Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: those who don't know history are bound to repeat it

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 2:42 a.m. EST by bmartin255 (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

so im curious as to where you all plan to go from here. the current movement on wall street and the socialist ideas, and how its escalating are very similar to the progression that led up to the bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. The July Days, the peaceful occupation of petrograd was the start the same way the occupation of wall street is a start here. The ideas I've seen promoted in interviews of the attendants of occupy wall street match up with the leaders of that revolution who eventually decided the only way to secure a socialist government was to begin armed resistance and mounted a full scale war against their own government. This eventually led to millions of deaths in Russia when the Bolsheviks got their way, not to mention a vast increase in poverty. The government is clearly corrupt in some ways now, there's no questioning that, so if you take more government control over people is it not clear that the corruption will only increase as it has time and time again throughout history? Stalin? Pol Pot? Kim Jong Il? people with grand ideas similar to what you all want that were corrupted by power and destroyed the integrity of their nations. Socialism and Communism look amazing on paper, but they don't factor in the human element, you cannot change human nature and make everyone become selfless to serve the new system, it has been tried and failed with violent results. Those of you occupying wall street, I want to know where you think you're going from here, and please I would like to know what facts you have to back up your side, not just cursing me out cause i don't agree with you, a friendly exchange of information, i fully respect your right to protest and am not trying to fight you.

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by nichole (525) 13 years ago

We cannot own our future until we come to understand that OWS is not an entirely new concept. There is a proud history of labor struggle in the US, a history that has been marginalized and erased -- a history we must learn. Who was Joe Hill? Wesley Everest? Emma Goldman? Sacco and Vanzetti? What happened at Haymarket? Eugene Debs? IWW? Much much more. Why don't Americans know about our revolutionary forbears, and how can we bring their spirit back to life?

I would like to propose a read-in. Let's learn about OUR history and see that WE are continuing a movement that originated long before US. Let's be inspired, informed and knowledgable. Plus, our media detractors would not know what to do with images of a literate and erudite group of Occupiers -- I like to think that we could be both peaceful and intimidating at the same time. Literacy folks!!! We must improve our literacy.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 13 years ago

For many people on here, when they see Socialism, Capitalism or Comminism they don't respond. I kept reading and you really did your research so I have to oblige.

This is not an "ism" issue, but a structural issue. All the "isms' we have ever had were based on the same premise; money. I can't speak for the entire movement, but there exists an unavoidable problem with this system. We borrow and lend at interest, which give us no chance of ever paying off our debts. That is indentured servitude, a ponzi scheme, based on an infinite growth of money. Whether you are right or left, so far I haven't said anyting untrue.

So, we continue to produce exponentially more with exponentially less labor. We have a paradox here. The less we produce, the more labor we keep. The more we produce, the less labor we have. Why? Pause please.............................................................................................................................Take your time.................................................................................................................................. I am not being condescending and I'm not insulting your intelligence, but think about how it's possible that we produce more and more and the people get less and less in return.

I won't put a shitload of dots in between, but I hope you can see the problem and continue reading. The problem is that people own shit that they shouldn't own. They own things that they didn't create. What I'm talking about is land. Nobody has ever created a piece of land yet the majority of land has always been controlled by a few.

I will now tell you what needs to be implemented, based on economic theory, to change the systemic function of our socio-economic system; land reform.

The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments. What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits. This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept. This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!

[-] 2 points by soloenbarcelona (199) from Barcelona, CT 13 years ago

I believe OWS is becomming a reason people start thinking about the problems we encounter. Corruption and inequality are accepted by almost everyone that doesn´t complain. But is it really the only way forward?

Why would communism be the only option? I believe this movement will lead to changes, but I´m positive and if we all join and come up with alternatives, we don´t have to worry about a bloody revolution.

But first of all, we have to see how the mainstream media will picture this movement, as they are a corrupt part of our society. (looks like)

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 13 years ago

I suppose the big difference between now and Russia in 1917 is that we are not, in fact, asking for communism.

I do not in fact want anything remotely "similar" to what Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong Il wanted. Why on earth do you think that? Have you seen anyone with a sign advocating Stalinism?

We do, in fact, know history. This is why we are not trying to repeat it. Especially not the bits that we think are particularly nasty.

[-] 1 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 13 years ago

What an excellent post

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 13 years ago

Some important lessons.

-Do not let the revolutionary intoxication dictate your judgement and actions. It will pass and then one have to face the not so glamours reality.

-Do not confuse your ideas about the world is and will become with how the world actually is and how it will become.

-Do not build structures that allow for the formation of corrupt and non-recallable mandates of power.

-Encourage critical thinking and open dialogue.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 13 years ago

those who know history and don't care are just as likely, yet never talked about.

Apathy for the lose.

[-] 1 points by bmartin255 (1) 13 years ago

Thank you for that nichole, while I don't necessarily agree with the extent of what your looking for its a lot more reasonable then some of the interviews I've seen, people idealizing karl marx and che guevara who clearly don't know what those two did and the destruction they caused. If everyone in this movement knew their history and what they wanted the way you do I would have a lot more respect for OWS. Having unions and lobbying for equality among all classes of people was something planned for in the constitution and something we should be doing, if we take advantage of the way our government was set up from the beginning and get back to our roots these ideas can be accomplished, overthrowing the system as a whole is not the answer. Learn history and take action, work hard to get your own place in life, the government does not exist to take care of your life for you, just to protect your rights so you have the ability to do so unhindered.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 13 years ago

bmartin, there are a lot down at the park who don't really have a clear idea what OWS is really about. Those you speak of emulating marx, guevara, and others are clearly giving the wrong message to the media and casual observer. I don't believe OWS is advocating socialism at all, although some ideas being tossed around may sound vaguely socialist. It's the same with communism, in fact I was called a communist twice last night on this forum. I may be a lot of things, but communist is definitely not one. One of the things we will be battling in these early stages is misrepresentation. It's to be expected. Not having a defined message is the reason, but there is a method to their madness. Nichole is entirely correct, though. Many of the protesters need a bit of an education not only of labor struggles but of US history in general. Schools, of late, have been very lacking in the kinds of things we were taught back in the '60's and '70's. Also, we have no intention of total overthrow of the government or violent revolution. Gandhi not Lenin. One of the major things going on behind the scenes has to do with what you say, getting back to the real meaning of the Constitution. It's early in this struggle. As the goals begin to get clearer, the message will become more defined. That will happen soon. Be patient. By the way, this system has been having some kind of computer glitch the last few hours, a lot of "403 error" messages. Could you message me back so I know whether anyone is getting their messages through? Thanks.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 13 years ago

So because a mustachioed bank robber opportunistically took over the Soviet Union, which we're not even trying to recreate, we should just stand down?

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 13 years ago

Its just that certain types of socialism/communism is pretty much defined as "economic democracy".

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

defined by who? evil oligarchs? not in actual political science, it isn't. assorted political agents and marketing agents keep trying to redefine assorted terms to lie and manipulate the public. I'm not talking about such terms as distorted, i am talking about such terms as they exist in political science.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 13 years ago

I don't know what you are getting at. What I mean with: that certain types of socialism/communism is pretty much defined as "economic democracy" is that since ownership and control is shared equally the economic power is in that regard also equally distributed. When I own 100 times more then you, my economic power (and thus my possibility to "vote" with my capital) is 100 times greater.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

fine point but unfortunately imprecise language. There has never been a socialism, never been a communism, just different forms of feudalism and corporate oligarchy. to be uber blunt about it, capitalism would mean the government would print the money and anyone could get a million dollar loan. ANY kind of taxes define a political and economic system as Feudalism.

Certain types of communism/ socialism? Have never existed.

The closest thing we have ever had to socialism is the socialized elite caste, and corporate oligarchy is thus much more like socialism than capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Joetheplumbed (76) 13 years ago

I understand what you are saying. I think the problem IS imprecise language. But in the sense that words like this must be defined before you use them, as there are many often almost diagrammatically opposed definitions or meanings of words like socialism and communism. The problem here is also that words have no fixed meaning, their meaning is determined by how they are used. That is why communism (and even capitalism) can both be a tested and never tested system (people are referring to different things)

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

okay, true point in general in social convention, but the words do have a fixed meanings in political science, and so when i see them being wibbled and distorted because the general population does not actually know what they mean, i have to jump in and make corrections. The words do have a fixed meaning- the only reason that those meanings become unfixed is because they get used for propaganda purposes. Right now thats gone truly batshit insane in our country because the far right redefined those words their way and then the far left tried to somehow reclaim the words keeping the new distorted redefinitions.

In other words, the far right redefined words in order to lie and spin, and define the narrative and define the terms of the conversation- and somehow the left managed to be ignorant enough to play that game with them- rather than just back away from those words sanely.

the words specifically and exactly mean what they mean in political science. the propaganda versions of meaning forged by republicans in order to lie to the public aren't really at all the definitions to use, esp not by the left, thats in essence walking into a bear trap to rescue a word.