A Global Manifesto as crafted by Occupy++

[Dachs]

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.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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.

 

[Leoreth]

And very few educated occupiers have any love for the U.N.

Compared to what?

 

[Neomega]

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.

 

[Leoreth]

If the UN sucks, what should replace it?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Leviathan, duh

 

[innonimatu]

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!

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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. I just need you to qualify this word for me:

Eurocommunist

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[BasketCase]

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.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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. 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.