• 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
Yes, the workers built the factories.
Yes some people working built the factory. And they were paid for their time.

Today I helped my neighbor put a roof over her woodpile. According to your logic do I now own the wood shed?
 
Who cares? ANd what does it have to do with me?

Why are you pretending that you forgot what you said?

WHy is it that millions of Americans can and do work for a better life yet the occupiers cant seem to figure out how to do it themselves?

OWSers are more likely to have a job that teabaggers while the teabaggers are more likely to be dependent on govt assistance
 
If I was interested, I would have written more.

And now, I have responded to your question. It is the same as for the bottom 1%. Both groups have 0% because neither work in construction.

I have held my end of the bargain, but you are never going to hold your end of the bargain.

Sorry, but your asking another question is not an answer to my question

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
 
Sorry, but your asking another question is not an answer to my question

What portion of the 1% died while working construction?
I wrote the answer to your question in the post above. Look at paragraph 2.

I knew you couldn't be trusted.
 
No you are the assuming, I did not imply any such thing. I was throwing out the juxtapose to this. I am pointed out that people do work hard in America and move forward, that it is not impossible.

You are right, i misread your original post. I think you are the person that said "current economic conditions, combined with three decades of stagnant wages for pretty much the entire country have made that impossible." is speaking in hyperbole, and you are right to say that it is possible. But the question I guess is to what extent does working hard and playing by the rules translate into upward movement. In today's economy, I think nothing is promised, regardless of how hard you work. And I think the OWS people see banks who exploited the system to their own advantage, who are largely culpable for the crisis we are in, continuing to profit, continuing to give themselves huge bonuses, continuing to live freely - not being persecuted for their crimes, while many people who did play by the rules are losing their jobs due to forces that are outside of their control. And so they are expressing their frustration.
 
I actually watched a documentary today with a reporter who joined the OWS movement in an attempt to udnerstand their goals. I have to say I was surprised to see the OWS through the eyes of someone uncensored by the major media news channels. I used to think of them as jobless hippies but in truth there are some major political concerns that the OWs brings up that I find myself agreeing with.

No the OWS movement is not against capitalism they actually support the idea in general however when it comes to matters of say in political matters they do not believe that politicans should be bought out before they ever even get into office. And I have to say I agree with them in this respect. Our political system here in america is too heavily reliant on the money flow, people who are owners of big buisnesses have the biggest political say and for the most part almost all politicians are worried about one thing, getting re-elected.

In order to get re-elected they need to follow the guidelines of the two biggest contributers to their campaign funds
1: Big buisness/lobbyist
2: their political party affiliation.

With both of these matters in mind a politicians ability to vote on an issue in true regard to their own opinion is limited in a most severe matter. If they do not represent those who helped them get into office, the chances are they will never get re-elected as they will not have the cash pool to pull from. Because of this politicians have the tendency to play it safe in most regards and only follow the will of their political party on any given issue. This is why the supercommittee we had recently failed. Two sides that will argue on any given issue no matter what with no form of compromise. No side ever wants to be the one to break party rules.

Back on the topic of the OWS movement I have actually seen a few people with signs saying 'up with capitalism down with greed' while I could not tell you the exact meaning of this sign I suppose we can infer that it has to with the ideas of those who put in a large amount of effort will get greaer rewards than those who put in less effort and the idea that anyone in America could start a buisness if they wanted and it would be up to them to make it successful. In our corrent society those huge companies who buy out politicians have a LARGE amount of control, so much that those smaller stores really just can't compete in the market. Somehting else I can infer is that this is of course referring to massive government bailouts on corporation of which they have had a lot of stock or credit with. As I stated before that is only what I can infer from this.

I encourage all of you to keep in mind what I said before however that the OWS main goal is to fight against political corruption in our government caused by the money flow and in the sense I support them.

Thank you. This is in my opinion the main focus of the OWS movement as well. I think there are plenty of other ideas floating around, which there should be. And some of these ideas are well-intentioned, but in my opinion not well thought out, or at least not appropriate in the time we are living right now. Unfortunately, people seize upon the ideas that they disagree with and assume that is what the movement is all about. Is the documentary online?
 
So we have different opinions on the matter. If OWS was more transparent perhaps I would have a different opinion.

OWS is incredibly transparent. Find your local branch and go have a conversation with some of them. They'll be happy to discuss their beliefs, and yours as well.


Adbusters created a premise for OWS, which is anti-Capitalism. 3 seconds at adbusters site should be telling enough on that subject.

Once again, I'm not disputing either that Adbusters is anti-capitalism, or that they created the seed for OWS. What I am disputing is the degree to which Adbusters currently plays a role in OWS. The simple fact is that they are, at most, one of many different groups within OWS. There have been several articles that will confirm this. I cited a couple of them a page or two back.




How can you be so sure about OWS when they represent themselves as not an organization but cells of individuals working for their own beliefs and by their own methods? Are you saying that OWS is unified in their goals as a whole? An who exactly are "they"?

To be clear: I'm not suggesting that there aren't elements within OWS that are anti-capitalism. There are left-anarchist elements and socialists involved in the movement. What I am suggesting is that of the many, many strands of thought that are present within OWS, the anti-capitalist elements are a minority, and to the extent that one could reasonably create an aggregate throughline of their beliefs ("their" in this case referring to the entire movement), you would find that they are not, on the whole, opposed to capitalism. They're frustrated by the current crony-capitalism endemic to our nation and the corrupt political entrenchment that perpetuates such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Out sourcing obviously is a problem and has been for decades. Tariffs on those companies would solve the problem.

Do you support the bill to end subsidies to companies outsourcing jobs?

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Companies would get a break on payroll taxes for creating new jobs in the United States under a bill coming up for a vote in the Senate this week.

To get relief from the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax, companies would have to certify that a new U.S. worker is replacing an employee who’d been working overseas.

"Introduced last week by Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, the bill also would end subsidies for firms that move facilities abroad."

Senate Democrats target job outsourcing - MarketWatch
 
No you haven't. You've posted links showing that Adbusters was involved with catalyzing the movement, which is also mentioned, in greater detail, in the first article I linked in my last post. If you read that article, you'll notice that practically the very first thing that happened at the initial gathering is that there was friction between the die hard anarchist Adbuster fans, and the other group involved. The other thing you'll notice is that basically none of the people who are influential with the NY General Assembly have anything to do with Adbusters.

So, you've really got to ask yourself, if this is an Adbusters movement, why do they have no control over what is happening, and why does OWS not actually support their politics, in general (which you'd have noticed by now, if you weren't dead set on dismissing the entire movement as useful idiots)?

You didn't read all my links. Furthermore, the links I provided are not all of the information available concerning Adbuster's control and direction of OWS...it was a starting point for a member's research. Perhaps you need to do some research as well.
 
You didn't read all my links. Furthermore, the links I provided are not all of the information available concerning Adbuster's control and direction of OWS...it was a starting point for a member's research. Perhaps you need to do some research as well.

I did read all your links. They don't really say what you're claiming they say. The reinforce the facts (that I freely admit) that Adbusters had a hand in creating the seed for OWS (although the wikipedia entry has some bad info on how that went down), and that Adbusters is an anti-capitalist group. None of your links say much of anything about how influential Adbusters is in the movement at the moment. By contrast, if you look at the info I provided you a couple of pages ago, you'll find that it does lead to some conclusions on that point. Conclusions you're not going to like.
 
In somewhat-related news, I saw on the TV news today, during my break at work, a story about a local “medical” marijuana dispensary that is going out of business. Supposedly, they are going to be holding some event in which they are going to give out their remaining inventory for free.

It has occurred to me that if the Sacramento police would like to temporarily clear Chavez park of the vermin that are currently “occupying” it, that a very easy way to do so would be to spread word there about this event. Surely, no OccuVermin would pass up the chance at free pot.
 
I did read all your links. They don't really say what you're claiming they say. The reinforce the facts (that I freely admit) that Adbusters had a hand in creating the seed for OWS (although the wikipedia entry has some bad info on how that went down), and that Adbusters is an anti-capitalist group. None of your links say much of anything about how influential Adbusters is in the movement at the moment. By contrast, if you look at the info I provided you a couple of pages ago, you'll find that it does lead to some conclusions on that point. Conclusions you're not going to like.

Your links only show that individual useful idiots may or may not even be aware of Adbusters...that individual useful idiots may or may not be aware of the influence Adbusters has on the course and direction of the movement. But if you read the blog entries from Adbusters, themselves, it's very easy to see that what they propose in their blogs...happens. So, even though individual useful idiots may think they are directing their own course...they are not.
 
In somewhat-related news, I saw on the TV news today, during my break at work, a story about a local “medical” marijuana dispensary that is going out of business. Supposedly, they are going to be holding some event in which they are going to give out their remaining inventory for free.

It has occurred to me that if the Sacramento police would like to temporarily clear Chavez park of the vermin that are currently “occupying” it, that a very easy way to do so would be to spread word there about this event. Surely, no OccuVermin would pass up the chance at free pot.

or free food.
 
Do you support the bill to end subsidies to companies outsourcing jobs?

"WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Companies would get a break on payroll taxes for creating new jobs in the United States under a bill coming up for a vote in the Senate this week.

To get relief from the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax, companies would have to certify that a new U.S. worker is replacing an employee who’d been working overseas.

"Introduced last week by Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, the bill also would end subsidies for firms that move facilities abroad."

Senate Democrats target job outsourcing - MarketWatch

Yes I support it. I think it could be better but when you read what the opposition rational, I think anything is better than what they assert:
“Replacing a job that is based in another country with a domestic job does not stimulate economic growth or enhance the competitiveness of American worldwide companies,” wrote Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s vice president for government affairs, in a letter to senators last week.
Basically the Chamber is asserting that Americans dont need jobs. Either way one could spin that it is ****ed up.
 
Your links only show that individual useful idiots may or may not even be aware of Adbusters...that individual useful idiots may or may not be aware of the influence Adbusters has on the course and direction of the movement. But if you read the blog entries from Adbusters, themselves, it's very easy to see that what they propose in their blogs...happens. So, even though individual useful idiots may think they are directing their own course...they are not.

Bull****. If you read the first article I posted, you'll see, first, that the very first thing that happened after Adbusters initiated a meeting with another organization is that there was friction between the two. You'd also notice that the leadership of the general assembly in New York has basically no ties to Adbusters. You're engaged in a very sad attempt at wishful thinking right now.
 
Bull****. If you read the first article I posted, you'll see, first, that the very first thing that happened after Adbusters initiated a meeting with another organization is that there was friction between the two. You'd also notice that the leadership of the general assembly in New York has basically no ties to Adbusters. You're engaged in a very sad attempt at wishful thinking right now.
Thats not exactly accurate.

David Graeber: On Playing By The Rules On August 2, I showed up at a 7 PM meeting at Bowling Green, that a Greek anarchist friend, who I’d met at a recent activist get together at 16 Beaver Street, had told me was meant to plan some kind of action on Wall Street in mid-September. At the time I was only vaguely aware of the background: that a month before, the Canadian magazine Adbusters had put out the call to “Occupy Wall Street”, but had really just floated the idea on the internet, along with some very compelling graphics, to see if it would take hold; that a local anti-budget cut coalition top-heavy with NGOs, unions, and socialist groups had tried to take possession of the process and called for a “General Assembly” at Bowling Green. The title proved extremely misleading. When I arrived, I found the event had been effectively taken over by a veteran protest group called the Worker’s World Party, most famous for having patched together ANSWER one of the two great anti-war coalitions, back in 2003. They had already set up their banners, megaphones, and were making speeches—after which, someone explained, they were planning on leading the 80-odd assembled people in a march past the Stock Exchange itself.
Adbusters did not initiate a meeting.
 
Bull****. If you read the first article I posted, you'll see, first, that the very first thing that happened after Adbusters initiated a meeting with another organization is that there was friction between the two. You'd also notice that the leadership of the general assembly in New York has basically no ties to Adbusters. You're engaged in a very sad attempt at wishful thinking right now.

Problems with reading comprehension on your part, I see.

"Encouraged by the quick online response, White connected with New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, which had previously organized an occupation-style action, called Bloombergville, and was already planning an August 2nd rally at the “Charging Bull” to protest cuts that would likely result from the federal debt crisis. They agreed to join forces, and N.Y.A.B.C. said that it would devote part of its upcoming rally to planning for the September 17th occupation.

This resulted in some confusion on August 2nd, when scores of graduate students and labor activists showed up, expecting a rally for New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts. They erected a small stage and began giving amplified speeches, which alienated the roughly fifty Adbusters supporters, mostly anarchists, who came expecting a planning session. There was some angry shouting before a group of anarchists broke off, sat down in a circle on the cobblestones, and held their own meeting.

The anarchists immediately agreed to use “horizontal” organizing methods, according to which meetings are known as general assemblies and participants make decisions by consensus and give continuous feedback through hand gestures. Moving one’s fingers in an undulating motion, palm out, pointing up, means approval of what’s being said. Palm in, pointing down, means disapproval. Crossed arms signals a “block,” a serious objection that must be heard. Some participants knew this style of meeting from left-wing traditions stretching back to the civil-rights movement and earlier."

The friction was the result of differences in expectations...a communications breakdown, if you will. The Adbusters supporters...the anarchists...held their planning meeting and came up with the "general assembly" concept and procedures. So, the ties are there for you to read about.

Furthermore, in the early part of the article, we get this:

"Lasn and White quickly hammered out a post-Zuccotti plan. White would draft a new memorandum, suggesting that Phase I—signs, meetings, camps, marches—was now over. Phase II would involve a swarming strategy of “surprise attacks against business as usual,” with the potential to be “more intense and visceral, depending on how the Bloombergs of the world react.” White could hear the excitement in Lasn’s voice. Even as Lasn vented about the morning’s counterrevolution, he was doing what he could not to splash."

Shortly after, this appears on the Adbuster's blog: After the Encampments | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters


btw, you article even confirms that Lasn is an anti-capitalist.

Your article does more to bolster my contention than it does for yours.
 
About Us | OccupyWallSt.org
OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations.
This is exactly what I thought the OWS movement was all about but, a lot of times other people with different agendas like to muddy the waters.
 
So far the results are
yes 17 for 3852.78%,
no 27 for 2940.28% &
5 for 6.94%.
I have to go back to school 'cuz I don't get this.
Also, I don't understand the bar length.
 
Last edited:
Why are you pretending that you forgot what you said?



OWSers are more likely to have a job that teabaggers while the teabaggers are more likely to be dependent on govt assistance
Thats great but I am not a Teabagger, so it really means nothing to me, since I was talking about millions of Americans not some faction within them.

But why dont you answer my question? DO I now own my neighbors would shed since I built it for her? She paid for all of the materials I only did the work. I didnt even charge her for my time. Yet those workers you talked about that built the factory were paid for their time. And those workers most likely would not be the same workers working inside the factory. So your rational is really weird. Should the workers that built the factory own the factory or should the workers in the factory own the factory? And what about the people that made the building materials? Are all of these people entitled to ownership yet the person who spent their money to purchase the materials and labor has no entitlement to their own investment? Why would any rational human being invest in society if society just takes it all away?

And where does such practice end? Most of the things that I own were made by other people. DO they own these things instead of me? IMO philosophically Karl Marx was an hypocritical idiot. He only theorized intellectual drivel that cannot be applied to the real world.
 
Yes I support it. I think it could be better but when you read what the opposition rational, I think anything is better than what they assert:

Basically the Chamber is asserting that Americans dont need jobs. Either way one could spin that it is ****ed up.


I am glad we found something we both could agree on! Its a shame the GOP is blocking this bill.
 
OWS isnt against capitalism. They are against an unfair tax system that allows wealthy that allows wealthy to pay less taxes than them. They are against "too big to fail." Where were the main st bailouts? Wall st got bailed out. They want campaign finance reform, progressive tax system, reinstatement of glass-steagall act, etc. This isn't some anti capitalist movement. What we have in the US isnt capitalism. Its Socialism for the wealthy.
 
Back
Top Bottom