Forum Post: If OWS succeeds in over-throwing Capitalism, what would you replace it with?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 12:19 p.m. EST by 53percenter
(125)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm just curious to hear what you would replace Capitalism with?
Another weak propaganda attempt
Nobody knows what the protesters want (that’s the biggest complaint) But 53percenter wants you to believe that their goal is to overthrow capitalism
A better question than his is, why is he spreading false information and who is he working for
[Removed]
[Removed]
I'm just going by the speeches and interviews I hear and the signs I read when I watch OWS related vids that are all over the net. If OWS does not agree with that faction of the movement, then why do they allow them there?
I see the same stuff and don't get the same message
When looking only for proof of your "belief “you will always find it.
If you are looking for “truth” you will often not find proof of your “belief”
You can make yourself believe this is an anarchist movement if you want there also goofballs spewing that stupidity.
Or you can just be objective and quit trying to define what you don’t know
But isn't a movement the sum of its parts?
Your thinking of a bowel movement.
It's anything "you" want it to be.
If it is the sum of it's parts and you are willing to accept that. Then you are wrong.
Than why don't YOU tell me what it is?
Read. We don't tell people how to think. YOU have been conditioned to only be told what to believe. WE don't instill values or ideas upon people but we do debate and argue ideas in order to perfect them. YOU are welcome to join by supporting your ideas and thoughts.
http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/
So I have been "conditioned" to disagree with you? By whom and/or what?
you don't disagree. you are spreading propaganda that has no meat to it. back up your shit with facts. you have been conditioned to think from one perspective and not see the other sides to the story. im not sure how you were conditioned, there are so many ways.
But you are absolutely sure that you were not "conditioned" to think the way you think? How is it that you resisted conditioning while everyone that disagrees with you could not? Have you somehow reached a higher level of enlightenment? Perhaps you were enlightened in school or on the internet? Fill me in on your secret.
I say you were conditioned because you are making statements that generalize and you don't back up your ideas with facts. That shows ignorance and hence leads me to believe that you are conditioned to think that you have the right to claim any absurdity without evidence.
Explain this list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers to me. Be sure to click on the sources to confirm each supporter. http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/
They have as much right to support this movement as you have to oppose it. We have nothing to do with their ideology. You seem to be stuck in the McCarthy Era where you are threatened by people that have a different point of view. They are people too and just as confused because they aren't following those ideologies correctly but at least they are able to realize that what OWS stand's for is better than what is in place now.
The truth is hard if not impossible to beat down. (-:
Nice post, I will be looking for your name
They see you as a useful idiot.
I can post a hundred vid clips, pictures, and news clips showing MANY anti-capitalist signs, comments, and interviews of OWS members if you want, but I'm sure that won't change you mind. If you really are interested in finding the truth, look it up.
get a fuckin life, retard
i don't know, who do you hang out with?
They don't want to get rid of capitalism.
I'll be gone for a few hours
But the OWS members that do want to overthrow capitalism disagree with you. So now what? Plus, they are getting more media attention than you.
I'd be excited just to have capitalism back instead of the kleptocracy we live in now.
Humanism
The Swedish model of capitalism looks fine to me.
Then why not move there?
So you believe everything in the American system is as good as it can be?
No criticisms? No disagreeing with the government or the status quo?
Anyone who disagrees should just move?
Oh, believe me, I have MANY gripes, and criticisms towards the Government. Progressives currently in the White House, in congress and in office across the land, then and now are the problem. They create and enable much of the corruption you and I are against.
If only it were so simple. You have to ask yourself though...is any problem simple? I think you will find none are. Even one such as figuring out what you want to drink when you are thirsty. First, you have to figure out what you feel like. Then, you have to think if you have any of that or do you need to go get it or do you have the time and means to get it. Does it need to be made like coffee for example? Do I need a cup or glass? Do I need ice? Etc,.. My point here is that even something as mundane and common as getting something to drink takes multiple steps so why would something that is much more complex and compound such as government corruption be so simple?
It isn't easy, but there are now millions of us working on the solution to that problem. And I sure ain't talking about OWS.
No so much an overthrow as a re-imagining. My view is that we need to relocalize, place real limits on growth (Degrowth even, search it!), and do real costing of resource exploitation. No more unaccounted for corporate externalites. The mega-banks and global corporations should be dismantled, corporate person-hood needs to die.
In my view we should socialize all resource extraction type businesses, using revenue generated to provide a basic level of human existence to ever person on the planet. On the capitalist side, or I would rather name it the entrepreneurial element, would be the value added economy that comes after sane levels of resource harvesting. The things created from the natural resources (no one can claim to own trees, fish, or ore). So you use materials purchased from the resource collectives to produce say bicycles or smart phones, and you can innovate and improve, and sell to make a limited profit. The best way to organize this type of business would be worker collectives and co-ops, to help keep power evenly distributed. Some people would work little and still be able to live a basic life (artist, elderly, the unmotivated) and other people would work more to gain greater personal satisfaction, and perhaps a higher material level of wealth.
The current system takes only money and profits into account, the only mode it understands in endless growth, and top down control. This has proven a very bad idea. The world is a finite place, the very idea that we could possible have endless growth on a limited resource base is not even logical. And yet current capitalism and economic models are based solely on that wrong assumption.
But this is just my Utopian vision. I would settle for a system that does not institutionalize the taking from the many to fund the few. (40 percent of every dollar goes to pay interest to private bankers!) A real democracy, where wealth does not rule. An end to militarism for profits, and the rape of the planet for a quick buck (or billions of bucks).
Some very good points in there JPH...thanks for the perspective man. I had to laugh when you were talking about the unsustainability of infinite growth because I have experienced it personally and have thought for many years how odd and illogical it is. Why should numbers trend up indefinitely? Because we want them to? There is a finite capacity to exploit any market and when that threshold is reached there is nothing left in that niche to extract. The only way to continue to grow the numbers for any business is then to do other things like relocating operations to a more profit-friendly environment such as China, Mexico, Honduras, or Indonesia for example.
The other point that I think about often is that too much of a good thing is still just too much any way you slice it. I like cookies but if I eat a whole bag of them I don't feel very good. Extreme behavior in any form is rarely a "good" thing (with the possible exception of being attacked by a shark in which case most people would probably be OK with whatever action was necessary to stop from being the next meal!). Extreme acquisition of wealth is no different. I am NOT advocating for a radical alternative to what we currently have as the norm in our society because (as I said before) extreme behavior is not sustainable or healthy.
There are no perfect solutions because WE are not perfect. Trying to make sweeping statements or trying to label everything with a brand to undermine any logic that may lie within a given idea only feeds the trend we have been living with for the last 50 years. I will leave the labeling to others...I don't care what we call something. I am only interested in the logic contained within the idea. This complex and compound problem that is our society will require a concerted and united effort to find meaningful solutions that meet the needs of the majority and we can do that as long as we keep listening to each other. All my best to all of you who stand here in this time and this place.
You are one of the only smart posters around here. Care to comment further on the dilemma we were talking about yesterday? http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/
"(40 percent of every dollar goes to pay interest to private bankers!)"
Then quit borrowing money from the banks. Especially for things you don't need and/or can't afford.
Borrowing is how ALL money is created,. our money is debt!
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
The fact that you can title a thread with "If OWS succeeds in over-throwing Capitalism, what would you replace it with?" Shows a clear lack of understanding of what OWS is seeking.
For some people OWS has managed to articulate what they have felt for a long time, that capitalism has over stepped it's boundaries. That the trading of nonmaterial goods (derivatives) for spreadsheet enhancement isn't a good deal for anyone in the end.
I think (my opinion only) is that most of us want to see a return the practices of when a company issues stocks, it backs those stocks with a real product.
I think (again my opinion only) is that currently we have more than one economy. There is the 'paper economy' derivatives etc and the real economy products etc. The 'real' economy doesn't have the base to support the 'paper' economy when that 'paper' economy fails. Further more the 'real' economy receives little or no benefit when it sacrifices for the sake of the 'paper' economy.
Over simplified perhaps, but it covers the basics.
We don't have capitalism...wish we did...what we have is Fascism operated by the government and directed by Wall Street.
Then why aren't there OWS protests on Capital Hill?
There is an occupation in DC,. fascism is a merging of government and state power, both are targeted.
There is an occupation. It started on 10/6...
Protests are not run by the central OWS...they come together by people interested...I am not aware of an occupy group in Washington D.C. It would be up to the people there to start one. However there is a march planned from NYC to D.C.. and of course the focus will be on congress.
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-highway-99-march-washington/
I wonder why just congress?
11 Reasons Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are Hypocrites If They Do Not Call For Barack Obama To Resign http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/11-reasons-why-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-hypocrites-if-they-do-not-call-for-barack-obama-to-resign
and while your at it,
Securities & Investment: Money to Congress http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U
Executive Branch - POLITICS Solyndra Case Reveals Gateway Between Administration Loans, Obama Allies Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/16/solyndra-case-reveals-gateway-between-administration-loans-obama-allies/#ixzz1dvsWW3jy
Obama administration pressured Solyndra to delay layoffs for political gain
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2807883/posts
Wow, long walk in cold weather. Why not just drive there? LOL
Groucho Marxism
Not all of us want to get rid of capitalism Some of us want a non-awful capitalism. So I would replace what we have with a world that works.
A non-awful capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
We tried that, from 1945 to 1973. It didn't work. The business cycle began to become too severe for the Keynesian remedies to work, and a new movement began to bring back the old, awful capitalism back.
Why repeat the labour of Sisyphus?
I for one am tired of the basic division between worker and boss. And capitalism is what's responsible for enough carbon in the atmosphere to raise the temperature by 1 degree above what it should be. It is a system completely out of control.
I'm sorry, capitalism is done and over with, it's not pining for the fjords. It's time we got with it and realised that.
I thought man made global warming also made it colder?
Like what and how?
Here's my solution; considering that the last time things were this bad or worse was during the Great Depression, and considering that the New Deal had a dramatic positive effect on this economy, I would advise a retooled New Deal (a New Deal 2.0, if you will) to help fix the mess we're in now and help us prevent it from happening again. The whole thing is too long to place in one post here, so here are the links:
Overview of the entire proposal: http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=184
Rationale for Section III: http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23&p=119#p119
Rationale for sections IV and V: http://occupywallst.org/forum/everybody-walk-away-from-your-debt/#comment-246898
Rationale and possible project ideas for Section VI: http://occupywallst.org/forum/revive-the-ccc-and-the-wpa/ http://occupywallst.org/forum/could-high-speed-rail-be-the-answer/#comment-197932
Draft of policy ideas concerning Sections VII and VII: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gytiI1qwPDpnLQ8cRmNXoJFmiy4ob3n6yjqfBHpBH8M/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1 Note: this is just a draft and hasn't really been cleaned up or codified.
Order of implementation: Obama seems to have started on IV and V, on a much smaller scale than we hoped, but we'll see if we can widen it. VI is apparently the whole point of the OWS Jobs for All demand (and Kucinich's NEED Act is a step in that direction), so we'll see how that goes. VII and VIII have the broadest support, so we'll see how we can or can't force the issue during the 2012 election season. I-III may wind up being really hard to implement but hey, it's an election year. As to how I propose making any of this count, see here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-want-change-thats-great-now-how-do-we-implement/#comment-205283
"and considering that the New Deal had a dramatic positive effect on this economy,"
Your entire premiss is wrong. The New Deal or anything FDR did helped get us out of the depression. That's why it lasted 10 years. The New Deal, coupled with The Great Society, and a multitude of new entitlement programs including pensions for Gov employees is why the USA is broke now.
No, that system served us quite well for nigh unto forty-five years. Even Eisenhower and Nixon (both proud Republicans and staunch anti-Communists) knew that it was possible to balance the budget, support the poor, stimulate the middle class, and keep business in-country without any major opportunity cost. Where it went wrong was when Reagan decided he could pump tons and tons of money into the military while simultaneously cutting taxes on the top few percent of earners in this country, thus upsetting the balance between taxation and spending that made the boom times of the 1950s and 1960s possible.
Exactly right.
Here's how. We know that massive inequality slows growth to almost nothing and keeps people out of work for long periods of time. We know that having high market volatility hurts everyone. We know that letting a small group of people with money run everything is a bad idea. So we institute social programs to ameliorate the inequality. we institute banking reforms to reduce volatilty (one percent transaction tax has been proposed, on to of Glass-Steagal restoration because too big to fail is just too big) and we institute reform of campaign finance. But these are just my ideas. The point is: We don't want to replace capitalism. But what we have is not working and it;s going to hurt us very badly. Because a gap between rich and poor this big, with a shrinking middle class, does not work.
Possibly Socialist democracy
That question does not need an answer now! It´s like asking a slave what he/she is going to do with life out of the shackles.
I do not think we should end capitalism. But I think we should put an end to corporatism in the political process, which has created a kleptocracy. I also feel like perhaps big corporations have gotten too BIG. And whatever percieved benefits that may bring has been outweighed by a greater cost to society, in some cases. I'm not an expert, but I think anti-trust laws have eroded - due in part to the global economy?
I believe we need a more restrained form of capitalism. The pendulum has swung too far with erosion of anti-trust and deregulation. Seemed to work well for a while, but now we are suffering the consequences. Unrestrained capitalism leads to greed. And here we are.
Nice word April..."kleptocracy." I love it...hehe. You are so very right when you speak of the extreme swing of the pendulum. I like to call that my pendulum theory of extremes which goes something like this: A pendulum cannot find equilibrium when it has swung to one extreme until it swings to the other then momentum will begin to lessen and the pendulum will eventually settle in the middle.
I do agree with you on oversight as well because for profit corporations are designed to do one thing and one thing only and that is generate profit and they will pursue that goal ruthlessly more often then not. The for profit corporations only concern themselves with issues that potentially affect their potential to generate profit. The level to which corporations are willing to stoop include disregard for human life, our planet and anything on or in it. How many examples do we need before we are willing to remember that corporations don't give a rip about anyone (except shareholders) or anything. Listen to your family, friends, neighbors and hear what they are telling you. How many facts will it require for us to wake up reality? Quite a bit more it seems... All my best April
Thank you so much! Your's is the first nice post I've had today! I'm glad I jumped into this post. Because the last one I was in made me very sad.
I really like your pendulum theory! Although, I'm not sure the pendulum will ever "settle" completely, or become still. I think maintaining equalibrium will always be a constant struggle. Sometimes more of a struggle, sometimes less. But always we must be working to maintain it. When not - disaster strikes! We have not done a good job of maintaining it these last few decades.
And yes, corporations act in their own (greedy) self interest mostly. I think it is up to government regulations to resrict the greedy self interests for the greater good of society. Not done a very good job of that.
Do you know anything about Anti Trust laws, by chance? I'm trying to learn more.
I am sorry April but I don't know anything substantial about anti-trust law...in fact I am fairly uniformed on most legal matters. Kinda hard for me to delve into it. Just not my cup of tea so to speak although I am sure risking a lot by not being more knowledgeable.
Thats ok, I can do my homework on it. I was just being curious.
But what if the government is full of greedy, self interested, immoral, unethical, power hungry politicians?
Wait...I agree that is a problem but if its not good to have greedy, self-interested, immoral, unethical, power hungry people in our political system why is it good to have them anywhere? I do agree it needs to start in the government and that we need to make elections all publicly funded and eliminate all private donations to eliminate undue influence. I think we have a HUGE problem on K street with the parasites there getting huge dollars to influence lawmakers and write policy. I am not sure how we keep lobbyists out of the political process but it is a massive part of the problem.
What if? It is. We get the money out of the political process.
Exactly. So the focus should be on fixing the government first.
Agreed!
I don't think OWS wants to "overthrow" capitalism-- at least I don't. I (we?) want regulated capitalism. I know "regulation" is a dirty word for some, but it's a simple concept. Make all the $ you want, but you cannot pollute the air, the water, or the land. Sell all the cheese burgers you can, but we insist on inspecting your slaughter house for e.coli. And make all the bets you want, but when you lose, don't come crying to us! (and threatening the entire economy with your incompetence!).
that's all. just some rules for the game of monopoly. Oh, and since the success of YOUR business depends the strength of OUR democracy, how about chipping in to help that democracy to run its BUSINESS of protecting the citizens, and providing basic services like transportation, education, and health care?
Do we have a deal or what?
You don't think we already have enough regulations? The problem is that the corrupted Gov regulators decide which regulations to enforce and on which company. The Gibson Guitar Company is the new poster child of this. The vast majority of businesses DO chip in for citizen protection, infrastructure, public schools, and everything else via the taxes they pay. Most companies also provide health insurance. Some companies with pay for advanced learning so that you can move up in the company. There are some companies that use loop-hole to not pay taxes. The poster child is currently GE. The CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, is Obama's top economic adviser RIGHT NOW. Go figure.
Yes. makes perfect sense (the Immelt thing). this is the problem that OWS is protesting. the co-option and corruption of "our" government to serve the interests of business.
i really don't know if we do have enough regulations or if indeed we do have too many! we probably have too many of the wrong ones, and perhaps not enough of the right ones. the problem is-- as i see it-- the people deciding the regulations are... well, they are not actually people! they are giant for-profit machines! i'm not against profits or even capitalism, but these institutions are not capable of behaving like "people".
That's why they got rid of the "regulation" that kept them from being defined as "legal persons". The documentary "The Corporation" will provide you with context if desired.
Why isn't OWS protesting The White House and GE? What is this big hatred of banks? You don't have to deal with a particular bank just as you don't have to buy a GE coffee maker.
I posted on this... must be another thread... but happy to respond:
OWS is about the problem being bigger than the current occupant of the white house. many OWS folks voted for Obama with a lot of "hope". It was easy to blame Bush, though even then people saw Bush as a pawn. Turns out Obama is rather a pawn too. Maybe he had better ideas, maybe not. ideas (as well as facts) don't seem to matter. Private for-profit-machines (for lack of a better word) control our elected representatives.
or to put it another way...
Wall St. is the symbolic "belly of the beast". all the Occupy camps are choosing both strategic, symbolic or sometimes just practical sites (like town squares). There isn't a GE (or a White House) in every city after all. In Paris they have chose a very interesting site... which you can read about on my blog if you want: http://beamerbikeclub.blogspot.com/
Wall Street goes on but it's the small businesses and average folks living in the area of the protests that are being disrupted the most.
yeah... i really don't know. but i find that hard to believe. i'm sure any of the restaurants in the area are quite happy, as are the coffee shops or anyone selling beer or cigarettes.
i just don't buy the "oh it's so disruptive" line. this is NYC we are talking about?! It's a happenin' city. I think they can deal. When riot cops start getting bored, yeah, maybe that gets disruptive. otherwise i imagine it's just a scene. you know...? Americans seem to get sticks up out buts really easily. oh horrors... some folks are camping out pretending like they are citizens in a democracy. someone call 9-1-1!
that goes for all cities around the world. though I've only been to the "camp" in Paris. see here for my report:http://beamerbikeclub.blogspot.com/
Just Google "businesses near ows hurt".
sorry. not buying it. I looked at a few stories. mostly about Oakland, CA, and mostly about chambers of commerce claiming "some" businesses are being hurt. not much against the basic logic that 100s and occasionally thousands of people are coming down to the area. i don't buy the idea that people are "nervous walking around". except for in the case when police start gearing up for riots and then producing them. the Oakland article you sent mostly talks about the cost to the city of the police. and it's an interesting to blame protestors for that!
but go down yourself, and check one out. and buy a sandwhich or cup of coffee at the corner store.
Here's the proof.... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/small-business-owners-occupy-wall-street-hurting-99/story?id=14926462
First: Clear the financial markets of all fraud, that is happening every day. Banks should only service the people and do nothing else. Rule out any money-influences in the political area,
New system: A socialised Capitalism. Falco - Netherlands.
If you read Adam Smith, what is interesting is that he never envisioned a world of big business. His ideas all emphasized what served to benefit the consumer, and in fact he was as anti-big business/cronyism as the most ardent socialist would be. He realized that the more competition to create products and services, the better off the society would be. The world we live in today is not the world Adam Smith ever wanted.
a regulated capitalism, one that kept at its core growing a middle class, and not allowing such a wide spread in the wealth gap to where a movement like this is necessary.
We don't have capitalism now. What we're talking about is replacing the system the progressives built. It would best be called corporatism rather than capitalism.
WIKIsm: wikipedia, wikileaks, wikisociety.
First, I would say democracy.... Second, I would like to ask you, where in the constitution does it say that this nation is supposed to be a capitalist society, or a christian society or a feudal society, which is where the rich 1% are taking this nation. I DO however recall a specific instance in the Constitution pertaining to the Governments responsibility to provide for the common defense (taxes for the military), and promote the General Welfare (create the programs necessary to see to the health and welfare of ALL Americans, not just the rich privileged few, which includes helping people to get work to support their families), and the only way to protect domestic tranquility is to guard against social and financial inequality. So I am not sure just who you are trying to protect, but apparently it is not you fellow Americans. You probably agree with Bachman, that those who don't work should starve, right. I just such christian ideology. Hopefully not to offend many who read this, but every religion is a cult. They all follow the ideology of a charasmatic leader who dictates what they should believe and espouse. I'm sure you have guessed, I'm not religious. I'm Native American. I fully understand the effects religious beliefs have on societal tensions. One persons beliefs rarely equate with another persons beliefs, that is why America was created. Our founding fathers sought to limit any one persons or ones groups dictatorial powers to influence other peoples lives. They sought to make the Constitution as generic as possible so that it would in wise be able to be abuse by any single party or faith. Guess who is trying to change that...hmm? If you recall the Roman Empire was a republic. Do you see any correlations? I sure do. A rich upper class with all the power, a poor dirty mob distracted with savage side events to keep them from noticing their plight...recall its ending, how it fell and why? How about the French revolution, or even our own revolution, did you even learn history in school, I mean TRUE history, not that revised horsehockey they pander on Fox networks, about the causes and outcomes of those events in history. Well, I'll tell you this much, history is ALWAYS doomed to repeat itself when there are those who persist in refusing to learn from their own pasts. There is a reason why the slogan reads " WE ARE THE 99%" If you are unable to understand the relevance and reasoning behind that simple statement, then no amount of explanation will ever suffice for you.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Capitalism as it was originally intended.
Democracy, was the driving force behind this capitalistic concept. The fortunes earned in the Industrial Revolution in this country eventually lead to the complex global economy that we are living in today.
Unfortunately.... the ensuing complex global economy has crossed the bounds of our social borders, thus rendering the political influence of the average American as minimal at best.
So... I say replace it with "American Capitalism" as opposed to the Global Capitalism that has thus far sent our entire domestic economy to foreign and often socialist lands!
It is time to make America a country of the people for the people, not a country of corporations for the corporations!
hahhaa whoever started this post is funny. Taxpayer $ to Ceo's of Oil Companies, to Corps who give $'s for Campaign funds, Banks (they are private) isnt Capitalisim. And dont even say taxpayer paid /Welfare Farm Subsidies to 23 millionaire congressmen (google it) is capitalism. I THINK WE ARE AGAINST STUFF LIKE THAT. NOT LIKE MICROSOFT, EBAY, OR APPLE WHICH IS CAPITALISM...WE LIKE THAT!!!!
hahhaa whoever started this post is funny. Taxpayer $ to Ceo's of Oil Companies, to Corps who give $'s for Campaign funds, Banks (they are private) isnt Capitalisim. And dont even say taxpayer paid /Welfare Farm Subsidies to 23 millionaire congressmen (google it) is capitalism. I THINK WE ARE AGAINST STUFF LIKE THAT. NOT LIKE MICROSOFT, EBAY, OR APPLE WHICH IS CAPITALISM...WE LIKE THAT!!!!
We could make America closer to the Nordic model. However, with the recent rise of neoliberalism, Keynesian or Welfare State economics will just become more right-wing over time and eventually revert back to the same old situation.
That calls for full-on Socialism. It will take many movements and many revolutions to achieve a polished socialist system, and it probably will not happen in a while.
ism²s... i don²t think we should get stuck on fixed ideas or ideologies, we are like water, taking the best shape we should take.
problems... on the web today we can see problems world wide, from bad economics, polution hunger etc etc
solutions... as many as we are is as many ways we can think to make things better, and through debate and logical thinking we can get to the best ones.
we have the will, the technologies, examples, and support to do the best that can be done. even if the 1% keeps fighting us we will still go through with it, 2 months isn²t much and they are loosing ground everyday.
And like water, the OWS movement will soon evaporate. Not because of any outside powers, but because of the chaos within.
But more protests are sure to follow later.
Stupid question. We don't have capitalism. We have a ridiculous system where businesses bid on legislation that will give them an advantage rather than compete.
Also, your username says it all. 53% nonsense is a lie that doesn't include those that pay payroll taxes. You're just one of the brainwashed fools that mindlessly buys into what corporate propaganda tells you and that's another big part of the problem.
From USA Today. Not exactly a conservative paper... http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm
That was an op-ed, you idiot. And the writer didn't even have the balls to include their name..
How about something from an actual journalist?? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
While I know you'll never let go of this lie, I'm going to explain it to you as I would a 5 year-old that has been brainwashed by Fox News..
FEDERAL INCOME TAXES are what you pay AT THE END OF THE YEAR when you FAILED to pay taxes ALL YEAR LONG!!
Notice how patriotic Americans like me are content giving back to America all year long and only receiving a small return on it at the end of the year, while disgusting anti-american scum whine all year long about being asked to pay the difference??
Even some of those in the top 1% are not included in the 53%..
Now lets just pretend that we live in a world where all your favorite conservative media tycoons were right... Taxable income is a reflection of income. With vast income inequality, you're going to get more money from the top. Not because they were just more productive, but because there is a gross difference between how much they made.
In Right-Wing countries like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Iran, the top 1% pay more than 90% of ALL TAXES, because the top make all the money.
In more Left-leaning countries, like Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, it's the complete opposite and these countries are much more productive and competitive and unionized.
You need to climb out of that pathetic bubble you live in and join the real world... Or move to Somalia.
Did you even read the article you posted? Your entire rant is pointless.
I did read it and it had all the value of an opinion piece from an anonymous source that describes only a small portion of what they found in a Tax Policy Center study. Which is very little value.
We are not planing to ovethrow capitalism!!!
A very vocal and conspicuous faction of OWS are.
We just want change toward progress.
Progress towards what?
It isnt about overthrowing capitalism, becasue we dont operate on a strictly capitalistic market anyways. We can still take the good parts of capitalism, such as competition and choice, without allowing the gigantic discrepancy of wealth between upper-managment and the average worker.
For example, worker-led industry withdraws the shareholder, venture capitalists, inherited status, etc from the equation and gives those right to the employees. Instead of shareholders voting on the direction of the company, workers would get to vote. Instead of shareholders voting on sending jobs overseas to improve their bottom line, the workers get to vote. I doubt any employee will vote to send their job overseas. Form committees, such as hirering, profit sharing, additional invesments, etc from the workforce within instead of hiring expensive consulting firms or solely allowing upper-management those decisions.
Capitalism in its purest and simplest form is nothing more than an extention of feudalism by allowing the capital to control work force, when we all know that the work force should control the capital. All of this can be acheived through privately owned means of production, bought and sold on a free markets - which still allows the good elements of capitalism, but reduces the ugly and unjustified aspects.
I know that people say 'well how are you going to get the start-up?' I'm not for the total reduction of a hierarchical system, I am for the removal of a hierarchical sytem predicated on accumulated or inherited wealth... Co-operatives and Credit Unions invest in local businesses. Re-cycle your money through these forms of banking and now you make money twice - once on dividends from your co-operative statement and then off you wages from start-up from these financial instiutions. The federal govt. grants susbsidies to almost every fortune 500 - lets not forget that GE received a 3.5 million dollar tax return - I think they can susbsidies worker-led industry with a fairly rated loan.
Answer: A Thousand Points of Light
George H W Bush: I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.
Yeah, like ACORN.
Democracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgFA8LNoEJQ
I'd like to think we could develop a society where people get rewarded or are incentivised by doing good things for the benefit of humanity.
In this system it would be the self centered thieves on Wall Street that end up with very little..I'm certain that we can teach them how to be good humans..I know I'm stretching here.
"I'd like to think we could develop a society where people get rewarded or are incentivised by doing good things for the benefit of humanity. "
Knowing you are doing the right thing isn't enough incentive for you? It is for me. Start with yourself, it's contagious.
Hey 53%..Doing the "right thing"..doesn't only mean doing what's right for you!
Umm, yeah, I know.
Over-throwing Capitalism is not the goal - over-throwing the crooks is.
Please checkout this link to get a sense of who are the crooks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDC-KMQNO-Q
David Duke? Really??? Posting that link just spoke volumes about you.
ah, you shit heads come in here and pretend to be socialist supporters of the movement so you can discredit it? nobody here likes socialism or you. that isn't going to change.
You love us! Don't lie we are your favorite people EVER! I expect a Xmas card as much of you as I see around here. I favor the way it was before Reagan and credit cards and housing prices went threw the roof, parents unable to send their kids to college. The US wasn't communist or socialist in the 70's. Whatever scares you is what the man tells you right before he suggests you come here to talk trash. You are being taken advantage of. Now about that Xmas card.....Have a nice day.
wtf are you talking about. either you can't read or you choose to ignore what i said. http://citicommons.com http://richardkentgates.com http://blog.richardkentgates.com my capitalist nature is everywhere girly. you have no chance in hell of discrediting me.
Discredit you??? You thought you had street cred or something? You are on the boards a lot was all I was saying, Fan Boy. There are no tents in the park, you can go do something else now. Maybe infiltrate a fringe group and wear a tinfoil hat for the nice reporters?
ah. well it will be hard for you to discredit people when your replies make you look like the crazy one. idk wth websites have to do with street cred. you must have thought you found something on my blog you could get under my skin with. here is one. without Judas, you would not know Jesus, your idea that Judas could trick God or Jesus is doubting and blasphemy. Gnostic baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdGi6Q3N9tY
and if possible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
This is a pre-mature question. What is important about OWS is that it is a democratic movement. While it aspires to be 99%, realistically less than 1% of the 99% are active in the movement, even if greater than one third of the population supports the movement. Our goal right now is not any specific demand, much less overthrowing capitalism. It is to build a democratic movement based around the grievances of the Declaration of the Occupation. Once we have a substantial percentage of the population involved in our movement will be time enough to begin to talk about exactly how we want to restructure society. Meanwhile, the various occupations do provide something of a tiny model of what a future society would look like. Of course, we wouldn't have to live in tents, much less out in the rain, and things wouldn't be perfect either, but if the occupations are any indication there would be a much stronger sense of sharing and openness than in generally true in society at large today.
anyone who wants to replace capitalism is an idiot. i want to replace the crony capitalism and x-industrial complex we have today in every industry with true market capitalism.
anyone who doesn't realize we have cronyism in every market today is also an idiot.
"the problem with capitalism is there are so few capitalists"
All societies are, to some extent, a balance of the entreprenurial with the collective. Whenever one or the other of those gets too powerful, society suffers, as ours is currently suffering from excessive power concentrated in the corporate sector. I want balance, not absolutism.
Well, as Michael Moore concluded in "Capitalism: A Love Story", you can replace it with democracy.
While some people think that's glib, I think it's true: people who propose capitalism or communism, as a specific set of rules that must be followed at all costs, have lost their way. What is most important with an economic system is to enumerate the positive rights of all people. These are perhaps too succinctly described as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". A good economic system guarantees that people can live, and does not place them in a position where they must commit a crime, or at least get sent to prison for one, in order to have access to food, shelter, or medical care. A good economic system guarantees that people can work and get ahead, claiming a decent reward for their work. And it does not elevate one of these goals above the other - it accomplishes them both by setting reasonable rules of the game - avoiding all radical claptrap about shooting anybody who steps on your land or hanging all the rich people.
this movie has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with crony capitalism. you cannot replace it with "democracy" they are not even the same thing. you could conduct your own company as the bread company in the movie shows - but you can only do this through voluntary actions of company members. you could never ever use the force of government to make a company run that way and expect success.
An example of "using force of government" would be if the next bailout offered $800 billion in absolutely free money to individual employee owned cooperative businesses rather than giving it to the banks to hand out in bonuses to their top officials!
no. no one should be bailed out ever. my taxpayer money should not go to save your poorly run business.
What if we made it a right? What if every U.S. citizen had the right to $10,000 in interest-free capital per year of their life, accumulating until they draw upon it, provided, say, that they get feedback from some group that reviews business plans and accept periodic auditing?
When I said bailout above I didn't just mean giving money to malfunctioning employee owned cooperatives - any cooperative, however successful, should be able to expand further if it has access to interest free capital.
as a fiscal conservative, i believe no one has a right to the product of someone else's labor so i don't think i have any right to take 10k year after year from others.
as far as implementing this plan i think it would have a lot of adverse effects that i don't feel like speculating on because i just sat down with chipotle. regarding incentives to start businesses i think there are many already out there.
To learn more about free markets and capitalism I suggest mises.org democracy can not replace capitalism as democracy describes a form of government.
capitalism is democratic, you vote every day with your dollars when you choose to purchase one thing over another.
What about when they don't give you a choice? Ever hear of patents, copyrights, market exclusivity, cable franchises, broadcast licenses, business licenses, collusion to drive up prices (including "price leadership")?
Our democracy wouldn't work so well if people just elected who was king every ten years. They need to have some actual say in the matter, and as it is - they don't have nearly enough, as I'm sure you've heard here. Likewise capitalism doesn't work democratically if you have a choice of three absolute power CEOs will dominate an industry. You need more real control than that!
SO that sounds similar to the political system where you only get two choices, republican or democrat. And those choices are made for you by un-elected officials.
patents, copyrights, broadcast licenses, business licenses are laws created by congress.
Your anger is misdirected. Politicians have failed you. The system needs to be reformed. Only RonPaul will work tirelessly to do that.
Heh: here's the stopper for this bottle: What does Ron Pаul have to say about copyright and patent issues? Does he support the right of someone like KaZaa to run a central server where individual users might choose to share songs with each other? Does he oppose "PROTECT IP" (See e.g. http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/sopa_testimony/ )? Does he have any plan to reform copyright so that authors can receive fair rewards without the government having to literally listen in on every single syllable you say?
I have no interest in changing the topic. RP knows that the government has no authority to listen to private communication so your question is irrelevant. RP supports an internet free of government restrictions.
There are much bigger issues that need fixing right now. Most notably the corruption in Washington DC that led to the banks being bailed out.
So you think patents and copyrights are wrong?
Yes. I've suggested an alternative at http://occupywallst.org/forum/please-support-demand-progress-in-opposing-the-pro/
So you won't mind if I copy your posts, poems, and musings and claim them as my own?
In the scheme I outline there, you would certainly be able to copy whatever you wanted, but at least in one context you wouldn't be allowed to claim them as your own. Authors and artists would receive funding from independent funding agencies. In order to do so, at some point they would need to warrant that their work was in fact their own, and claiming this falsely would be a fraud. This would more closely resemble academic ethics against plagiarism than the legal concept of copyright.
In the present time and system, I submit a fair amount of content to Wikipedia under a Creative Commons or GFDL license. There are some legal issues with plain public domain potentially not being recognized by the court, or perhaps being exploited by legal tricks - I don't really understand it all that well. Here I don't think anyone is making postings with the notion of suing anybody for copyright infringement, but I'm not sure if the OWS terms and conditions actually require people to release the content for reuse (probably ought to). But if you actually want to reuse something I said here just ask and I'll CC-license it properly. ;)
Ben Franklin gave his inventions to the world. He was against patents. Go figure that one out
That was his choice to make.
Now for the first time I am questioning the integrity of this web site. I'm sorry but I'm having a difficult time believing this post. The cops know that they are being watched so I think you are being tricked. Please prove this to all of the members of this site since you posted it.
News Article: From Those Inside Of Central Booking Posted 2 hours ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 5:24 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
While we've been imprisoned here we've held Assemblies and Mic Checked corrections officers to attend to urgent medical conditions, some of which were the result of police brutality during the raids. There is no food except for bread, no cleanliness, no hygene, no waters, no showers. There are non-occupiers who are suffering here as well.
We do not know what we have been charged with.
We want freedom!
This message was consensed upon by a group of occupiers imprisoned by Billionare Michael Bloomberg and his private army, and relayed to members of the Legal Working Group of #ows.
I'd be curious as to how Moore conducted the production of "Capitalism: A Love Story". Do you think he put together a team to write, direct, film, edit, and promoted his movie and in each step had a consensus vote on how to proceed? .My guess he was in charge every step of the way, kind of like "the boss". I'm sure he listened to suggestions and probably implemented some of them, like any smart boss would do. But in the end, it was his way or the highway. Otherwise it would never get finished and not be the movie he envisioned.
It may be that a creative work needs to have an author. But there is no reason why even a film company couldn't be run democratically when it comes to matters of compensation, work hours, vacation time, lunch breaks... all the practical details, yet voluntarily choose to work with an author who has creative control over the final product.
Of course, it is presently not so common where the author does have creative control, rather than having some rich producer butt in and spoil everything...
So inventing a product and producing it is not creative work?
I'm not sure how you take that meaning. To be clear, more generally, there are times when experts of any kind need to have independence within any business organization - for example, the Space Shuttle engineers at Morton Thiokol should not have been pressured into saying that it was safe to launch in cold temperatures, and there are definitely times when it is best not to bother the chef in a restaurant. There's a distinction between voluntarily choosing to have a single vision on one or a few issues and having a company run like a monarchy on all issues.
So where do you draw the line?
If you have a democratic employee run company, clearly the employees draw the line - they would decide which experts should have special authority and independence and which don't. It is no different than the U.S. as a democracy deciding it wants an independent judiciary or a tollway authority. (naturally as you see from the second example, sometimes the choice will be made badly!)
Do you own a company or have a job now?
Shh. Not all of them know that that fat bastard is a fillthy rich billionare. If you tell them now, it will crush their idea that Moore hates capitalism
We don't dislike rich people. You know that right? We dislike people that have gotten rich by building a system that rigs the game against most of the country. People that want to run the country through piles of money run through SuperPACS and campaign contributions.
like the millions he gave to the Obama campaign and the MoveOn PAC?
I personally don't advocate the overthrow of capitalism. At the same time, I do worry that for capitalism to work in the long term, there needs to be unlimited growth and consumption, without the negative side effects. This is plainly, just not possible. Eventually, our species will consume itself to death. So I worry for my children's children. I don't want to leave them in the same position we are now, and even more likely worse off. We should all live life to the fullest, indeed. But we also have a responsibility to our future generations. As we return to our forefathers, again and again, it us our future generations will turn to for guidance.
The problem with Americans is that only 20% of them own passports and they are fed a constant diet of cartoon news. Just look at Australia and Canada. Australia & Canada are health blends of Capitalism and Socialism. They dodged the banking crisis, and their economies are booming. Oh yea, they have medicare too. I lived in Australia for 4 years. Medicare worked fine for me. It cost 1.5% of my paycheck.
The problem with Americans is that only 20% of them own passports and they are fed a constant diet of cartoon news. Just look at Australia and Canada. Australia & Canada are health blends of Capitalism and Socialism. They dodged the banking crisis, and their economies are booming. Oh yea, they have medicare too. I lived in Australia for 4 years. Medicare worked fine for me. It cost 1.5% of my paycheck.
"If OWS succeeds in over-throwing Capitalism, what would you replace it with? "
It would defeat their purpose of wanting jobs and economic justice.
Hey asshat, where have you been?
By labelling the Occupy movement "anti-capitalist", those who do not want reforms have been able to avoid the real debate. This has to stop. It is time we use the Occupy movement as the catalyst for a serious debate on alternative institutional arrangements that will make our capitalism better for the majority of people.
By labeling the Tea party movement "anti-government", those who do not want reforms have been able to avoid the real debate. This has to stop. It is time we use the Tea party movement as the catalyst for a serious debate on alternative institutional arrangements that will make our capitalism better for the majority of people.
So ows and the tea party want the same things serious debate and to make capitalism better. You both were also attacked ruthlessly and characterized by your most extreme elements. I personally find both to far to either side but I also want to see serious debate and change. I support both movements and agree in ideas from both movements. Find the things you agree on instead of the things you don't. I think that could be good for the country.
The anti-capitalists within your movement are responsible for that label being put on OWS.
It's time for the higher educated citizens like myself to get into the mix
When you gonna start?
Re: your nick. You do realize that in theory - a) everyone who has an income pays income tax, even people of this hated 47%. b) income tax is only a small fraction of federal revenue and of total revenue c) everyone pays taxes in the US because everyone buys things in the US, the only way not to pay any tax is to live completely off grid.
The lower 47% see Fed Income Tax deducted from their pay checks but they get it all back and sometimes more when they file taxes under the Earned Income Tax credit. Sales taxes are state and local taxes, not federal.
People that don't pay income tax still pay taxes. They just don't pay that tax. They have payroll tax withheld from their paychecks, they pay excise taxes. Which are federal. That's just true.
The term "payroll tax" encompasses all taxes deducted from an employee's paycheck and the employer's "contribution" to those same taxes. This includes Income Tax. There is no excise tax within payroll tax. Excise taxes are paid by consumers on certain products.
[Removed]
[Removed]
This post just goes to show you what morons these OWS people are? That they can even think that 40 people are going to overthrow 'capitalism' is deranged. Look around stupidheads. There were about 40 of you there this morning and I'm sure by tomorrow morning that will be down to half that. Do you dopes know you are nothing? Just a grain of sand on a beach. An insignificant piece of poop floating on a ocean. Nobody. Go home if you have one.
Again: We don;t want to overthrow capitalism. And the person who wrote the post agrees with you, thinking that we do. And pay attention to the answers.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/
Moore is a millionaire. He make a ton of money off this stuff. Google it. If you try to rid us of Capitalism, it will be replaced with war.
Basically they are hoping someone else would make that decision for them...they just know that don't like capitalism, and would like all their debts to go away, and give them more free stuff. Beyond that.....
Do they realize that their debt wouldn't just go away but would be passed on to the 53% of working people that actually pay Fed Income Tax? I'm sure they don't care about that as long as they don't have to pay it.
Unless we let the Bush tax cuts expire. That takes a pretty good slice out of the problem and hits everyone equally. But you don't want that I'm sure.
The solution is to cut spending, not raise taxes.
Federal income tax is a small fraction of all taxation.
ur kidding rt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
42% in 2007.
You people are economic illeterates.
I have a degree in finance, graduated 11 months ago and had multiple offers coming out.
No wonder no1 wants to hire a lot of you (some of you do have jobs). You can't think critically, and have 0 research skills and have no economic knowledge.
Back to school for you...
I agree, they are all too high and the money is just wasted.