Forum Post: is Occupy Still Organizing Protests?
Posted 10 years ago on June 10, 2014, 2:57 p.m. EST by draguartism
(19)
from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I haven't heard of an Occupy protest in ages? Do they still exist? Is Occupy dead? Someone told me Occupy is a political party now, no longer anarchy?
Re Occupy. Take what learned from past. Occupy redux, if just in day times, even.
Hone message a bit more. There were some succeess at getting message out. What is the message that would get people energized not only to reoccupy, but actionable plan, demand, concrete proposals the average American can relate to:
Have some concrete measurable actions:
It was nice people could get together and exchange ideas, now have be more flexible, even virtual.
Not need to be at same park each day, change locations, be flexible adaptable
This really had drawn attention of many, to these issues. Just have some concrete proposals that people can support, as common sense, mainstream American democratic ideals
99 percent is the common good (in complement)
We need to keep up the slogan of the 99 percent and common good, in all media and with our politicians, for whatever good it may do
Must find way to get new blood interested in civic responsibility, if even just to get informed and vote
http://my.firedoglake.com/dennistrainorjr/2014/06/09/why-millennials-dont-vote-and-what-to-do-about-it-atv-007/
And for all practical intents/purposes = the truth. And doing the common good - would be good for 100% of the planet.
I'm gonna give occupy some credit for this little bit of activism.
http://inthesetimes.com/article/16938/the_yes_men_secure_the_homeland
The struggle continues
Occupys legacy.
http://www.thenation.com/article/180987/how-left-revitalizing-itself?page=full#
Growing a new progressive majority.
Protests continue
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/125/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15837
'Coalition for human needs' fights for occupy supported issues.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/renew-unemployment-insurance-benefits-extension-includes-retroactive-compensation-which-expired/K3ztxcLX
All non violent tactics are useful.
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/06/25/horsford-calls-for-vote-to-extend-unemployment-insurance-in-light-of-new-senate--a-522137.html#.U61YrcJOXVJ
Join in.
Peace
[Deleted]
I have not said anything of communism. I don't think I'm a communist or an Anarchist.
When I grew up an anarchist was like a philosopher, an independent thinker no aligned to necessary structure of labels and isms. Do what works. If it doesn't work fix it.
Some things government does that is communism is the freakin military. That is communism. They tell you where to go and what to do. So I am anti communism.
I think the people should collectively pool and use money through taxes to do some things, build solar and wind power in USA, fund education, fund science, even fund medicine, which that should belong to all the people.
You may be in the wrong movement then, it seems this place has a very hard communist lean to it. As well as a bit of 1960's psychedelic drug culture as well. It is a shame, your points are valid, probably wasted here though.
I don't see it here in the declaration
http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/declaration/
It doesn't matter what the declaration says, the people (the ones commenting here) say otherwise. It is true, that they may not represent the whole of Occupy, but their vocal presence casts a poor light on the movement. One that most regular Americans would find unpalatable.
Ok, there may be a handful of vocal persons who,do not ascribe to the statement of autonomy, thereby who narrow the big tent of the common good, to their own personal opinion. That is what will happen in an open forum, people, whoever they may be, lcan say anything, (and the acceptance of freedom of discussion is within the spirit of occupy)
Which is sometimes to a detriment of the group in my opinion as a few lone voices can sink the whole ship. There should be a system for coming to consensus through voting, and determining how much of a supermajority you need for something to be agreed on, or if a majority is enough. Some better systems ought to be established, things written and agreed on, as what should be the official creed
no economic doctrine has yet been prescribed to my knowledge, except for a few minor reforms.
http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/statement-of-autonomy/
Then instead of arguing with me you should be arguing with the socialist, the communist, the anarchists, and the drug pushers, it seems to be their opinion that they represent OWS. They are doing harm, tremendous harm.
This by far (let me repeat that), BY FAR the most intelligent thought expressed on this forum ever.
I have suggested the Common Law Republic as an eventual form for OWS. But that is only my opinion. I would love to hear your ideas on consensus government.
Consensus government: It should be based in reality, it should be meaningful
Edit as I know not much on this subject I consult a resource and it advises it is practiced in Canada as follows
"The passage of legislation and the government is dependent on retaining the confidence of the legislature. However due to the absence of political parties there is no formal opposition and instead of party caucuses members regularly participate in a caucus of all members of the legislature.[1]
Developing a government platform[edit] When ministers have been elected and selected by a consensus system, it is inevitable that there is not any common agenda for the proposed work of the government.[citation needed] Such an agenda is developed by the cabinet and members, and is called a mandate or consensus statement, and is typically made public early in the term of a new assembly.
While consensus models of discourse often require that a true consensus be obtained, in consensus government policies advanced by the government are decided upon by majority vote; the government must therefore recommend policies that please a majority of the entire legislature if it wants them to be approved."
Wikipedia consensus government canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_government_in_Canada
I agree. Consensus is the only way to assure that the actions of a governing body represents ALL of its constituents and not just the predominant factions.
Who are U? Did U get lost and/or confused? I mean - REALLY :
[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (226) 4 hours ago
Anarchy literally means "no rulers". Are you disputing that?
I as I have tried to explain to others on this site: I am against democracy. I don't like or want majority rule and will do everything in my power to counter such efforts to promote a dictatorship of the majority. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
And Yet there ya go supporting majority/consensus. HUH.
Consensus as I described in my proposal is fluid and determinable by the collegia themselves. If they decide majority-rules then so be it, but I have tried to make it clear in my proposal and in other comments that consensus is best when it operates on the principle of the requirement of a lack of opposition for affirmative decisions to be achieved.
You realise that much of my proposal is influenced by the NYCGA. Don't you?
The same NYCGA that is for Direct Democracy? That one? But but but . . . you are against Democracy - you said so.
How am I misinformationist? Examples, with evidence.
Good night - feel free to try and hump someone Else's leg for awhile.
the NYCGA does not practice direct democracy. It practices public common law business. Occupy is based on the dictates of customs, norms, and rules, which are inherent among the occupy collegia. Non-violence was not legislated into the framework of occupy. Everyone just said "I won't be violent", or at least no one said "I will be violent". Therefore a consensus existed throughout the polis that violence is unacceptable.
A framework does exist for formal legislation, but so much is not necessary when people can voluntarily agree to cooperation with each other.
Dance dance u little misinformationist U
[-] -2 points by HCabret2014 (226) 4 hours ago
Anarchy literally means "no rulers". Are you disputing that?
I as I have tried to explain to others on this site: I am against democracy. I don't like or want majority rule and will do everything in my power to counter such efforts to promote a dictatorship of the majority. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
Bon nuit mon amour!
So you are happy with the current governments consensus? It is the majority afterall - yep look at all of those empty seats on any given day during any given vote. Can't be much of any dissent from an empty seat - Hey?
Influenced by - HUH - really? It's Just not your interpretation of it - Hey? Kinda like that misfit who you want to be representative of all anarchists - Hey?
I am not "for" the tyranny of the majority. I want people to think and act for themselves. I want people to express their own opinions.
Consensus is NOT the same a simple majority. Even as practiced by the NYCGA. Merriam-Webster and Oxford both define consensus as being "a general agreement". Neither reference "majoritarianism" and/or democracy. The word itself comes from the Latin Consentio, which means "feel together". Again no mention of majority or democracy. The wikitionary defines consensus as: "1. A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members. 2. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action.
Again no majority and/or democracy. Consensus is not a concrete concept and is fluid and determinable by collegia.
Fluid is your tap dancing ( though with many a stumble ) - you really should go and talk amongst yourselves and try to find some sort of firm footing prior to continuing with your farce.
I am a perpetual objector. I have established myself in constant opposition to the dictates of the majority.
The NYCGA uses consensus decision making and requires 90% agreement.
You are a perpetual pain in the ass as well as perpetually confused and misunderstanding of things you read.
So - you "are" for the tyranny of the majority after all. Though you so strongly attack it elsewhere. Does it depend on what time it is? or on what thread you are making a comment on?
I'll have to get back to you on this one. Neither Merriam-Webster nor the Oxford University are returning my calls. I don't even know how to go about changing the etymology of a word.
The Oxford English Dictionary represents the English language, the definitions and etymologies of its words.
Sure you do - you attack it as you did anarchism - bring in a misfit and say that that is representative - ya know - like ya did earlier. AND - if you have money - you have your publication print it publicize it or your main stream media outlet or or or or - then if you say it long enough and print it long enough - if there is no strong and continuous rebuttal to your lie - then you may change perception and new dictionary releases will print the new perception - though the ruling class generally can start with adjusting dictionary definitions to begin with by owning or otherwise influencing the publishing.
Fun Fact.
Did you know - that - consensus does not mean unanimous?
Damn there goes that majority thing you hate so much.
Consensus means lack of opposition. And if you read my CLR post, you'd know that I have suggested that collegia decide for themselves what a consensus consists of exactly.
Are you familiar with the concept of 'perpetual opposition'?
U for an example? I mean besides your perpetual stupidity - of course.
Gandhi was a perpetual objector to the dictates of the majority. Indian independence was not a popular idea in the thirties, even among Indians. Sectarian disputes almost always took precedence and resulted in a partition when independence was finally achieved (these territories have been further divided since). India is more like a supranational state rather than a nation-state. Gandhi was defying the Indian populace as well as the British.
A Hindu killed Gandhi you know.
Obviously you aren't familiar.
A perpetual objector is an individual who despite the existence of a consensus to the negative, continues to express opposition to the dictates of the majority. A just law breaker. Think Gandhi making salt.
Who was the consensus majority against Gandhi? The Ruling class? That is not a majority of the population it is not a majority - it is the Ruling MINORITY!
noun, plural con·sen·sus·es. 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
Here is an example.
http://www.cohousing.ca/consensus.htm
Functional consensus decision making is not the same as a simple majority decision making.
The Haudenosaunee required a 75% supermajority and Poland-Lithuania employed a free veto. Just as a CLR would.
Your dog advise you to say that?
You said it. I didn't.
But - U "did" say:
[-] 4 points by HCabret2014 (218) 8 minutes ago
My dog is far smarter than me. And I'm pretty fuckin stupid.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
So excuse me for assuming you were taking direction from your dog. I should have known better - as you said - your too stupid.
Just cuz he smarter than me, (which doesn't say much considering my own level intelligence), doesn't mean he's directing my actions. Even stupid people can still talk.
Yes - as you've shown = stupidly.
It's unfortunate.
I guess I'd rather be stupid than what ever you are. Despite all of my stupidity I can still read.
Too bad you don't understand what you have read.
Need Moral Mondays in Michigan!
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24899-michigan-nation-must-look-at-north-carolinas-moral-mondays
Still protesting.
Yes Occupy still organizes
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=3000ba396484a7eda281a3946&id=5d3b7e2832&e=9e169484bc
Join us! We need each other
It doesn't have to though.
Prior to "current" propaganda = attack by those in position of power and popularized by their media services.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz
Your point in introducing this misfit? Are you playing to propaganda?
Is it propaganda that he killed President McKinley, or that he was inspired by Emma Goldman and Gaetano Bresci?
So what? What point are u trying 2 make? Why introduce this misfit into the discussion?
He's an anarchist. And a famous one at that. He also lived over a hundred years ago. Far before any "current" propaganda.
So what?
Here have a more current misfit: John Hinckley, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OOOOOOOOOOOO from Texass and OIL.
You said you didn't believe Current propaganda. Well people have been currently propagandising for a long time now.
Do you dispute that Leon czolgosz was a anarchist?
From your own article/link :
In the last few years of his life, he claimed to have been heavily influenced by anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman.
Claimed to have been influenced by - not - claimed to be an anarchist.
Soooooooooooo what? Should we all be afraid of all individuals from Texass and who come from OIL money/background? HUH - never mind that makes sense.
I think there is good reason to fear rich oil tycoons from Texas. Cough. Cough.
Occupy supports this protest action:
http://www.stampstampede.org/collections/all
Join us.
We can call 'Joinusism' if that makes it more attractive to you.
Occupy a crazy dream that things could be really different. Crazy anarchist rebel revolutionary dream. And you say forget that, let go of your young anarchist energy and be like momma and poppa and just ask for more of the same?
The anarchist thing ..... I don't believe occupy was all anarchists ..... The revolution was for democracy and love and against excesses of capitalism without checks, everyone's dream was unique,
There were many middle agers who have their views on this, not exactly more of same but evolution would be an improvement?
https://occupywallst.org/forum/re-occupy-and-clarify/. We are still here, the 99 percent
you are exactly right here. rememeber that the anarchists led the fight for the 8 hr work day but most of the movement was more mainstream
Occupy, tormenting racists, pushing progressive solutions, coalescing with like minded groups, recapturing the left.
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1011.php
Peace
"Several questions are raised by these cases: Has the erosion of America's economic and political system reached the point that significant numbers of Americans are willing to consider new and possibly radical alternatives? Are the labour and social movements strong enough to push forward and sustain political movements, organizations, and candidates? Are we witnessing the driving of a left political wedge into the country's fundamentally conservative two-party system? Or are the victories we have seen and are likely to see more dependent on charismatic candidates, local conditions, special circumstances, and non-partisan races than on the economic crisis and social movements? Perhaps most important, does the election of candidates on the left actually encourage the growth and strengthening of social movements, so that we enter into a virtuous cycle of movements leading to political campaigns which in turn build the movements? The goal, after all, is to build a working-class mass movement that can challenge fundamentally the existing economic and political system."
Great Article 99Proud
I liked hearing Bernie may run for president.
Bernie, Warren, Sawant, & even Deblasio (among others) may or may not run but will push the candidate/country a little closer to the "left political wedge" you mentioned.
Protest, Vote, repeat.
Of course everyone wasn't an anarchist, but the movement followed rules and conventions which stemmed from anarchy.
As you always so love to point out because you are fully aware of the effect of words like ''anarchy and communism'' have on the average American !!! Crafty, much ?!! Quelle debacle ! Maintenant, regarde ...
e tenebris, lux ...
I don't believe in using trickery. We shouldn't hide what OWS was, and what it wanted to accomplish - which is essentially socialism, or even better yet, communism. If most US citizens don't like words like anarchy and communism, it is because most still believe in capitalism and all its false promises. The goal should be to teach why capitalism is no longer good, not to try and trick people into another system by using false terminology.
LOL re. ''I don't believe in using trickery.'' !!! Fuck Off Trashy Trickster In Chief, lol !! Kiss my arse & pray I don't fart and follow through ! It's difficult to ''teach'' those who don't want to learn but we plod on. Eg. ...
Why Worker Cooperatives ?
This isn’t some obscure utopian fantasy from the 1970’s. Worker cooperatives exist all over the world in all industries large and small, from home health care in the Bronx to manufacturing in Spain.
By workers having a direct role in decision-making and a share of all profits, worker cooperatives build community wealth and help make a democratic economy real.
Their ownership structure provides built-in accountability to workers and, by extension, greater concern for community and the environment. And if that wasn’t enough, worker cooperatives also :
share profits equitably ;
circulate more money within a community for longer periods of time ;
retain jobs better during recessions ;
provide greater employment stability ;
pay higher wages ;
invest in the growth and development of their members ;
don’t pick up and leave town ;
pool individual resources, making entrepreneurship more accessible for people with low incomes
empower workers to take control of their lives - and ..
make democracy a regular practice ~*~
Even the United Nations has endorsed cooperatives as a tool for poverty alleviation, job creation, and social integration, declaring 2012 the International Year of Cooperatives.
From : http://www.greenworker.coop/ & see ; http://workerdemocracy.org/ & http://toolboxfored.org/ .
e tenebris, lux ...
[Removed]
What is false about social security being a socialist program - AND - GOOD for Society? Education is lacking - propaganda slamming socialism is not lacking.
Not sure what you are talking about. I agree with you. Let's use words like social security. Let's call things what they are. That was my point. Occupy should be proud that it brought anarchy and communism to the masses, it shouldn't try to hide that fact. We have to be proud of those systems, this ideas. Let's not try to pretend we aren't. Let's use those words with energy, freedom, and meaning. If people are scared, we just explain what they mean. Using trickery is not the answer.
Social Security - IS - Socialist - and a good program. So talking about socialism as a bad thing - IS - WRONG - it is not an auto-matic - it is use/practice or misuse/practice that makes the difference. And so the need to debunk past and current propaganda.
What are you talking about? I agree with you entirely. That is what I am saying. Let Occupy use words like socialism because they are good words. Socialism is a good thing, a positive thing. Socialist countries are countries where people enjoy living.
I disagree with shdaz66's idea that we should change our vocabulary in an attempt to hide that Occupy is about anarchy, socialism, communism. Let's be honest with everyone in regards in what we believe.
We agree!
Doubtful anyone will ever sell socialism, communism or anarchy to the American masses. It’s an uphill battle; and maybe an insurmountable task. Most Americans believe America's strength is capitalism and democracy; and is what made America great. It’s drilled into the public mind from birth. It’s almost a religious belief.
I think OWS needs to be more pragmatic. There is virtually no hope of changing our type of government; at least not in the foreseeable future. OWS needs to focus on issues the masses can relate to, such a livable wage, government waste, dishonest politicians, unfair student loans, abortion rights, etc ….
While discussing the merits of various government types may be fun, it’s nothing more than interesting coffee shop debate.
The movement grows, Change is possible.
http://www.nationofchange.org/occupation-reconstruction-movement-just-beginning-1404826559
nothing can stop us if we are together.
Peace
Wishful thinking.
What do you wish for.?
Progressive change always comes, usually takes years of hard work.
"arc of history is long but bends towards justice" & all that good stuff.
Peace
Democracy is socialist.
Yea I know. But doesn't matter to most people.
Because those people have a poor education.
Maybe so, but that doesn't matter either.
Exactly!!! That's what I keep saying!!!
Still Organizing! HuganAnarchisttoday
http://interoccupy.net/blog/time-to-flood-wall-street/
Join us
Socialism is inherently collectivist though, which IS bad. Socialism discourages individualism and instead promotes the greater good.
you are certainly right about your dog! humans have been socialist for probably 99% of their history. and didnt you just say socialism ....promotes the greater good??
Yes the greater good, but not the absolute good. The good of the 99%, not the 100%. If socialism's been around for 99% of human history, don't you think it's time for a change? It obviously hasn't worked out for the better.
you can't really be saying that - no not possible that you are trying to make that point! what hasn't worked out is your favored ideology - free market capitalism. look around the world - what are the problems you see and what are the causes. the dominant ideology has been capitalism for how long now? i will give you a short broad picture of world history and you can tell me if it is incorrect. the last 500 years has seen the european conquest of the world - continuing today. and it has been largely the capitalist european conquest of the world - no - do i think it is time for a change - yes!
Merchant capitalism was the dominant system 500 years ago.
you are really good at saying nothing - we are all good at something and that seems to be your skill - is that a response to what i wrote? so weak - can you tell me a bit about yourself - how old are you - have you ever worked - have you ever become good at anything. don't tell me about your book learning since in my opinion that counts for zero. ok so you are so weak that i am going to watch the hockey game instead of continuing this nonsense - and it is nonsense. complete and utter nonsense. so this should give you time to think on what you want to say and come up with something worthy of ows
Oh - I am sure that we get visiting delinquents - but I also - DO - believe that this site also gets attacked by professionals.
Sound silly?
Think again.
We are here to push for healthy change - change that would disrupt the current corrupt state of affairs.
well i cannot disagree with you about payed hacks - it is one of the few things that makes sense
Occupy is supposed to be about egalitarianism. Everyone is equal.
sure we are equal but you said something very stupid - do you want to respond to the last 500 years of history and maybe correct your silliness
good one flipper
hey thanks for that - the free market dems on this site are making me wonder what is happening here
Merchant capitalism (mercantilism for you armchair IPEers out there) is significantly different from the system predominant since the 1850s.
ok, so?? the last 500 years - can't really answer right - just say so.
Modern state capitalism is not 500 years old.
that is your response - really - maybe you can't read or not well anyway. here i will try again - not sure why you are a complete waste of time (right now i have time on my hands - and a nice stiff vodka to ease the pain of conversation - is that the right word for what we are doing - no) - ok so here goes - what hasn't worked out is your favored ideology - free market capitalism. look around the world - what are the problems you see and what are the causes. the dominant ideology has been capitalism for how long now? i will give you a short broad picture of world history and you can tell me if it is incorrect. the last 500 years has seen the european conquest of the world - continuing today. and it has been largely the capitalist european conquest of the world - no - do i think it is time for a change - yes!
That or a trashcan type hack-in? All I know is it is strange and while I was having a go round with it yesterday - all of a sudden my security program was fending off all kinds of malicious attacks and I had to sign back on to everything 1st thing today.
outsider attack?? very strange things go on here - i have often wondered who and why some people are here. can anyone really be paying quislings to disrupt this discussion - if not who might it be - junior high school boys thinking they are cool? it cannot be serious adults trying to discuss issues
Click on it's user name and see what you get - when I do I get:
The requested URL "https://occupywallst.org/users/HCabret2014/" cannot be found or is not available. Please check the spelling or try again later.
Kinda strange.
i noticed that - what do you think - an insider attack was my first thought
I don't think that HCabret2014 is a free market dem - nope - just the regular status-quo troll/shill/quisling
troll/shill/quisling - of course - why didn't i see that?
You are a socialist troll hell bent on pushing your personal agenda on the 99%. The 99% does not want socialism or capitalism. We want ALL money out of government.
Family also is collectivist. So is society. So is the common good?
Individualism is animalistic, individualism is I will eat you for lunch
Individualism is yea me and f you
Go live on an island as an individual see how long you like it
The group is stronger than one, although group should tolerate creativity and non group think
I hate break it to you, but humans are indeed animals, just like sponges. ☺️🐍🐢🐛🐝🐜🐞🐌🐙🐚🐠🐟🐬🐳🐋🐄🐏🐀🐃🐅🐇🐉🐎🐐🐡🐩🐲🐈🐂🐆🐁🐪🐖🐫🐕🐊🐓👳👲👮👷💂👧👨👩👴👵
Humans also can think, so is said, think of the future, and therefore should have some responsibilities
{ EDIT } Yes - what separates us from the beasts of the field = intelligence the ability to think and to reason to do other than purely for personal gain. To rise above our weaknesses through conscious effort.
EDIT -> I dost think that HC2014 would like to be like the beasts of the field.
My dog is far smarter than me. And I'm pretty fuckin stupid.
I'm all for people recognising the scientific fact that humans are animals. Yeah.
Dude, whatever you say. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rulers". All linguists are wrong. You are right.
Humans are not classified as animals. All taxonomists are wrong. You are right.
Humans are biologically part of Kingdom Animalia. That is scientific consensus. Now you're disputing science? WOW!!!!
My dog thinks all the time. He's even pretty picky about it too.
Considering your comments - it is even possible that your dog is a better thinker than you - perhaps even more human.
Wow - I think you have hit on a popular consensus. Congrats.
Humans are most certainly related to animals - as being a carbon based biological living breathing form of life - but then humans and animals are also related to plants in the same way and to all life on this planet.
But we are not animals nor are we plants - as we can choose how we behave rather than let our biological imperatives rule us.
Hence the popular consensus of agreement with your comment that not only is your dog smarter than you but that you're also about as smart as a box of rocks.
Human taxonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://landeslifescience7.wikispaces.com/file/view/human_taxonomy.jpg/253608144/422x550/human_taxonomy.jpg
Yeah? Humans are part of Kingdom Animalia.
Have been considered to be and have also been considered to be separate. The main separator has always been intellect and language. I did not ever say ( BTW ) that Humans were not related - you are saying that that is what I said - I went further and included relation to ALL life on the planet. So sorry rock-head.
Dolphins, porpoises, and some other types of whales are self aware. So are most non-human primates.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
Oh go flog your dog somewhere else.
http://animals.ekstrax.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/10.jpg
Humans are not animals.
Humans agree with all of that.
Some protozoans are classified as animal-like, but as a rule are a separate Kingdom from Animalia.
I never said any such thing. I am simply regurgitating generally accepted science. I have made no statement of opinion on the similarities in behaviour of humans to any other animal.
Humans ARE members of Kingdom Animalia. This is basic taxonomy.
Your whole argument is moot - as you tried to say Humans are no better/different in their behavior than beasts of the field. You are WRONG. Well excepting for your own self of course - you and a few others - might not be any different - behaviorally.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/humans-are-animals-8-year-old-vs-misinformed-teacher/32709
You're in good company. 😄
There's a big club out there that believe the same thing. I've had discussions with people before, that claim that somehow there are animals, then there are humans and they're not the same. It's a homo-centric viewpoint based on the supposed superiority of humans. I've had people literally tell me "Humans aren't animals."
The ONLY thing that separates us from most other animals is that we are self-aware, and are conscious of our own mortality. That's it.
http://alwaysquestionauthority.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/941198_10151521545721275_1926392303_n.jpg
@gnomunny
Dolphins, porpoises, and some other types of whales are self aware. So are most non-human primates.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
http://www.baby-birth.com/images/content/d-breastfeeding.jpg
Humans are mammals.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/-O0e2Q7wCt4/hqdefault.jpg
So are whales.
"Dolphins, porpoises, and some other types of whales are self aware. So are most non-human primates."
That's why I said "most other animals."
@gnomunmy
Ya sorry. Haha. I hope DKAtoday saw my post.
I didn't invent the concept of Amoebae being protozoas and not animals.
Humans are mammals! Yeah! Female humans lactate!
Here ya go - enjoy: Animal | Define Animal at Dictionary.com
An excerpt =
noun 1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
I'm a simply trying to convince you of scientific consensus. Humans are animals. So are sponges. Both are part of Kingdom Animalia. They are different. This is why there are sub categories below Kingdom to differentiate and further classify life. Phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
Amoebae are part of Kingdom Protozoa and are not animals.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Humans are mammalian - so are whales and dolphins. So What? And now you get all bigoted about our relationship to the amoeba. Huh. Go see if your Dog will be willing to edumacate you.
Homo is a genus. Homo sapiens is a species. Neither is a Kingdom.
You didn't do very well in high school biology did you?
You criticizing me? You who admits your dog is smarter than you? You are talking about separations/distinctions/divisions and if one follows the tree back far enough ( if one believes the theory of evolution ) - then we ( as in all life ) are related back to the 1st single cell organism - BUT - that does not make us the same as an amoeba either. You are ( seemingly ) trying to claim that Humans are no different than all animals.
Humans ARE animals. You sound like a global warming denier, but instead you're a taxonomy denier.
Plants are not animals. They are part of Kingdom Plantae.
Fungi are not animals. They are part of Kingdom Fungi.
All of these are part of Domain Eukaryote.
Humans, just like all animals are related to fungi/plants.
All animals are not part of the kingdom ( separator ) of Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens.
All ARE carbon based life forms - further = bio-electric - yep even plants = bio-electric.
At least in my dreams humans are animals. Your dreams must really be fucked up.
Looks like I win!👏💪☝️
Only in your dreams.
Hey everybody - Lets do the TWIST
Or is that Spin?
Admiral Matthew Dougherty: "Jean-Luc, we're only moving 600 people."
Captain Picard: "How many people does it take, Admiral, before it becomes wrong? Hmm? A thousand, fifty thousand, a million? How many people does it take, Admiral?"
How many people it okay to coerce before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How much is an individual human life worth?
You have no point - unless you are saying that any system that society takes is wrong - because right now it is the very few who are dictating/coercing the very many.
I just don't want you or anyone else deciding for me what job I would have (if any), where I would live, how I should live. And I have have no desire decide anything for you or anyone else.
Anarchy is chaos. No rulers is chaos.
Anarchy has nothing in common with chaos - chaos is without form without order without substance. Anarchy is an approach to harmony not an approach to cacophony.
It's not okay no matter how many people it is!!!!!!!!!!
Your just butthurt because you aren't the one in charge. It's not anymore okay for the 99% to dictate the 1% than it is for it to be the other way.
Its okay to kill 1 or 2 people, but god forbid 30 or 40 be killed!
You want chaos - and in chaos everyone stands a very good chance of dying young and living with much hurt while heading to that death. A world with little of anything good and everyone fighting to have that little good. Because society allows the development of great good - and you are against society - are against having society.
The greater is good is the good for most, but not all. If you disagree with the majority, you are completely fucked in the ass.
Is that clear?
Right now - Who cares about the majority? - we are being completely fucked by a very small minority! How is that for clarity?
So just to be clear, you are disputing the etymology of the word anarchy?
To be clear - I dispute the propaganda of the ruling class that throws shit on the meaning of anarchy.
Anarchy: A Definition Stuart Christie What is anarchism?
Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.
Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.
Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.
Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.
Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.
In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.
Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.
Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.
Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.
So it would conceivably be okay for a hypothetical majority to control a hypothetical minority? But it's not okay when it's the other way around? Sound hypocritical to me.
No one should have power over anyone, but their own self.
Anarchy? Well not exactly that either - because anarchy Does believe in a system for society to operate in. So - I suppose you are closer to Randian thought = everyone for themselves and screw thoughts of society.
Sounds like if everyone has a say and the majority rules - we are more fair to all than we are right now - right now only the few have a say and only the few are doing well.
Anarchy literally means "no rulers". Are you disputing that?
I as I have tried to explain to others on this site: I am against democracy. I don't like or want majority rule and will do everything in my power to counter such efforts to promote a dictatorship of the majority.
Your understanding of anarchy is sadly lacking - society needs rules - and in anarchy the whole body of society is the ruler = the maker of the rules. So I am disputing your poor education/understanding.
Anarchy is NO rulers. I want ALL rulers.
We have majority rules now. 51+ decides right and wrong.
Cooperation should be voluntary and sponteous. I don't want other people forcing me to think and act in a particular way just pet their own fuckin ego.
Socialism is coercion.
Anarchy - IS = All Rule. Anarchy is an expression of true democracy - where everyone has a say. Anarchy is not a system without rules or guidelines. What you seem to be trying to express is your desire for chaos.
We do not have a majority Rule right now - that is ( majority rule ) a fiction as is our democracy - a fiction.
We should be able to do and think what we want - as long as doing such does not adversely affect others - your personal thoughts and actions can be adverse to your own self but should not be to others. So a system of society ( rules ) IS necessary.
Society to a greater or lesser degree - IS - coercion. It is what it is.
[Deleted]
The Paris commune didn't end in dictatorship.
A single commune with the ability to ask people to leave? That is the difference, how does that work on a national level? When people just won't cooperate, Siberia or just shoot them in the head? Select people who get together to form a commune is not a nation.
Protests continue (occupy organized or not)
http://www.indyweek.com/triangulator/archives/2014/06/24/15-arrested-at-last-moral-monday-of-legislative-session
"wasn't an anarchist, but the movement followed rules" A bit contradictory, no?
Does it matter which ism occupy is? m? Or was m? Or even if Occupy is organizing?
The fact that progressive voices, & protests continue to grow and push our agenda is a testament to occupies (& other progressive efforts before) influence.
Let's lose the Anarchy thing -- it's not the real reason for Occupy -- and focus on restructuring and rehabilitating society. It needs it. As far as a good Occupy protest, this requires a motive common to the majority; Walmart is not the only cheesy employer but the wage thing only pertains to so many. and with the false uptick in the economy as an excuse, many are convinced to stay home, not risk trouble. That is much of the reason for delaying the prosecution of Cecily McMillan. It underlines the risk of defying the 1%. The cause for a protest or rally must be valid for the whole (N17) or the individual suffering because of flaws and injustices in society (as with Cecily). Refining issues too much streamlines and divides. Unfairness to LGBT etc in the workplace is an aspect of employment discrimination. Even if I don't get it myself. everyone doing their job deserves equitable treatment. Therefore it creates unnecessary separation to delineate alternate lifestyles, when they need to be part of the whole for their good and their issues are everyone's, anyway.
[Removed]
From Occupy , we have many more more activists ! = less apathy !
as a son of a WW2 hero, patriot, father, grandfather and ex-SDS member , i support this idea although, methinks they could have thought of a better name......... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-trainor/occupy-founders-launch-th_b_5250788.html
imho - the next step is here....., http://www.afterpartyusa.org/news/2014/4/19/the-after-party-occupy-wall-street
Join the peaceful gathering
http://interoccupy.net/natgat2014/
Does this count?
http://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/gove_has_gone_keep_up_the_fight
Yes, still growing even if not apparent.
http://interoccupy.net/events/occupy-national-gathering-2014-natgat-2014-natgat3/
Are you still listening?
Organizing & inspiring innumerable like minded progressives to speak up, protest, & agitate for an end to self destructive corp trickle down policies (& more)
Current calendar:
http://interoccupy.net/events/
You asked
Many people will be attending GA's in NYC for the purpose of consultation with #OWS in mid September of this year.I myself will be trying to get people interested in some of my ideas.The public must be good and ready for street protests before #OWS can start calling for them to show in the Street.Very comprehensive consultation is needed along with strong consensus,because failure is NOT an option.If you have ideas you wish to discuss,please meet with us in the usual place.World Revolution is the Only Solution.
Of course protests are still being organized, in the spirit, as a result, in compliment, in collusion, indirectly, & directly!
Here's a protest on economic inequity/against austerity (occupy related undoubtedly)
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/22
I hereby assign credit to Occupy (& all progressive groups past & present) for this continued protest/effort on behalf of the 99%.
FYI
Peace
I didn't know that it was ever anarchy in the first place.
Ya, occupy is anarchy + communism. Some call is anarcho-communism.
I've been told by others here that it is about libertarian socialism and not communism. I was quickly corrected when I referred to occupy as a communist movement.
Libertarian socialism is another term of social anarchism. Technically, you are probably right, Occupy is socialism, not communism. But, in Marx scale, communism is just the better version - after socialism. Problem is, we need to reach post scarcity before communism can be implemented. So, ideally we want communism, but it has to be socialism for now.
Just for the record I am against any efforts to further a socialist, communist and/or anarchist agenda and I will do all in my power to counter such efforts. I believe occupy can promote freedom and justice in a non-collectivist manner.
How can freedom and justice be promoted with capitalism? They are antithetical concepts.
Are you a right wing capitalist? What is your political stance?
I didn't say anything about capitalism. I think capitalism is just as bad as socialism/communism/anarchism. Any system which promotes the acquisition of material wealth above all else is a bad one.
I am just me. I'll let you decide the rest. 😊
If you are against the economic models of capitalism, socialism, and communism, what is left? What do you support?
why deal in absolutes?
if capitalism is freedom, and socialism is democracy, then we should have both.
They are mutually exclusive.
If i said you can't kill other people but otherwise do whatever you want, that's both. There's nothing mutually exclusive about liberty and democracy in regard to civilization as a whole. We're a society of free people who create a foundation of rules designed by cosmopolitan appreciation (hopefully).
I like the economic system described in chapter one of Walden.
Thoreau's primitive ideas are nice, but they are dead. The world is a much different place now. We can't all go live in the woods. ;-) Unless you have a time machine to return to pre industrial times.
Thoreau argues for pastoralism. He never once suggests that other people "go live in the woods". Read Walden.
Pastoralism is primitive. There are too many people on earth now for all of us to raise our own livestock. Thoreau was finding solutions to problems of his time, when there was only 1 billion people on the planet. We are nearly 8 billion now.
Come back to earth my friend. Let's try to find solutions to today's problems.
Progressive taxation is not socialism.
A few common sense rules for governing wall street is not socialism.
Stopping foreign wars has nothing to do with socialism.
I'm not sure why the socialism-communism topic even comes up.
Interesting analysis.
Not really my analysis. Just Marx's theory. Capitalism leads to socialism leads to communism. But, there are prerequisites before moving from one to the other. Like you need post-scarcity before communism.
According to who?
[Removed]
Actions all over, still growing.
http://interoccupy.net/
Good luck
I don't find any protest dates there, or much of anything. Messages and stuff, not many events.
Oh well I guess it's all over.
Might as well find a corner to climb in.
Was fun while it lasted.
We should organize something in NYC. A big summer protest.
There must be someone doing something.
[Deleted]
You don't think term limits take away our rights to send a good representative back to office?
Don't we already have term limits on election day?
Some bits on your Ark effort:
http://www.thearkansasproject.com/term-limits-camouflage/
http://mymonticellonews.net/news/article_741bd0aa-b5c3-11e3-be68-001a4bcf887a.html
I agree most definitely no occupy fingerprints anywhere to be seen in Ark term limits debate.
It seems that you disagree with the effort? We already have term limits, this measure just extends them, which arguable would give voters more freedom to continue to send good legislators back. Perhaps it doesn't go far enough for you? It is what we could get, for now. Have you managed to get an anti-corruption bill on the ballot in your state? But I forget, Occupy stopped being about reform and stated being about scraping the system entirely and replacing it with communism. " [-] 1 points by draguartism (12) from Brooklyn, NY 15 hours ago
Libertarian socialism is another term of social anarchism. Technically, you are probably right, Occupy is socialism, not communism. But, in Marx scale, communism is just the better version - after socialism. Problem is, we need to reach post scarcity before communism can be implemented. So, ideally we want communism, but it has to be socialism for now."
Nothing with an Occupy/communist stamp is going to be passed by voters anywhere in the US. I have said it before and I'll say it again, that dog won't hunt, not here, not now, not ever. So as long as that is the end goal (communism) then your wasting your time. If you want reform, if you want to take back our government from the 1% then I'm on board, and so are most Americans.
" If you want reform, if you want to take back our government from the 1% then I'm on board, and so are most Americans"
I do.
I do not support term limits or any restrictions on voters. I do however support all sorts of proposals that would minimize the benefits of incumbency & party in campaigns.
My state is getting closer to effective campaign reform but corp interests have thus far blocked it.
communism, Libertarian socialism, social anarchism, capitalism, occupism, Ismism,
"All we are sayin', is give me a break, Everybody..."
I suppose OWS served the purposes of the 1% by deflecting protest focus away from those wars in the Middle-East. Now, with that accomplished, OWS is no longer needed, and can be cast away like a old worn rag. The 1% are no longer funding it. In a society that runs on money,without a papa everything withers, including revolution.
What ''protest focus away from those wars in the Middle-East'' and who was protesting those exactly ?!!! Do you really think that ''The 1% were funding OWS' ?!! Re. ''wars in the Middle-East'' .. how about some secret (because it is NEVER spoken about) - history ?!
''Leaving the USS Liberty Crew Behind'', by Ray McGovern : http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/08/leaving-the-uss-liberty-crew-behind/ and / or ...
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24238-leaving-the-uss-liberty-crew-behind [alt link and font]
Btw, I don't believe OWS is dead. You, I and others are still here right ? I NEVER thought I would see the like of OWS in America in my lifetime and irrespective of the ebbs and flows ... seeds are planted.
respice, adspice, prospice ...
Sure I know all about that stuff. So, now where is OWS? What are they doing about it? I see some websites, a lot of talk, but that is about it.
Re. the 'USS Liberty', good that you know about that & re. your questions, see ...
The scenario here has to be viewed over 3, 4 or 5 election cycles because there is NO quick fix after 40 years of this .. http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ and please do try to consider that link.
per aspera ad astra ...
Seems like the Powel memo has been successful over the years. Liberalism has been in retreat. Is OWS putting something together to couner-act? The rules of revolt from Hedges article make sense, but where is the organization enacting such?
The 'Powell Memo' is a very important document to realise but I offer you no answers Shule - only hope :
Albert Einstein - "Why Socialism ?" : http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism ;
'Thom Hartmann @ TEDx' : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDtSSFEZY38 [17:47m] ;
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24276-commonbound-a-revolution-needing-a-spirit & see ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/left-right-alliances_b_5229181.html by Ralph Nader +
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38198.htm . Finally consider at your leisure ...
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24294-thomas-piketty-and-elizabeth-warren-discuss-why-the-rich-get-richer-and-the-rest-get-shafted [Video, 47:47]
dum spiro, spero ...
Apart from a tiny few threads on the web that keep repeating, OWS is dead unfortunately. Let's organize a protest to revive it.
Nope ! OWS is NOT ''dead'' !! Tides ebb and flow - but good seeds get planted and can germinate later !!!
''Heist'' by Thom Hartmann : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltNaDDQZ07k [22:20m] & see :
''McCutcheon Should Become A Rallying Cry for A Campaign to ‘End the Rule of Money’'', by K. Zeese & M. Flowers : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38198.htm
respice, adspice, prospice ...
It's important to be honest with ourselves. It doesn't help to hold on to past hopes which are dead and buried. OWS is dead, it really is. But that doesn't mean we have to stop the idea of changing the world. We can use other methods, and there will be other movements.
Yes, iT is imporTanT ''to be honest with ourselves'' - buT ask yourself ... are you ?!!!
Furthermore, NO - OWS is NOT ''dead'' !! Very much to your chagrin n'est ce pas ?!
"The War Against the Poor : Occupy Wall Street and the Politics of Financial Morality" : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29649.htm &
Albert Einstein - "Why Socialism ?" : http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism .
Know a Two faced Troll by his syntax and dark aura, lol.
et temet nosce ...
[Deleted]
Yep, you see what I see.
I don't loose hope and I still do what I can, but one needs to be honest about where one stands.
Seems to make us unpopular on here though. But still the truth needs to be stated. For anything to be accomplished people will have to focus. These movements have to stop being clearinghouses for everyone with an ax to grind against the establishment. I have heard rumors that there were Nazi's involved in some Occupy protests. I know that TEA had a few in the beginning. I would say that the lac of focus is due to the anarchist nature of Occupy, but TEA is just as disordered. I really believe that, at least some of it is intentional.