Occupy people... Don't argue with a former USSRen about socialism..

[russianrocket]

I might have been too young to really understand USSR, but I definitely got to hear it from the dozen or so family members that got to experience it.

Like this man.

Breitbart.tv » Former Soviet Citizen Confronts Socialists At #OccupyWallStreet

[James Fletcher]

The level of ignorance of those socialist people is frightening. Hilarious too actually, but still frightening.

When asked the difference between North and South Korea:

The workers of North Korea get paid a decent wage.

It gets worse.

Interviewer: And nobody imprisons them (North Koreans), nobody kills them, they're not dying from hunger?
Socialist lady: No.

I suppose, according to them, what we hear about the appalling conditions in North Korea and the images of emaciated children living in filth is just corporate media propaganda.

It's good to see somebody confronting these morons and showing the world what they actually believe.

[James Fletcher]

Also highly worth checking out. A former KGB operative explains Soviet tactics of subversion and demoralization.

Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete) - YouTube

The US may have won the Cold War, but I think the Occupy Wall Street crowd is proof enough it sustained some deep battle scars.

[MariconesUnited]

A couple of ignorant people in a crowd, and old angry dude and an obnoxious guy holding a camera. Nothing to see here zzzz

[Cado]

Occupy Wall Street is not a socialist movement. There are people in the crowd who are gung-ho anti-capitalists but no one is seriously pressing for socialism. The big push is for governmental and corporate accountability. Putting the focus on people like this means completely ignoring the valid grievances which set this in motion in the first place.

This is also about our first amendment rights and freedom to protest. The fact that more people aren't absolutely livid about things like this is a travesty. You don't have to support Occupy Wall Street to see how terrible this is for us in the long haul. If we give up our right to a voice outside of national elections then we'll have no voice when they buy the whole political system-something which has already happened and needs to be undone.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Cado

This is also about our first amendment rights and freedom to protest. The fact that more people aren't absolutely livid about things like this is a travesty.

Exactly! We have the right to peacefully petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's one of the cornerstones of a free society.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Cado

This is also about our first amendment rights and freedom to protest. The fact that more people aren't absolutely livid about things like this is a travesty. You don't have to support Occupy Wall Street to see how terrible this is for us in the long haul. If we give up our right to a voice outside of national elections then we'll have no voice when they buy the whole political system-something which has already happened and needs to be undone.

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Exactly! We have the right to peacefully petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's one of the cornerstones of a free society.

I'm with you guys, here, which is why I still harbor, in the bottom of my heart, support for the OWSers.

But, as Cado mentions above, you already have no voice, as the whole political system has been bought out, and is still trying to buy out even the OWS protesters, as Barack Obama's student loan relief proposal demonstrates clearly. Hence, while all this voicelessness needs to be undone, the voices are still crying for the oppressors to save them. This is what loses the movement its credibility as well as its strength.

If all protesters are really serious, they will not give in, nor will they give up, until the corruption ceases completely. Toward that end lies a long, dark, and treacherous road, and attempts will be made to co-opt you at every turn.

Just sayin'.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Beingist

If all protesters are really serious, they will not give in, nor will they give up, until the corruption ceases completely. Toward that end lies a long, dark, and treacherous road, and attempts will be made to co-opt you at every turn.

Just sayin'.

How do we define corruption however? In the broadest sense I don't think we can stop it completely whilst using a monetary system of any kind. Is that what you're advocating? Or maybe your definition is a little more narrow?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

How do we define corruption however? In the broadest sense I don't think we can stop it completely whilst using a monetary system of any kind. Is that what you're advocating? Or maybe your definition is a little more narrow?

If you can't stop the corruption, then the whole movement is simply wasting its time.

I'll reiterate that the corruption is the collusion between the private and the public sector, and it's been going on for more than half of the country's history. The left blames the private sector, the right blames the public sector, and all the while, both the corporate fat cats as well as the politicians are laughing at the whole thing, because while they fight each other, no one questions their collusion.

Can it be stopped completely? I have my doubts, as such would involve overturning over 150 years of accumulated legislation, including constitutional amendments. Calling a Constitutional Convention would help, but good luck getting the necessaries on board for that, and then even more good luck accomplishing a complete reworking of that, without the shrewd, subtle and subversive inclusion of the very legislation that it would be designed to overturn. Short of all that, the only answer I see is a violent one, sadly.

Whatever the end result--and I say this understanding the reasoning behind this thread--if it satisfies the designs of the extreme left, you can kiss everything goodbye. Everything.

[ZephyrusX]

Regardless of what political affiliation those people subscribe to, they have fears and concerns that correspond to real problems in governments and states. What I found despicable about the video is that the narrator took away the voice of those people (often literally by interrupting) by beating around some overly used concept - socialism - that largely has no real meaning any more. This is politics at its worse. This is just some jackass stroking his ego while failing to provide any real world value that may solve our problems.

It doesn't matter what political affiliations, aspirations or goals those protesters actually have. People like the guy in the video will always render them into a mere caricature of their fears as they are nothing more than mere objects to used for their inflated egos.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

A couple of ignorant people in a crowd, and old angry dude and an obnoxious guy holding a camera. Nothing to see here zzzz

[Mariana Trench]

Okay, I'm really sick of this fallacy (broadly, a fallacy of nonequivalent terms). But I think we need a new one specifically for political discussions: appeal to loaded words.

Our popular conceptions of the socialism vs capitalism "argument" are virtually meaningless to the twenty first century. All markets that work are mixed markets. All markets that work are mixed markets. All markets that work are mixed markets.

And still we parade around our proud, dearly held beliefs that say virtually nothing about how the systems we support actually work. Except maybe, that we don't like how the SU ran or how China runs. Congrats, welcome to the vast majority of the Western population.

So hey, let's throw all social programs out with that bathwater conflating them with mass-murdering dictators. Because it's never possible to separate very broad ideas in any degree from crazies who once preached it. Make sure to yell at your strawmen, too, that's always a sign of credibility.

[russianrocket]

The ignorance isn't only in the video. It seems to have spilled over into this thread. Hopefully I have some time today to counter all the arguments posed on here... Today is a busy day thus far.

[russianrocket]

Here is another video to tide you over.

Peter Schiff takes on 'The 99%' | MRCTV

You can NOT talk with these people. Aside from them having no clue how the real world works, they will scream over you and never let you actually say anything to try to get your point across. So, while the USSR guy was an ass ( he was actually playing a movie character, FYI) , he was getting responses that had no logical sense. Only so much you can argue with children.

[JDuff]

I agree with Mariana Trench.

You could do the same if you picked an ignorant person at a Tea Party rally.

I agree that mixed economies are the best. The question is - to what extent should the market be regulated, and what goods (for example opportunities or outcomes) should be distributed.

Lets assume we favour opportunities, and that the market in general raises living standards. We now have to ask if we want equality of opportunity. Most would say 'yes'.

There are two spheres - equality of opportunity to run for office, and equality of opportunity to access outcome-goods, for example health, good jobs, education and so on.

Equality of Opportunity assumes people taking responsibility for their own decisions and being responsible for their consequences. In which case, we should not allow opportunities to be affected by things people cannot choose, for example, if they are born disabled, or happen to be of a certain race, or brought up in a poor neighbourhood, or if their parents didn't save any money for their education, and so on.

In which case, for equality of personal opportunity, we should do away with unfair advantages, for example education where good degrees depend on how much money you are born into, for example. We should have benefits systems to compensate people for disabilities through brute luck, and realise that someone from a poor neighbourhood who does just as well in school as someone from a good school who is rich, is likely to be more intelligent if not at least more determined and of stronger character.

Regarding equality of opportunity in public life, money needs to be removed from the process of elections to avoid it being nothing more than token opportunity. This will be hard with the American system, but until you do, only really rich people who happen to be supported by big corporations will ever have a realistic opportunity. To expect a rich person who owes his success to big corporations, to then focus on the vast majority of citizens and their interests, is unlikely.

Libertarians focus on desert and responsibility for choices. But they forget that opportunities are not equal, and allow discrimination on brute luck. If you happen to be born into a poor family in a bad environment, tough, you will never be able to do x,y,z. If you are born disabled and poor, unlucky son! This is why it fails - whilst it is ambition-sensitive, it is endowment-insensitive.

A better theory takes into account both ambition and opportunity. It makes opportunity more than a hollow formality. It makes opportunity into something realistic.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

All markets that work are mixed markets. All markets that work are mixed markets. All markets that work are mixed markets.

Examples?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by JDuff

I agree that mixed economies are the best. The question is - to what extent should the market be regulated, and what goods (for example opportunities or outcomes) should be distributed.

Ah, there's the rub.

For the minute you allow government to do either, it will only insist on more. Give government an inch, and it will take a mile.

As witnessed in the United States, a prime example of a mixed economy, that, um, "works".

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Examples?

The United States and China.

For example, the US has environmental protection; employment laws (child labor, federal minimum wage); health regulations; tax-funded libraries, roads, schools, water; social security; welfare; tariffs...

Worked for a while, anyway.

[russianrocket]

In case anyone has seen Stossel, he's one of the people that is usually speaking up against all the crap that the Occupy people are against. While I dispise fox and orielly, I love Stossel.


Breitbart.tv » Stossel Visits #OccupyWallStreet

They don't let him speak. This is the way all the occupy people are. You can not get a word in edge wise. Tea Party, you can actually have a normal conversation. They both have crazies, but Occupy has much more.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The United States and China.

For example, the US has environmental protection; employment laws (child labor, federal minimum wage); health regulations; tax-funded libraries, roads, schools, water; social security; welfare; tariffs...

And all first world countries besides the US have public health care and privately owned businesses (not that one needs public health care for it to be considered a mixed market, but it's a very easy example to point to). There are so many examples of mixed markets that what would be more productive to ask is for examples of purely socialistic or purely capitalistic markets. They've all failed--though perhaps you could count black markets in the latter category.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

The United States and China.

For example, the US has environmental protection; employment laws (child labor, federal minimum wage); health regulations; tax-funded libraries, roads, schools, water; social security; welfare; tariffs...

Yes, and we can see how well the mixed economies of China and the U.S. "work".

It may also be wise to bear in mind that the economies of neither the U.S. nor China originated in their current mixed form.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Examples?

Lots of European countries, Scandanavian countries...

Not to say we don't have problems (I'm from the Netherlands), but there is a clear and (I believe) healthy mix between the parts where the government takes care of you, and protects you and where you have to and can make your own way in the world, and earn whatever you want to earn.

Insurance or not, nobody will die in the Netherlands because they cannot affort medicines. (actually health insurance is obligated in the Netherlands. Way to expensive, but... everybody has to have it. Those who haven't though aren't left out in the cold!)

Nobody has to die of hunger.

Nobody has to die from exposure.

Nobody has to have children that cannot read or write.

[Bliss Sage]

When I grew up, they were teaching that the USSR was communist, not socialist. Or are they two different things?

I totally agree with Sandra. I could have lived anywhere in North America or the EU. I came to Sweden because I knew I would be taken care of here. Many people in North America live in filthy dumps. You could never find such run-down, dilapidated buildings and such badly-kept rental buildings like they have all over North America. There are rules and regulations. You could never find a landlord so crappy that he would make you freeze in winter because he didn't want to waste his money on heat for your apartment--yet all of the places I lived in NYC were iceboxes in the winter because the landlords were cheap. There are high standards here, people can't behave like that.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

And all first world countries besides the US have public health care and privately owned businesses. There are so many examples of mixed markets that what would be more productive to ask is for examples of purely socialistic or purely capitalistic markets. They've all failed--though perhaps you could count black markets in the latter category.

Well, since the entire world, anymore, consists of mixed markets, then there's really nothing to compare it to, to say that anything else doesn't "work". Sort of makes the whole thing a moot point, doesn't it?

(Although that black markets are still around, and purely capitalistic says a lot about human nature, and thus, that even a mixed market exemplifies an attempt to dictate morality).

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Cado

Occupy Wall Street is not a socialist movement. There are people in the crowd who are gung-ho anti-capitalists but no one is seriously pressing for socialism. The big push is for governmental and corporate accountability. Putting the focus on people like this means completely ignoring the valid grievances which set this in motion in the first place.

This is also about our first amendment rights and freedom to protest. The fact that more people aren't absolutely livid about things like this is a travesty. You don't have to support Occupy Wall Street to see how terrible this is for us in the long haul. If we give up our right to a voice outside of national elections then we'll have no voice when they buy the whole political system-something which has already happened and needs to be undone.

Of course they are. I've talked to many people. I've seen many videos where they polled the crowd. They are absolutely a Socialist movement. They want the banks gone, and they want everyone elses money.

The big push, should be towards government deregulation, and taking power away from government. They are in front of BANKS. Wallstreet could not give a rats ass about these people. They are a mere musence to them.

They are yelling at people who are going to work. They are costing cities MILLIONS. They are disrupting honest small business in the area. They are shitting just about everywhere, be it a cop car, or peoples front porches. They are taking up public and private land, for FREE, and without a permit. Tea party, always got a permit for what they did. They paid for any insurance they had to get to cover it. They went, protested, and left CLEANLY. These people are staying the night, and then complaining to the government, that they aren't providing toilets for them.

I think you people misunderstanding the meaning behind what the constitution said. It does not give these people the right to camp out. You can peacefully assemble, but these people are destroying property. They are being a mob. When the city wants to clean up their mess, they come back as a flash mob and try to break through police barricades to get to their camp, and then blame the police! Show me in the constitution where these people have a right to live in the parks, against the rules of the parks, with out permits, and demand to receive help and free portable toilets ( to stop them from shitting on peoples porches), because I'd love to see that. Not to mention, the original park the occupied, is a PRIVATELY owned mark.

I don't understand how anyone can agree with what these people are doing. Yeah, we are all mad. We all hate what's going on. They aren't helping. They are making people more mad at the protesters, then the thing they are actually protesting about. And, almost non of them are in front of government buildings. They think that wall street and banks set policies and make laws and give out bailouts, when in reality, they only have a voice with government, and government is who says what will happen. So get mad at government! This is sheer lunacy. It's frustrated people, having no clue what they are mad at, but they just know they are mad, and can't actually figure out a real solution to it other then laying on the ground and crying for help.

I don't agree with a lot of what the Tea Party stands for, but do not compare them to these people. They are doing it the right way. They are getting results. They aren't causing a mess and havoc to all the INNOCENT people around them. They are only making things hard for government. Not to mention, the government is showing favoritism to Occupy, and aren't even making them get or pay for permits, when Tea Party was REQUIRED to do so, as well as get liability insurance. Doesn't surprise me tho, seeing how Occupy people aren't actually mad at the government, so the government is more then happy to get them on their side.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

When I grew up, they were teaching that the USSR was communist, not socialist. Or are they two different things?

I totally agree with Sandra. I could have lived anywhere in North America or the EU. I came to Sweden because I knew I would be taken care of here. Many people in North America live in filthy dumps. You could never find such run-down, dilapidated buildings and such badly-kept rental buildings like they have all over North America. There are rules and regulations. You could never find a landlord so crappy that he would make you freeze in winter because he didn't want to waste his money on heat for your apartment--yet all of the places I lived in NYC were iceboxes in the winter because the landlords were cheap. There are high standards here, people can't behave like that.

Sweden is TINY. You can not compare the two places. You have places in America the size of Sweden, that doesn't have filthy dumps. We are the size of many EU countries put together. Come on now. My family came to America, not because we knew we'd be taken care of. Because we knew WE would be able to take care of ourselves. That's the difference between the people who are self reliant, and those that want everything handed to them. My brothers REFUSED to get government assistance for college, and worked full time jobs and full time school, yet these occupy people want their college debt cleaned????

High standards are earned, not deserved. When the people are of high standard, then they have earned high standards. So many people in America have not earned the rights that they fight so hard to get.

Also, communism is an idea, and socialism is real. Socialism is the stepping stone to get to communism. We were never truly communism. Socialism takes over the country, and the government takes over everything and splits everything up "equally". Then, they are supposed to leave. But, power corrupts, and no one is willing to give up the power. So, if that's what they thought you in school... What country was this school in exactly?

PS, I'm related to Karl Marx, who came up with communism

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Exactly! We have the right to peacefully petition the government for a redress of grievances. That's one of the cornerstones of a free society.

"The right to peaceably assemble".....is not specifically defined by the constitution in terms of number of hours or days or when and where it can take place. The framers obviously left this part sufficienty vague in order to provoke people into a discussion.

Is a permit for 10 days ample length of time to assemble the people and have a meeting specifically to redress the government for grievances? Maybe, then maybe not. Then again, no permit has ever been gotten.. so that point is moot. Tell me, how long can they occupy the parks?

What about the rights of the Tea Party? What if they want to protest too, but these people take up all the spots, for WEEKS at a time, when Tea Party only goes out for one day, and then goes back to work? Why are they trampling on everyone elses rights to publicly assembly in public areas?

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Well, since the entire world, anymore, consists of mixed markets, then there's really nothing to compare it to, to say that anything else doesn't "work". Sort of makes the whole thing a moot point, doesn't it?

Not when a massive amount of economic political debates center around the words "capitalist" and "socialist", usually as a name to call, and it obscures the issues to an obscene degree.

(Although that black markets are still around, and purely capitalistic says a lot about human nature, and thus, that even a mixed market exemplifies an attempt to dictate morality).

There's a reason I said "perhaps"--there are special circumstances to black markets. One needs a power system to establish property-- and thus a market-- in the first place. Usually that's a government, but in black markets it's individual acts of violence and threat of being ratted out. So, there can still be rules to black markets that aren't purely capitalistic, they're just subject to any participant whim and will to enforce it, but so are the capitalistic rules.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Regardless of what political affiliation those people subscribe to, they have fears and concerns that correspond to real problems in governments and states. What I found despicable about the video is that the narrator took away the voice of those people (often literally by interrupting) by beating around some overly used concept - socialism - that largely has no real meaning any more. This is politics at its worse. This is just some jackass stroking his ego while failing to provide any real world value that may solve our problems.

It doesn't matter what political affiliations, aspirations or goals those protesters actually have. People like the guy in the video will always render them into a mere caricature of their fears as they are nothing more than mere objects to used for their inflated egos.

He was only doing it, because of the ignorance of the voices of those said people. It's really tough for him to hear that crap, knowing that he LIVED that , while these people want, what he escaped from, even tho they've never lived it. But, if you are upset at him taking their voice away, then you should be even more upset at the protesters, because they rarely let anyone speak. They usually yell and chant over them, and curse. Boy do they curse.

The man in the video WAS a caricature. That was the point.

[ZephyrusX]

You know what would be nice? Having a thread on World Affairs that actually addressees what is wrong (ie. wealth disparities, meaningful democracy, transparency and accountability of government) and addresses potential ways of fixing the problem. Preferably more specific possibilities that may be applicable to our current paths or professions.

As it is now, I feel another 'wanker' thread coming on. By that, I mean I feel another thread coming on where people just shoot each other down for ideological purposes and call into question each others' intelligence.

I'm disillusioned.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

As it is now, I feel another 'wanker' thread coming on. By that, I mean I feel another thread coming on where people just shoot each other down for ideological purposes and call into question each others' intelligence.

Hey, you better watch who you're calling a 'wanker,' you stupid, socialist git.



(that was a joke, in case you're not laughing).