h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah.

>>But Marxism has had a go and failed hasn't it?

Well that's the official line. Now go read some.

(I must admit that Marxism's big stumbling block is that the barries come down when you mention it. You have to be subtle.)

I think you missed my point Ed. I'm not saying that marxism is useless (not useful). I'm saying that all the partisan approaches have fundamentally failed, and this is the reason occupy is trying to be non-partisan. There will be marxists in occupations, but they're just not flying their flag. Or at least that's the attempt. As soon as you fly a marxist flag (or any other flag), then you separate out the people who support marxism and those who don't. Then you're no longer talking about 99%.

And I"m not picking on marxism here. It applies to all the other named groups too.

Non post.

(What even Arsenal supporters as well? Pretend I didn't say that..or was even here).

I disagree with this non flying of flags.

My opinion is that everyone should fly their flags. Not be scared to assert their identity and view point..but have an attitude to be open to other ways of thiking.

When different things come together..you can create something new..that you could never have predicted beforehand.

I think its essential that its recognised that 99% of humans need a 'flag' thing of some kind..however loosly interpreted.

I love it when you see Glastonbury music festivals..and there are a gazillion flags coming together..

I'm not sure what a Marxist flag is, kea (well - red, obviously ). What I was meaning is that an effective political movement can't just be a vague collection of issues. It needs an ana[ysis of why those issues have arisen. It needs a strategy (a 'praxis') for how to change things. I believe that Occupy, for all its merits, currently lacks these. Merely saying 'Don't like!' isn't enough. 'The thing is not to understand the world but to change it.' (who said that? )

I completely recognise that Marxism's image is tarnished. It does not have good Brand Approval. People associate it with things of which I do not approve. Still - it does provide the analysis and the praxis.

So, sure, waving The Red Flag over Wall St, St Paul's or that hotbed of revolution Edmonton will be resisted as 'too partisan'. But what other effective ideas do they have for making an actual difference?





(Historical note: in the European revolutions of 1848, Communists happily worked alongside other groups.)

Although...if it scares the enemy it's worth doing.

End with a seminar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOD73AJeCKM&feature=related

What I'm realising more and more..from people I have contact with here, and discussion,s is that 'Occupy' means different things to different people.

For me its so much to do with re-thinking a lot of assumptions about how society might go in the future..democracy itself..and numerous other things..obviously also the hard nosed reality of what's happening at present economically leading to the deep cuts which will affect my area very badly. I truly fear for how this community might go..in terms of rising crime again, the drug problem for youngsters as unumployment rockets again for them.

I don't really think of Occupy as a 'thing' with a set of definite ideas and theories..but the way it gets people from a variety of 'flags' engaged.

That might sound a bit waffly..but sometimes waffle is just what the doctor ordered (but not waffles )..to just question everything..

But yeah I see 'Occupy' means different things to others here..also the youngsters who are doing the *actual occupying* here in London..and other places in the world.

And some people..like anhaga I know experience it quite differently. That's fine by me. We all live in different cultures and societies, are different sexes, sexualities blah blah yadda..and cope with living in this system in different ways..

>>
What I'm realising more and more..from people I have contact with here, and discussion,s is that 'Occupy' means different things to different people.

Well, yes. On the one hand this is good. On the other, everyone is pushing in different directions. This is bound to fail.

End with a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY7BPJeh30M

It's not that everyone is pushing in different directions to me. It's to do with the opportunity to engage with all kinds of people about what to do given this type of capitalist society, environmental issues etc.

Yes eventually obviously a consensus of some kind needs to occur for practical reasons. And there are political groups there right now with a fixed analysis and agenda about what to do..but I can't relate to them.

I can't relate to what some people say Occupy is for them..but that's what I like..as I got to realise it can consult all kinds of people and viewpoints.

It's a kind of flux thing at present. At least that's what I take from it. I'm not looking to 'Occupy' to save the world as a thing with a fixed political agenda right now..but it might inspire some to form such more practical political groups...after a while?

Or maybe it'll just be yet another passing fashion and capitalism will carry on its merry way..and the environment affected accordingly?

But what's the point of engaging if you don't make a difference?

Ideas are nice, but the material is all. 'The point is not to understand the world but to change it.'

What do you mean?

Of course there is a point to get lots of people in society thinking differently and questioning.

Even my parents..in their 70s..and about as conservative as you could imagine question things because of stuff like this..also hugely impressed by no violence..

I do think on the whole its good to have had a bit of thinking first before rushing to try and change things.

I don't expect *real* change to happen by any method other than getting lots of people questioning the status quo.

If others are impatient with Occupy..they can set up their own thing to get the action going.

Christ almighty! If folk haven't twigged how Capitalism works yet they should get with the programme. Read the books that were nailing it some 160-odd years ago.

Oh right I can see this just turning into some narrow tiresome ding dong.

If folk had twigged enough to want things changed..it would have happened. The fact is hasn't shows enough people in our society haven't *yet* wanted.

Now we have a big crisis in capitalism.

We've been down this same old road in debate too often..I not going over it again..

If you want to come at things differently though I will talk more.

But this thread has gone rather quiet..

I think the one of the problems that the 'left' has is image and perceived relevance to the modern world. It's hard to get anyone seriously interested in Marx, and the old left of nationalisation just seems like a distant dream. And it seems about means, rather than ends.

The challenge is, I think, for progressives to start again. Personally, I think we need less Marx and more Rawls, but that's just me. But I do think that putting things simply and without excess baggage is the way to build a consensus and to build support.

For me, it's all about inequality. And it's a very basic question - how come some people have loads, some people have very little, and some people are in between. How come you and I and the corner shop and the electrician who replaced my fusebox pay our taxes, and multinationals and the super rich don't? How come disability benefits and public services are being cut, while those who benefited most from the 'good times' don't seem to be affected at all? How come those who crashed the economy can carry on exactly as before?

It's possible to build a consensus about making society a bit more equal and a bit more fair. No doubt people will have different ideas about how far that should go, but if I want to move down the road to equality, I'll gladly walk with fellow travellers of all kinds. You don't even have to be on the left to be appalled at what's going on. I'd even walk with the old fashioned paternalistic, noblesse oblige, one nation Tories (if there are any left).

Otherwise, it's just the same protests, the same protesters, under a different label. And nothing changes.

Nice post Otto. I basically agree. And yes I'd happily walk down the road with some Tories. It's about thinking in another way from one side against another.

Apart from anything else we are also on the verge of environmental catastrophe. Obvious things like climate change and of course human population levels on earth.

Yes we do need to start thinking ways where anything can go..(obviously I'm not meaning totally unethical and cruel things)..but other possible patterns for societies are now needed to be taken seriously by *all* of us.

And it maybe we can't go the whole way..even if we wanted as soon as possible..because we were born and raised in these capitalist societies. It burrows deep into the unconscious..and hinders thinking.

Frs - you see a ding dong where none was intended. All I was doing was expressing frustration that what we ought to know damn well about the workings of our society is not known. The underlying philosophy of Occupy has a tendency, I fear, to drift towards 'Everything would be nicer if only people were, like, nicer and shit?' (note interrogative 'up-talk' ending). What this misses out are the factors that actively *stop* things getting nicer and which have to be changed.

@Otto:

Same point, really. Yes - Rawls is extremely powerful and useful stuff. I also agree that Marxism is somewhat a busted flush because nobody is prepared to take it seriously - or even read it - and as such people have some peculiar misconceptions about it. (and, yes, history has shown that many Marxists have peculiar misconceptions.) Cultural Hegemony yadda yadda. To that extent it is possibly more productive to try something less scary like Rawls.

*But* does that approach not place a little too much reliance on people being sensible? Yes - read 'The Spirit Level' and you can hardly believe that people wouldn't want equality. But some people aren't convinced. Or for ideological reasons they won't even read it. (Or read part of a chapter with a preconceived animus and dismiss the whole. )

A Rawlsian philosophy is in no way inconsistent with Marxism, But how does it change the world? What is its theory of praxis?

"In yet another iteration of the Occupy Wall Street movement, a group plans to camp at Hendy Woods State Park in Mendocino County this weekend to protest the state's plan to close 70 parks next year."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/09/4040606/group-plans-occupy-style-event.html

Now here's the interesting thing about closing a state park. A state park brings in a lot more revenue when it is open than it costs to operate. So why close it?

The answer has been, to save money. But that is clearly false. So, why?

OccupyHendyWoods
OccupyWallStreet
Occupyh2g2

Frs:


>>And it maybe we can't go the whole way..even if we wanted as soon as possible..because we were born and raised in these capitalist societies. It burrows deep into the unconscious..and hinders thinking.

Well if I can't get you reading Marx, I'll give Gramsci a go. This is his 'Cultural Hegemony' in a nutshell.

I can't remember whether it was in 'Scritti Politti' or 'Prison Writings', but he talks about a (damn! It's late so I can't remember the terminology) a Revolution of Thought as preceding a Revolution of Action.

Maybe Occupy is part of the Revolution of Thought...*but* for the Revolution of Action to succeed they need to be following the theoretical goal from the start. There are people who, within living memory, have thought these things through much better than Occupy, but as far as I can see, it's as if les soixante-huitards et al had never existed. Rudi Dutschke died in vain. Occupy need a few lessons in Modern European History.

Nite nite. My name is Daniel Cohn-Bendit. You've been a lovely audience. I'm here all week. End with a song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNNbJ04167I