conditions to establish such seem very unlikely.

nah its not just communism, that just happened to be an example. It simply comes down to Im a bit of a cynic. History is a bit of a sad tale of could of and should of beens and it has me jaded. Communism and capitalism both are good things strictly speaking, Im just pessimistic on the chances of either one being pulled off as their biggest supporters hope.

Problem is, Kramerfan, the only explanation you're offering for your historical models is the very claim which you're trying to prove. "Human nature tends towards the corruption of ideals, for example, the Soviet Union was corrupted because human nature tends towards the corruption of ideals, for example, the Soviet Union was corrupted..." There's no real evidence being presented for anything you're saying, no reason for us to believe that the trends you identified are actually what you claim to be or even that they exist in the first place. It's fine to be a cynic, if that's what floats your boat, but if you don't have anything to back it up but intuition, it's not very reasonable to expect others to come round to your way of thinking.

Problem is, Kramerfan, the only explanation you're offering for your historical models is the very claim which you're trying to prove. "Human nature tends towards the corruption of ideals, for example, the Soviet Union was corrupted because human nature tends towards the corruption of ideals, for example, the Soviet Union was corrupted..." There's no real evidence being presented for anything you're saying, no reason for us to believe that the trends you identified are actually what you claim to be or even that they exist in the first place. It's fine to be a cynic, if that's what floats your boat, but if you don't have anything to back it up but intuition, it's not very reasonable to expect others to come round to your way of thinking.

But how would he prove it? Can you outline a method, as at first sight you seem to be asking the impossible of him.

Well, I think he has in so far a point as that what historically has been promised to be gained by political upheaval by political figureheads hardly has ever matched the actual results of such. Though that is a comment on the empirical trust-worthiness of those promises rather than on what in deed is viable.

My original point which has been lost in the language I used is that there is little reason to suggest their idealistic attempt to perfect capitalism is somehow idiotic compared to idealistically trying to replace it with something else. The history comment was meant to convey that throughout history its not as though the alternatives to capitalism have turned out any better, so at the end of the day if you are going to idealistically gun for something there is little reason perfecting capitalism is dumber than replacing it.

But how would he prove it? Can you outline a method, as at first sight you seem to be asking the impossible of him.
I'm not asking for proof, because I don't think that you can ever really prove something like this, you can only offer interpretations that are more or less sound. However, that soundness is, generalising a bit, a measure of how well a given model explains the evidence, and I'm not really seeing any attempt at that in his posts. If it can't explain the evidence, it can't be considered sound, so whether true or not, it's no good to us as a basis for further enquiry.


My original point which has been lost in the language I used is that there is little reason to suggest their idealistic attempt to perfect capitalism is somehow idiotic compared to idealistically trying to replace it with something else. The history comment was meant to convey that throughout history its not as though the alternatives to capitalism have turned out any better, so at the end of the day if you are going to idealistically gun for something there is little reason perfecting capitalism is dumber than replacing it.
In that case, why do you assume that Cheezy is calling on us to pursue some alternative ideal? He is, you may be aware, a proponent of conflict theory, specifically the Marxian theory of class struggle, which holds that social development emerges not through an exercise of will but through a process of social conflict. His interest in the OWS movement isn't because he hopes it will serve as the vehicle for some grand new vision of society, but because it expresses that social conflict, and represents the political organisation of the subaltern class in pursuit of that conflict. Utopias aren't really his game.

A better interpretation of his post, then, would be that he prefers that the OWS opt for realism over idealism, and that he locates realism in class struggle and socialism, rather than in a benevolent capitalism which as far as he is concerned is a contradiction in terms.

I had a citation.
From a left-of-center newspaper, and only one newspaper. And, also, when I clicked on your link, I ended up getting a login screen that prevented me from seeing the article. Cut-and-paste the pertinent section of the article when you link.

I've done a fair bit of investigating China myself, and the answer is no. China is not a democratic nation. In action it's as much a dictatorship as Syria, and sometimes almost as violent.

Just like voting, yes.
Like voting in Iran, yes. Like voting in the United States? Not at all. Voting in the U.S. is very civil and orderly. The Occupy movement is not; the reason it exists is because its members can't get what they want within America's political process. Going outside the political process is only useful in places like Iran, where the Establishment violates basic human freedoms. In the United States, going outside the political process threatens those basic human freedoms.

That doesn't take into account the shenanigans of the plutocrats to engineer elections to their work in their favor.
Gremlins in the fridge. There's no way to see any actual evidence of said shenanigans. "The plutocrats" were unable to prevent Obama from getting elected; Obama was unable to prevent the loss of Congress in 2010. Currently, neither side can get its agenda passed. The only evidence we can see is that attempts to engineer elections are having no discernable benefits for anybody.

You make a claim which is impossible to prove or disprove. Such a claim is not worth considering.

In that case, why do you assume that Cheezy is calling on us to pursue some alternative ideal? He is, you may be aware, a proponent of conflict theory, specifically the Marxian theory of class struggle, which holds that social development emerges not through an exercise of will but through a process of social conflict. His interest in the OWS movement isn't because he hopes it will serve as the vehicle for some grand new vision of society, but because it expresses that social conflict, and represents the political organisation of the subaltern class in pursuit of that conflict. Utopias aren't really his game.

A better interpretation of his post, then, would be that he prefers that the OWS opt for realism over idealism, and that he locates realism in class struggle and socialism, rather than in a benevolent capitalism which as far as he is concerned is a contradiction in terms.
Im not around enough to know people's ideologies off the top of my head. For me personally both goals are idealistic, so I figure there is nothing wrong with pursuing this idealism over the other. He clearly disagrees and doesnt even think his goal is idealistic. Neither has a history of success, so to me pursuing one over the other isnt any more foolish than the other.

Im not around enough to know people's ideologies off the top of my head. For me personally both goals are idealistic, so I figure there is nothing wrong with pursuing this idealism over the other. He clearly disagrees and doesnt even think his goal is idealistic. Neither has a history of success, so to me pursuing one over the other isnt any more foolish than the other.
What are you actually mean to when you say that Cheezy's politics are "idealistic"? Generally speaking, the term isn't a subjective measure of realism, it's a fairly neutral description of an ideology as being based in the assumption that it is possible to make the world conform to a series of preconceived ideals, which wouldn't be a particularly fair or even useful description of Cheezy politics which lie in terms of praxis (and he's entirely free to correct me if he feels this to be inaccurate) somewhere between the Eurocommunist and Front-orientated Trotskyist traditions. If, however, you're simply using "idealistic" to describe any ambition for radical social and politicla change, than I can only say that you're muddying the water of the debate by taking as an unstated your premise the impossibility of real change in one direction or the other, and from this concluding that all politics orientated towards radical change are equally (in)valid, rather than actually making a case for why this might be so.

Well, I think he has in so far a point as that what historically has been promised to be gained by political upheaval by political figureheads hardly has ever matched the actual results of such. Though that is a comment on the empirical trust-worthiness of those promises rather than on what in deed is viable.

But what has ever not been gained by political upheaval, or at the very least the credible threat of it?

I'm not claiming that every person in power is a greedy self-centered bastard, but I am claiming that if people do not occasionally fight for their own share - of power, income, whatever - those few who are greedy self-centered bastards will be left unimpeded in their attempts to accumulate ever more power and wealth. And they will do it.
Meaning that getting everybody to be willing to fight both for already acquired rights and for better conditions when possible becomes a necessity just to offset the actions of the excessively greedy ones. Only by getting everyone - or at least a majority - engaged in politics, up to and including the occasional "political upheaval" if things get too skewered in the direction of some particular group - can some kind of fair social distribution be maintained.

We don't need political upheaval all the time. Ideally we'd never need it, never allow things to get bad enough to need it. But we're living now with roughly three decades behind up of gradual wealth concentration in the hands of a small ruling elite... things are skewered! And only "upheaval" can fix that, because they're not going to meekly give up their power. Just how much upheaval, it's yet to be determines.

Having observed Afghanistan and the Second Iraq War very closely (and watching human reactions to both), I know that's a bluff. The political left has been trying to avoid shooting wars at the expense of almost everything else--they're willing to give up womens' rights, gay rights, the right to vote, even life and liberty itself rather than fight another war.

There won't be an actual political upheaval, because the Occupy movement doesn't have the gall to start one.

So here's where we stand: I just called Occupy's bluff, let's see if they're willing to raise the stakes..... :cowboy:

But how would he prove it? Can you outline a method, as at first sight you seem to be asking the impossible of him.

I'm pretty sure that if a proposition can't be proved, it's not to be seriously entertained - see Russell's Teapot.

I'm pretty sure that if a proposition can't be proved, it's not to be seriously entertained - see Russell's Teapot.
Thanks for dismissing my entire field of study.

Whether a "proposition [...] is to be seriously entertained" is less about proof that it is about the accumulation of relevant information.

But couldn't a proposition in the field of history theoretically be proven, and the problem is just that in almost all situations we lack the necessary information to do so?

There's a difference between a practically impossible proof and an inherently impossible proof.

@innonimatu
I didn't mean to question if political upheaval was in general a necessary or important political element. To the contrary, I would find that very hard to argue against considering what such upheaval has already accomplished in human history. I merely wanted to comment on how there can be - based on history - be made a case that advices caution when it comes to the supposed merits of any particular political upheaval. Caution, not necessarily rejection.
As to the need for such today - I am interested how you came to observe the following:
But we're living now with roughly three decades behind up of gradual wealth concentration in the hands of a small ruling elite...
Is there a three decade trend in gini-coefficents suggesting so, or any other statistical data?

Gremlins in the fridge. There's no way to see any actual evidence of said shenanigans. "The plutocrats" were unable to prevent Obama from getting elected; Obama was unable to prevent the loss of Congress in 2010. Currently, neither side can get its agenda passed. The only evidence we can see is that attempts to engineer elections are having no discernable benefits for anybody.

You make a claim which is impossible to prove or disprove. Such a claim is not worth considering.

Just because they failed doesn't mean it was for lack of trying. They did manage to get George W. Bush into office and even got him a 2-term.

Thanks for dismissing my entire field of study.

Whether a "proposition [...] is to be seriously entertained" is less about proof that it is about the accumulation of relevant information.

OK, 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' - I messed up a bit; Russell's Teapot is saying that an idea which can not theoretically be proven wrong should not be seriously entertained - so, I could prove the idea that 'the Great War began in 1940' wrong by finding references to it from before that time (disproving the idea that 'the Great War began in 1814' would have to be a reasonable doubt job, but so is everything)

You could say that the Great War began on such-and-such date, but you couldn't explain why it happened or what the significance that held. It would reduce history to a series of discrete statistics, lacking any of the narrative interpretations that it's actually intended to produce.

Surely the purpose of History is to give us Civ?

You could say that the Great War began on such-and-such date, but you couldn't explain why it happened or what the significance that held. It would reduce history to a series of discrete statistics, lacking any of the narrative interpretations that it's actually intended to produce.

True, but you could theoretically falsify statements as to why it happened or about its significance, at least to the level of 'pretty sure' even if not 'scientifically rigorous proof'. We shouldn't entertain propositions which cannot theoretically ever be shown to be wrong.

whatever. This document in no way represents the occupy movement, as it says before it even starts. Most of this stuff is far from the minds of American occupiers. And very few educated occupiers have any love for the U.N.

If you don't believe me, go to any of the local occupy websites: none of them have posted this or reported this.

At occupy, there were the campers, and the general assembliers. the campers did the work, the daily and frontline marching, etc, the general assembliers would come and try to make the rules, then go home. They liked to talk about how they were going to change the world, and all their world changing solutions, and then they would tell the campers how they should do it.

There is nothing wonderful about this manifesto. It is written poorly, and clearly written by a bunch of student activists.

True, but you could theoretically falsify statements as to why it happened or about its significance, at least to the level of 'pretty sure' even if not 'scientifically rigorous proof'. We shouldn't entertain propositions which cannot theoretically ever be shown to be wrong.
To all intents and purposes, modern interpretations and the conflict between them is chiefly an exercise in probabilities. In order to "prove" one of them over another, one would have to reproduce Earth and human society as the way they were when the event took place, and alter those events experimentally to determine whether that thing actually did do what one might think it did. Since this is, of course, impossible, historical analysis is not falsifiable.

And very few educated occupiers have any love for the U.N.
It is news to me that in the USA a disdain for the UN requires special education.

And very few educated occupiers have any love for the U.N.
Compared to what?

whatever. This document in no way represents the occupy movement, as it says before it even starts. Most of this stuff is far from the minds of American occupiers. And very few educated occupiers have any love for the U.N.

If you don't believe me, go to any of the local occupy websites: none of them have posted this or reported this.

At occupy, there were the campers, and the general assembliers. the campers did the work, the daily and frontline marching, etc, the general assembliers would come and try to make the rules, then go home. They liked to talk about how they were going to change the world, and all their world changing solutions, and then they would tell the campers how they should do it.

There is nothing wonderful about this manifesto. It is written poorly, and clearly written by a bunch of student activists.

just reposting, since i did not realize others had posted as I was editing.

Compared to what?

I do not understand your question.

If the UN sucks, what should replace it?

Leviathan, duh

To all intents and purposes, modern interpretations and the conflict between them is chiefly an exercise in probabilities. In order to "prove" one of them over another, one would have to reproduce Earth and human society as the way they were when the event took place, and alter those events experimentally to determine whether that thing actually did do what one might think it did. Since this is, of course, impossible, historical analysis is not falsifiable.

And having put it that way, it only remains to split the history profession ought to be split between "archivists of dead people's opinions" and (present day) "philosophers of the past" trying to get added into that archive! :lol:

On the bright side you historians are no worse that sociologists, for example: even the present is fleeting...

Edit: but this is getting too OT, I meant only a joke, sorry.

Im not around enough to know people's ideologies off the top of my head.

Fortunately for you, there is a thread in my signature dedicated to just such a subject.

For me personally both goals are idealistic, so I figure there is nothing wrong with pursuing this idealism over the other. He clearly disagrees and doesnt even think his goal is idealistic. Neither has a history of success, so to me pursuing one over the other isnt any more foolish than the other.

Presumably you're using the word "idealist" in that classic dichotomous manner to suggest that my positions are the opposite of "realist," in which case it remains but for me to ask just what either of those words actually means. TF does a decent job of explaining it below, but you've yet to respond so I know not whether you agree.

In my experience, the idealist/realist dichotomy is generally used to suggest, as TF said, that a person or organization's position requires people to adhere to established ideas, rather than to behave as is natural. And that, inversely, the opposite term, realism, is a position that considers how people actually behave In The Real World. Considering the very Real World behavior-grounded nature of Marxism, the idea that any Marxist would be idealist is as ridiculous as suggesting that a Muslim is polytheist. Part of its defining nature is its realist take on the world. We suggest not that people are driven by some kind of universal greed, or that economics is dictated by the caprice of an invisible hand, but rather that all human interaction and nature is dictated by their relations to their material condition, and that this relationship can be used to understand all of human history. It also explains the multitudinous character of human nature. Whereas the ideal of capitalism is grounded upon universal and eternal personal greed creating greater collective benefit, Marxism understands this as being a product of man's relation to private property, mass-production, and the commodification of money. Greed is so prevalent because it is what our society preaches is necessary and ideal. When material conditions change, so does human nature. You have summoned history to prove a point previously: surely you are aware that many of the capitalist virtues today were regarded once as great vices which ran contrary to human nature! Even Adam Smith regarded the corporation as something impossible because of man's supposed inherent personal greed! And yet here we are. So while I have rambled a bit, and can hopefully be forgiven, for it is late and I have just finished a very long shift, I think my points, that your idealist/realist dichotomy is a false one, and that such a label does not apply to me, my positions, or those of similar mind to me, has been made well.

What are you actually mean to when you say that Cheezy's politics are "idealistic"? Generally speaking, the term isn't a subjective measure of realism, it's a fairly neutral description of an ideology as being based in the assumption that it is possible to make the world conform to a series of preconceived ideals, which wouldn't be a particularly fair or even useful description of Cheezy politics which lie in terms of praxis (and he's entirely free to correct me if he feels this to be inaccurate)

Nonsense, you're vindicating me fantastically, and I appreciate that in a most UnGentlemanly way. :hatsoff: I just need you to qualify this word for me:

Eurocommunist

It may be the wrong word, but what I'm basically getting at is that you'd identify yourself with that part of the Leninist tradition drawing on Western Marxism- Gramsci, Lukács, etc.

Just because they failed doesn't mean it was for lack of trying. They did manage to get George W. Bush into office and even got him a 2-term.
Right. And then they performed a complete fail in 2008, both with the Presidency and Congress. You're not going to find any evidence for your case within America's voting history.

It may be the wrong word, but what I'm basically getting at is that you'd identify yourself with that part of the Leninist tradition drawing on Western Marxism- Gramsci, Lukács, etc.

Ah okay, yes. I don't think we have a word for that. :lol: As of late, the last year or so, I've taken an increasingly keen interest in the uniquely American brand of socialism as envisioned by Eugene Debs and Bill Haywood; combining the better parts of pre-USSR European socialism with an almost anarcho-syndicalist approach, and given an American flair. Which is why I don't really like the compartmentalization that we communists are so obsessed with; unless one literally draws one's entire understanding of socialist/communist thought from a single fountain, our ideas, theories, and analyses are aggregates from multiple sources.