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

I guess I just assume that when the unashamedly right wing compare a movement to the Swappies they're being negative about it.

I'll leave you two to your mutual masturbation

*facepalm*

We'd be happy for you to join in if you had anything substantial to bring to the party.

did you see the clearing out of occupy LA this morning. That was a lot of cops.

here is one account
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/30/200-arrests-made-in-Occupy-LA-eviction/UPI-99141322635240/

"Sounds like the Socialist Worker manifesto to me."

No.

And here's why.

It's not got any socialism in it.


"1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them."

A socialist manifesto would not state that they are working towards alternatives. It already has the alternatives. This statement doesn't - and it's striking that it's being clear that it doesn't have the answers. Most old School hard left socialists tend to think that they *do* have the answers.

"2 We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world."

This is a general statement of unity and solidarity. Pretty standard liberal stuff.

"3 We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis."

Many on the right wanted governments to let banks fail, and are as against "corporate welfare" as the left.

"4 We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people."

Nothing especially "socialist" about this. Just a statement of the obvious.

"5 We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate."

Surely everyone wants this. Except the corporates themselves. No? And possibly even some of them might want this because it keeps their rivals in check. Note also - regulation, not nationalisation. No socialist would write this. This is key.

"6 We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment and to stop wars and arms dealing."

A lot of people support the strike and student actions, and are against wars. Not all of them are socialists.


"7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich."

Oddly, this is exactly the kind of thing that you were complaining that was missing. It's not exclusively socialist - this is a common broad left and even Christian position too.

"8 We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression."

Again, very broad agreement on this kind of thing. Anyone want to be an apologist for Gadaffi?

"9 This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!"

An open invitation. Not sure how open and welcoming hard left organisations tend to be.


Conclusion? It's not SWP stuff, and I've probably just been trolled.

The LAPD apparently were reportedly quite restrained in their use of force this time, yet they quite zealous in their attempts to restrict the press and violate the First Amendment. The LAPD hand selected a very small "media pool" to cover the eviction and severely restricted where they were allowed to go, what they were allowed to cover and when they were allowed to do so. What's very disappointing is that many members of the media seemed to be OK with this. Being hand fed information from authorities is NOT journalism.

I love this tweet from Wil Wheaton last night, "LAPD now telling media to leave. As Authoritarians are so fond of saying, 'if you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?'"

Here are some sources concerning the media restrictions.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/11/occupy_la_eviction_lapd_pool_media.php
http://laist.com/2011/11/29/censorship_warning_lapd_handpicks_media.php

>> Conclusion? It's not SWP stuff, and I've
probably just been trolled. <<


Well I for one appreciate your considered analysis
of that list Otto. (Most of the trolls seem to be off
somewhere pleasuring themselves or tossing their
banana skins under the wheels of progress).

Must confess swl's post was the first time I'd seen such
a comprehensive list from the Occupants. It's somewhat
ironic that it was posted by swl who has said he opposes,
or at least is highly sceptical of, the movement.

It seems humanist and caring in its content; it may
have echoes of Christian or Socialist values, but as
you point out it does appear to be original and grass-
rooted in public opinion and not just some re-spouting
of any previous dogma either Socialist or Christian.



Also, applause all round to those who have resisted the
very real temptation to yikes several of the above posts
many of which have been clearly ad hominem and fractious.
It is important that we see who the fools are and how rude
they can be.


Again, thank you Otto for your re-evaluation of the basic
tenets of Occupation. I think I understand their agenda a
bit better now. God, I even have to agree with them.

Now if only there were a way to get the message out. Maybe
a good old fashioned 'sit-in' would get some attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit-in

Off to follow the LA links.

~jwf~

PS:
the very first sit in was at Woolworth's in 1960
http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/sit-ins.html

@Squiggles:

>>It is important that we see who the fools are and how rude they can be.

I think some students tried a sit-in and got pepper sprayed...

Thanks jwf.

I think the point of Occupy is to discuss and decide, not to turn up with a ready-made solution. London Occupy as this to say http://occupylsx.org/?p=1526

But don't expect much in the way of mainstream coverage or discussion in the media. They're just restricting themselves to covering it as an event or oddity and ignoring the point and the message almost completely. Marches, occupations etc are only ever covered as events and the possibility of violence, and the real issues are largely ignored.

I think you're entirely right to see socialist (small s) and Christian values in there. The message seems to me that inequality of wealth and of power has got wildly out of control, both nationally and internationally, and that something ought to be done. And it's very, very hard to ignore this conclusion.

The worst thing about the news coverage in the UK is that they keep calling Occupy anti-capitalists. They're not, they just recognise that capitalism is broken.

Actually...Anti-Capitalist is an altogether odd term. Even Marxists aren't really anti-Capitalist - but that's a looooong story and let's not go there.

Try this instead. Ha-Joon Chang, leading economist author of '23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism' taught at Occupylsx's 'tent University'. He wrote thusly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/anti-capitalist-occupy-pigeonholing

while those near where I live (Michigan) agree that the 1% are not doing enough to help others, the calls by occupy to shop local on Black Friday went largely unheeded as the shoppers went to the big chain stores like they normally do.

My problem isn't that 1% aren't doing enough to help others but that the 1% are doing everything they can to screw everyone else. They have the money and influence that negates representative democracy. Billionaires are financing the campaigns of millionaires who after leaving office make more millions and billions influencing their replacements. While in office they enact laws written BY and FOR the moneyed interests, not those that they nominally represent.

The latest news would seem to indicate that the UK and the US are preparing to Occupy ........ Iran.

What message does Iran send by NOT OCCUPYING
the British Embassy in Tehran. Back in 1980 they had
OCCUPIED the US embassy long enough to cost
Jimmy Carter the Presidency.

Maybe Occupy is old hat these days.
Maybe the Iranians are onto something new here
with the smashing and burning and stealing
portraits of the Queen.


~jwf~

Well, are these "students protesters" really students? I heard a report that they may be the same bunch who were cracking the skulls of the protesters in Tehran a couple of years ago. This "protest" may be a bit more sanctioned than most protests.

>> The pair of you would do well to address the post, not the poster

I agree. Apparently the new moderation standard on h2g2 is that people are allowed to be rude and mean so long as they're expressing an opinion. However I am enjoying the wider range of people in this thread now, and would like SWL to feel there is enough space for him (esp if it's going to lead to such wonderful posts from Otto ). I'm looking at you Ed (and really, you have more than enough ammo in your actual arguments without resorting to being mean too).