• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the OWS against Capitalism?

Is the OWS Movement against Capitalism?


  • Total voters
    69
This is rather ironic twist of assertions. The protesters themselves claim to be unified as the 99% and assert that they are a focused movement. Yet you guys claim that they are not. DOesnt your position just play into the Rights hand? Everywhere else the debate is the opposite.

Are you seriously suggesting that a group that claims to contain members of 99% of the population thinks consistently about anything? Does 99% of the population think consistently about any remotely serious issue? No? Okay then.
 
This is rather ironic twist of assertions. The protesters themselves claim to be unified as the 99% and assert that they are a focused movement. Yet you guys claim that they are not. DOesnt your position just play into the Rights hand? Everywhere else the debate is the opposite.

Or maybe you are just unable to understand nuance.

The 99% are protesting the fact that 1% owns the most wealth in our nation and they are against the undue influence that the financial institutions exert over our government institutions.

So who makes up these OWS protesters? A number of different type of people.

* College students, who are deeply in debt trying to get an education to help them get a job but requires them to get so deep in loans that their salary or wages can't realistically pay back.

* The elderly, who rely on government assistance to live after they've become too old to earn money in the work force.

* Socialists, who see the growing gap in wealth as damaging to our country and seek to use the government to implement policies to lessen that gap in wealth so all Americans can enjoy a better standard of living.

* Anarchists, who government institutions as immoral authorities over people that inherently become tools of economic elites and therefore prefer a society without any government institutions that can intrude on the individual liberties and freedoms of the people.

So on one hand we have socialists who want to use government authority to protect their economic interests and on the other hand we have anarchists who want to prohibit government authority to infringe on anyone's economic interests.

So if that's the case then how could they possibly come to a single solution?
 
This is rather ironic twist of assertions. The protesters themselves claim to be unified as the 99% and assert that they are a focused movement. Yet you guys claim that they are not. DOesnt your position just play into the Rights hand? Everywhere else the debate is the opposite.

Exactly. If every person in OWS is just involved for their own ideology, or whatever, and there is no unified message at all, why should anyone really give a **** what their "demands" or "grievances" are?
 
Are you seriously suggesting that a group that claims to contain members of 99% of the population thinks consistently about anything? Does 99% of the population think consistently about any remotely serious issue? No? Okay then.

That's another thing, I resent the fleabaggers saying they speak for me, they don't and I am not in the top 1%.
 
That's another thing, I resent the fleabaggers saying they speak for me, they don't and I am not in the top 1%.

Neither do the politicians you probably vote for, but that's neither here nor there. Do you have anything substantive to add about my last response to you?
 
Exactly. If every person in OWS is just involved for their own ideology, or whatever, and there is no unified message at all, why should anyone really give a **** what their "demands" or "grievances" are?

Because the first step in recovery is admitting there's a problem.
 
Neither do the politicians you probably vote for, but that's neither here nor there.
I know some libs like to believe they know what's better for me than I do, but, if you don't mind, I'll decide if the politicians I support speak for me or not.

Do you have anything substantive to add about my last response to you?
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I'm asking why you don't want OWS to be seen as being anti-capitalism and, so far, all you've told me is that that they all don't think the same. Fine. I got that, but how does it answer what I've been asking?
 
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. I'm asking why you don't want OWS to be seen as being anti-capitalism and, so far, all you've told me is that that they all don't think the same. Fine. I got that, but how does it answer what I've been asking?

Um... Isn't it obvious at this point, given your understanding that they have diverse opinions? If the movement is seen as anti-capitalist when that's only a subset of what they're doing (i.e. when only a subset of the movement actually is anti-capitalist), you're ignoring large chunks of what they're interested in discussing. That's a bad thing. It tends to propagate bull**** narratives.
 
Because the first step in recovery is admitting there's a problem.
Well, the problems that I see are not the same as what OWS protests against. I guess the difference is, I don't resent someone else's financial success and I don't feel entitled to part of it.
 
Well, the problems that I see are not the same as what OWS protests against. I guess the difference is, I don't resent someone else's financial success and I don't feel entitled to part of it.

Neither do they (for the most part). This is exactly what I'm getting at. You're writing a false narrative in your head and ascribing it to the entire movement. That's neither rational nor particularly useful.
 
Who said this:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth of the nation is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.

Once the author is determined it should be realized that the motivations and goals of OWS have been a LONG time in coming.
 
Well, the problems that I see are not the same as what OWS protests against. I guess the difference is, I don't resent someone else's financial success and I don't feel entitled to part of it.

Okay. That's your right to feel that way.

And the advocates of various political philosophies see a widening gap in wealth in the United States and are seeing more influence over the government by economic elites and while they may not agree what to do as a solution to those problems those advocates agree that those are problems endangering our nation.
 
Neither do they (for the most part). This is exactly what I'm getting at. You're writing a false narrative in your head and ascribing it to the entire movement. That's neither rational nor particularly useful.

What's also not particularly useful is a complete lack of recognition or concern that OWS just might be, at least in part, responsible for how they're perceived.
 
Who said this:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth of the nation is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.

Once the author is determined it should be realized that the motivations and goals of OWS have been a LONG time in coming.

Yeah, I agree, Lincoln did have a great point.

But I also like something Kennedy had to say.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
 
What's also not particularly useful is a complete lack of recognition or concern that OWS just might be, at least in part, responsible for how they're perceived.

Dude. Take some personal responsibility. You and I have access to largely the same set of info about OWS and have managed to reach significantly different conclusions (to be fair, I probably have access to slightly better info, given where I live and who I know, but still). So yeah, of course they're somewhat responsible for how they're perceived, but you're responsible for doing your own research, and you definitely should take responsibility for your own conclusions.
 
Okay. That's your right to feel that way.
Thanks just the same but I don't need you to tell me I don't have to agree with the 99%ers even though they arrogantly claim to speak for me.

And the advocates of various political philosophies see a widening gap in wealth in the United States and are seeing more influence over the government by economic elites and while they may not agree what to do as a solution to those problems those advocates agree that those are problems endangering our nation.
"Various political philosophies"? LOL Is there really any doubt that OWS is a left wing movement?
 
"Various political philosophies"? LOL Is there really any doubt that OWS is a left wing movement?

Is there really any doubt that "the left wing" encompasses various political philosophies?
 
Thanks just the same but I don't need you to tell me I don't have to agree with the 99%ers even though they arrogantly claim to speak for me.

"Various political philosophies"? LOL Is there really any doubt that OWS is a left wing movement?

If your mind can only handle a thought as either being left-wing or right-wing then I don't think there's any use in talking nuance with you.

Especially when the right-wing is divided into various political philosophies such as paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, the Religious Right, libertarians, and the Tea Party populists.
 
If your mind can only handle a thought as either being left-wing or right-wing then I don't think there's any use in talking nuance with you.

Especially when the right-wing is divided into various political philosophies such as paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, the Religious Right, libertarians, and the Tea Party populists.

Is there something particularly surprising or offensive that a right winger, such as myself, would not be supportive of a left wing movement, any more than you could support a right wing movement? Climb off that high horse, Sam, before you fall off.
 
The NYCGA are the fathers of the movement shouldnt their opinions matter I mean there would not be an OWS if it were not for them.

The NYCGA are NOT the fathers of the movement...they are merely the first of the useful idiots. You'll have to look elsewhere for those that originated OWS.

As I said in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Wake
I have heard that the OWS is not against capitalism at all, though I have seen many OWS groups and signs that indicate they are indeed against capitalism. What is the truth? Are they against capitalism or not? I wuld reason that during their earlier days they came to protest against businesses and corporations, which are all a part of capitalism. What do you think about this? I see OWS members on YouTube chanting against the crimes of capitalism while holding their signs that reflect their belief.

If you are referring to the useful idiots in the parks...who knows and who cares?

If you are referring to those who started this whole shebang...of course they are.
 
Is there something particularly surprising or offensive that a right winger, such as myself, would not be supportive of a left wing movement, any more than you could support a right wing movement? Climb off that high horse, Sam, before you fall off.

No.

What's offensive is that instead of using your intelligence to look at all the difference aspects of any political movement you decide to lump it into either one broad category or another broad category without considering that there may be political ideologies that defy both those categories.

But the person who should be most offended by you doing that is yourself because you can be smarter than that.
 
Or maybe you are just unable to understand nuance.

The 99% are protesting the fact that 1% owns the most wealth in our nation and they are against the undue influence that the financial institutions exert over our government institutions.

So who makes up these OWS protesters? A number of different type of people.

* College students, who are deeply in debt trying to get an education to help them get a job but requires them to get so deep in loans that their salary or wages can't realistically pay back.

* The elderly, who rely on government assistance to live after they've become too old to earn money in the work force.

* Socialists, who see the growing gap in wealth as damaging to our country and seek to use the government to implement policies to lessen that gap in wealth so all Americans can enjoy a better standard of living.

* Anarchists, who government institutions as immoral authorities over people that inherently become tools of economic elites and therefore prefer a society without any government institutions that can intrude on the individual liberties and freedoms of the people.

So on one hand we have socialists who want to use government authority to protect their economic interests and on the other hand we have anarchists who want to prohibit government authority to infringe on anyone's economic interests.

So if that's the case then how could they possibly come to a single solution?
Those are the type of thing that make up an platform. Are political parties not unified because they have multiple ideals that they promote?

BTW correction the protesters are not the 99% they are only a portion of the 99%. More specifically the protesters are from the Left. Prove me wrong but there is no one on the Right that supports the occupy movement.
 
The NYCGA are NOT the fathers of the movement...they are merely the first of the useful idiots. You'll have to look elsewhere for those that originated OWS.

As I said in a previous post:
Really? and where would I look for these people? If you have some link that sheds some light on this subject dont by shy share it.

BTW I do have theories on who and what is behind the recent Leftist movements but I have nothing concrete to share. So any input you have would be appreciated. Because it is obvious that this is an organized attack on America IMO.
 
Those are the type of thing that make up an platform. Are political parties not unified because they have multiple ideals that they promote?

No, those are not the things that make up a platform. What I listed were just a few of the constituent groups of the OWS movement, and each constituent group has their own belief separate from the beliefs of the other constituent group.

And, yes, political parties have multiple ideas. But the various groups within OWS may have conflicting ideas that prevent it from being what you would call a third party.

As I stated before, some groups that have associated with the OWS are socialists and anarchists. Socialists seek to use government as a tool for various policies. Anarchists seek to eliminate government altogether for various reasons. These means that the multiple ideals that socialists and anarchists have are incompatible with each other for them to unite as a single political party.

BTW correction the protesters are not the 99% they are only a portion of the 99%. More specifically the protesters are from the Left. Prove me wrong but there is no one on the Right that supports the occupy movement.

Just because a group is not of the Right does not necessarily mean that it is also of the Left.
 
Back
Top Bottom