The are a lot of [headdesk]s in there, for sure.
For God's sake, America. You're embarrassing us.
I'm just amazed at how completely the communication does not exist. There is no conversation being had, whatsoever.
One libertarian guy did write me to tell me that my old blog converted him. So that's at least one conversation.
5 to 3. Woohoo to 4, but I wish I could figure out how to do that sort of conversion wholesale, rather than one by one.
It only took me two or three years of writing daily to win one! At that pace, we can fix them all by... soon!
My best venue for conversion is definitely facebook, where impressionable minds who liked me in math class friend me, and then get a deluge of articles that I find worth sharing. Who knows how many of them block me later that same day.
And I figure this blog has probably repelled more libertarians than you converted. So a net loss.
To clarify, the link in the OP is a left-wing counter-response to one prominent right-wing response to OWS (and, more specifically, to the "We Are the 99%" tumblr/meme).
Wow, it's like h-g is reading my mind
Poulantzas and Socialist Strategy...Richard Seymour starts a 4-part series.
Before leaving the subject of class, it's worth stating that one of Poulantzas' most telling insights concerns the way in which 'class interests' should be understood. Here, he rejects the idea the idea that such interests can be determined from the relations of production themselves. The historicist (Hegelian) problematic sees class as a subject of history, with interests that can be inferred from its role as a factor in historical transformation. This raises the problem of how a class becomes aware of those interests and moves from being a class-in-itself to a class-for-itself. It also raises the deeply problematic notion of "false consciousness", to explain how a class fails to grasp its own interests. Instead, Poulantzas argues that 'class interests' are not computable outside the field of 'class practises' in a given conjuncture. That is to say, at any moment in the development of the class struggle there will be a series of 'objective' and 'subjective' factors which limit the working class's possible range of actions. These form a 'horizon of action', defining the maximum possible advances against opposing classes at any given moment. One of the determinants of this horizon is the form of political representation that the class has, which means that the 'interests' of a class in a given moment are susceptible to modification by political intervention, even if the objective circumstances have not changed.
What is really interesting is that I am also reading some Dumenil and Levy, who controversially posit a "managerial class" between the proletariat and bourgeoisie that determines the social relations after crises of neo-liberalism.
Feels like a sign
It makes an incredibly solid case that everyday Republican voters
I haven't clicked through, but I'm curious if republicans who engage in online conversations about politics are representative of "everyday Republican voters"?
I genuinely don't have a good sense of how much quote-unquote social media is mainstream discourse these days. Five years ago people discussing politics online were clearly a self-selecting minority but now?
You could also argue that people bothering to post online are likely to have (on average) more coherent and better informed opinions than people who don't. That's probably true but also depressing.
So a net loss.
No way, man. I get to keep the one I scored.
Fair enough. At that point, we've got nothing. I blame Shearer.
I've been... appalled? saddened?... by how often I hear conservatives and even moderates voicing dismissals of OWS along the lines of "well, none of those people have jobs, so it's not like they have anything better to do." Clearly, their implication is that these are the sort of people without jobs. The unproductive set. Whereas, if you listen, of course, the fact that they don't have jobs is a hell of a lot of their complaint. And, you know, even beyond that, to the extent they're complaining about things other than a lack of good jobs, of course it's people without jobs spending all goddamn day protesting in the park. Other people have jobs they have to go to. I'd be happy to be out there all day, but I have to work instead. What relevance does this have to anything? Do you agree with their message or not? Is what they're saying right or wrong? And yet people act like it's a goddamn conversation-ender. Why would we listen to anything those people are saying? They don't even have jobs. Fuck you. No, seriously, go fuck yourself, asshole.
You could also argue that people bothering to post online are likely to have (on average) more coherent and better informed opinions than people who don't.
Uhhhh, I don't know about that....
14: She plays loud music so the neighbors don't catch wind of the one she caught.
Sorry, I had a very aggravating lunch with a few right-wing spoiled rich kids, who happened to be potential clients so I had to be polite. Entitled, moronic assholes.
3 gets it right.
My parents have been telling me that my grandmother is getting really angry and worked up about OWS and calling it "class warfare." This would be the grandmother who lives on Social Security, cared for her bedridden husband for two decades supported mostly by government funds, and had her house remodeled by HUD. I really, really don't get it. She identifies with Wall Street employees more than with her children who've been struggling to find jobs for the last few years. No one can have a conversation with her about it because she gets so incredibly angry.
||
We have a new neighbor! A (handsome) gentleman environmental lawyer in his early thirties. In addition to providing flirtation material for Ali, I think we're all going to get along just fine musically.
|>
I've never understood why "class warfare" is a bad thing.
Essear, can you change her TV station? Or jam her radio signals? You might be able to get her back if she isn't fed on a diet of anger.
I think righteous indignation is just a really satisfying thing to experience and some people can't get enough of it.
Maybe we could distract people from getting angry about OWS by showing them babies crying in a CRIB!, or something.
23 could be to 19, I suppose, although I don't think it was intended that way. Sorry again.
I hope you're not apologizing for 16. 16 is perfect and exactly right.
Class warfare is perfectly fine, as long as the rich get to wage it unilaterally against everybody else and nobody fights back at any time. Simple.
I honestly don't know why people are still surprised that Republican voters live in a Bizzarro fantasyland. Didn't the last ten years of American politics make it perfectly clear that these politically speaking, these people basically disappeared headfirst up their own rectums a long time ago?
I mean, if you want to make fun of the "We are the 99%" people, it's not like there aren't valid things to criticize. You could start with this woman, who supposedly graduated summa cum laude from her four-year university, but spells "taxes" as "tax's".
This one is so depressing that I actually hope it's a mole. But I'm sure juxtapositions that bad are all over.
29: that 53% website does seem ripe for internet sabotage.
THE CANCER STILL GROWS. THAT IS THE AMERICAN DREAM.
Clearly, their implication is that these are the sort of people without jobs.
Who are, of course, the sort of people not invited to apply for current job openings, because they are the wrong sort of people.
I think my gang may all incorporate and employ each other just to stay off those lists. Laundry Taking-In, Inc. ...
Those are hilarious. But they do seem to presage something ... not good
27.2: DS is an outrage and indignation killer.
Applause for 16. There's an interesting article in the most recent Harper's about the extent to which we (for some value of 'we') are all Mormons now, the gist being that Mormonism embraced a sort of prosperity gospel before Protestants -- evangelicals, really -- did. The Harper's thing will be paywalled, I assume.
The idea, not exactly new, being that one's financial well-being is a reflection of the well-being or blessedness of one's soul. It's an amalgamation of the American pioneer spirit with the Protestant work ethic. This isn't news. It seems we're going through another revival period, though, one in which the formerly shaky alliance between the religious right and corporate capital has now been resolved - by prosperity gospel-ish stuff.
This response is sort of something, too.
Those are hilarious.
I've got some really bad news for you, ttaM. They're not supposed to be jokes.
Didn't the last ten thirty-five years of American politics make it perfectly clear that these politically speaking, these people basically disappeared head first up their own rectums a long time ago?
FTFY.
36 - Wuh?
38 -- Yeah, in general I'd say that the "We are the 53%" -- i.e., I've worked for my scraps, so fuck you and yours --mood has been the dominant one in the US for my lifetime, but is starting to fade as it begins to dawn on more and more people that they really are systematically fucked. That looks more like the past to me than the future.
Maybe that's over-optimistic, but there you go.
Didn't the last ten thirty-five 404 years of American politics make it perfectly clear that these politically speaking, these people basically disappeared head first up their own rectums a long time ago?
(Not to say that there haven't been moments of brilliance along the way, but it's mostly turtles all the way down.)
39.1: I think it's hilarious. Young heirs and heiresses proclaiming for the worker!
The scions of privilege should be holding up expensive tablets displaying signs formatted with fancy script-like fonts.
42: Better than the young heir I know, who doesn't give a shit about anyone besides himself and spends all his money on dope.
Actually, he's not really so young anymore.
Despite 43, I really do think that a successful movement is going to have support from within the 1%. This seems too obvious to state, but I'm stating it anyway.
Wasn't Karl Marx himself in the 1%?
Or was that Groucho Marx?
I read that NYC is going to remove OWS tomorrow morning.
Wasn't Karl Marx himself in the 1%?
I WISH
NYT says so. They're going to clean it because the owner of the property doesn't like it. They'll let people back in but not with any camping gear.
In a letter (see below) sent Tuesday to Mr. Kelly asking that the police remove the protesters, Brookfield's chief executive, Richard B. Clark, noted that the park was "intended to be a relaxing, tree-filled oasis in the midst of the hustle and bustle of Lower Manhattan."
He added that the activity of the protesters "violates the law, violates the rules of the park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment of the park and creates health and public safety issues that need to be addressed immediately."
He added that the activity of the protesters "violates the law, violates the rules of the park, deprives the community of its rights of quiet enjoyment of the park and creates health and public safety issues that need to be addressed immediately."
He was really emphatic on that second point.
No one can have a conversation with her about it because she gets so incredibly angry.
A solution presents itself.
50: Hm. Not the best news I've heard all day, by a long shot. Pretty much not funny.
Assuming it's true -- I haven't checked the twitters and whatnot -- I'm going to assume that our the people have a contingency plan.
Checking around briefly and concluding:
Guess I'll be going down to Occupy Baltimore or Occupy D.C. this weekend.
I had no idea that the park is private property.
I dunno, I think the response in 36 is great. Standing up and saying "Look, privileged people like me didn't get rich because we're virtuous, and poor people aren't poor because they're lazy" is a good message.
Bullshit if they clear it out to clean. I was there an hour ago and there had clearly been a lot of cleaning and they were getting people ready to do more. If they clear people out it's because someone's nervous and wants to exercise a little authority.
57: Right.
It's really hard to have an occupation or gathering given that pretty much everything is private or government-owned property. Burning Man and Rainbow organizations do a lot of work toward clearing the way in advance; it sounds to me as though some of the people involved in the Occupy movements have some experience in that, as well as in larger-scale organizing and decision-making that avoids top-heaviness.
I'm really hoping the OWS people might have scoped out some other place they can set up; then again, NYC is pretty damn crowded to begin with, scarcely an inch not dedicated to the private endeavors that make this country great. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)
I would be of the impression than an "occupation," given the terminology, should be going ahead whether or not property rights and legal niceties are invoked against it.
We've entered a new era, DS, and don't want to scare the nice people, so we mustn't get hung up on terminology: it's a visitation, say. A demonstration or gathering.
An occupation in violation of property rights and legal niceties invites arrests, and nice people don't want to get involved in that, and we want nice people to get on board. I think. think so.
I'm thinking about this.
Well, okay, arrests are definitely anticipated tomorrow at OWS, with some people being organized to gather at 6 a.m. to resist the clearing, which is due to begin at 7.
Mrm. For OWS this mostly means infighting: resist and occupy and be arrested, or play by the rules and find ways around them.
22
I've never understood why "class warfare" is a bad thing.
How about race warfare? Are you ok with that also?
How about race warfare?
Or gang warfare?
Or laser warfare?
Or nuclear warfare?
Be careful what you wish for, hippie!
or Star Warfare? or car washfare?
63: heh.
A Canadian company is apparently behind the eviction. That's how you know it's evil, right there.
You can sign a petition at that site if you like. I think they'd particularly like Canadians to do it.
And then I left out a quotation mark and the link didn't work and I had to redo it and probably this belongs on Standpipe's blog.
It's really hard to have an occupation or gathering given that pretty much everything is private or government-owned property. Burning Man and Rainbow organizations do a lot of work toward clearing the way in advance
Is there some alternate to "private or government-owned" I'm not aware of? Much easier to pull off something like Burning Man in the West because there's loads of BLM land around where there's not a hell of a lot of rules about what you can do there.
Is there some alternate to "private or government-owned" I'm not aware of?
No. I was speaking sloppily. Depending on the region and how crowded it is, sometimes private property is easier to do something on; sometimes government-owned land is easier.
Is there some alternate to "private or government-owned" I'm not aware of?
#OccupyVaticanCity!
Strange how people who constantly bitch about government regulation just love them some government regulations for keeping dirty hippies from camping out in the parks.
Point of contention here, Spike: the OWS site is private property. So it's okay to invoke the law, the proper job of which is to enforce private property rights. Jeez.
I walked by Occupy Anchorage on my way home from work today. It was... underwhelming.
I kinda figure they'll end up in City Hall Park (which does look bigger, so there's that), a few blocks to the northeast. Procedural liberals are likely to blame.
My understanding from my Facebook feed is that the plan at this point is still to hold their ground:
For those of you who plan to stick around PAST MIDNIGHT--which we hope will be all of you--make sure you understand the possible consequences. Be prepared to not get much sleep. Be prepared for possible arrest. Make sure your items are together and ready to go (or already out of the park.) We are pursuing all possible strategies; this is a message of solidarity.
Strange how people who constantly bitch about government regulation just love them some government regulations for keeping dirty hippies from camping out in the parks.
Mostly that's to keep parks from turning into tent cities full of drunks and junkies. Our local OWS has permits to camp in a public park which just happens to be a couple blocks from the homeless shelter and the epicenter for transient drunks and crackheads. Don't give those guys food, they're worse than stray cats, you'll never get rid of them.
And before anyone jumps my shit, no, I'm not advocating the homeless go hungry. That shelter is across the street from a soup kitchen where they get fed three times a day. They won't starve, but give them an excuse and they will hang out and steal your stuff.
77: What do cops think should be done about transient drunks and crackheads? More services?
I looked up the FEC filings for the guy named as the chief executive of the company that owns the park and it turns out that there's at least two - maybe a Sr. and a Jr. - maybe more people affiliated with the company with the same basic name. If I had more time, I'd try to analyze them. There's some donations to Democrats, including the NY senate delgations, some to Republicans - I think this is mostly the Jr. guy's donations - and it looks like there might be a pattern toward donating to people on the banking committee.
This post brought to you by I don't want to face up to the work I have for the weekend.
What do cops think should be done about transient drunks and crackheads? More services?
We do have a fair amount of housing programs here. Most of the people frequenting that park are tough cases. Either too mentally ill or have a giant gaping asshole streak coupled with their substance abuse that makes them damn near impossible to fix.
Bo Diddley's son arrested for not leaving Bo Diddley Plaza.
The son of Bo Diddley, one of about 40 Occupy Gainesville protesters, said he was arrested early Friday morning in Gainesville's downtown plaza, which bears his father's name.
Class warfare is perfectly fine, as long as the rich get to wage it unilaterally against everybody else and nobody fights back at any time. Simple.
I really do think that this is the mental process going on for a lot of the wealthy. Kinda like Obama's "Our military actions can't be considered 'hostilities' if they don't have the capacity to strike back", they're thinking "It's not class warfare if they're not fighting back--it's just 'good business/the way things are/the market in action'."
Left unthought in their minds: 'good business/the way things are/the market in action' == systemic oppression.
So when we resist, it's *us* starting the class war, using the whole "this wouldn't be rape if you'd just say 'yes'" mindset.
Cleaning of the park postponed indefinitely by request of Brookfield.
When I stopped by last night, the occupiers were cleaning the space in a fairly efficient looking manner, push brooms and cleaning stuff. It's a stone plaza that's sloped overall, so pretty easy to sweep.
Except -- via Twitter so I don't know -- it sounds like the cops are busting heads right now.
The NYCLU among others are reporting "chaos" and vans full of riot police.
There is some discussion in this FDL thread that the "clean-out" might be nationally coordinated via DHS and roughly simultaneous in cities across the nation.
Firedoglake has had people on-site in NYC and LA liveblogging all along.
Roughly how many people are camped out in Zuccotti Park? I might be under the impression that it's a much smaller crowd than it actually is.
Estimates vary widely from just a 1,188 to 1.4 million.
It seems to have turned out OK - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/14/occupy-wall-street-protest-live
Apparently "three or four" people were arrested.
The protestors should have cleared out of the park and occupied Church and Broadway. Or, you know, Wall Street. Fuck a bunch of civil obedience.
I don't believe there are 1.4 million people camped out in the park.
I just spent a half hour or so in the park, and there are a whole lot of cops, and a whole lot of police buses -- much more than there has been over the last weeks.
LB, how many people are out there (ballpark)?
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised by mass arrests soon. I figure if something like that happens, I'll go sit in the park after work with a makeshift sign for an hour or too, just to get the numbers back up some.
97: I'm terrible at estimating. Say, the park is a not-quite football field, and it's crowded. A thousand or so? But I could be way off.
I think you can get up to 1.4 million if you count the ghosts of Joe Hill, the Haymarket martyrs, etc.
There's a definite union presence -- groups of union workers in identifying tshirts.
I think you can get up to 1.4 million if you count the ghosts of Joe Hill, the Haymarket martyrs, etc.
If we ever had a chance to conjure all those dead up as unstoppable green ghosts as part of their debt to Viggo Mortensen, now might be the time.
A crowded football field holds 30,000-40,000 people, if packed fans-at-a-concert tight. I'm guessing people in the park aren't packed quite that tight, but I'd think it would be way above 1,000, if you're calling it crowded.
3,000-5,000, at least? Although I guess people have tents and shit, which would give a visual impression of 'crowdedness', without actually being people. Maybe it is only 1,000.
WHY ARE THERE NO ESTIMATES OF CROWD SIZE ANYWHERE IN THE NEWS??
It's not fans at a concert tight, but it's crowded enough that you're picking your way through one step at a time, rather than walking (and I'm pretty sure it's a small football field, not a regulation one). But I really don't know how to estimate crowd size.
104: The Guardian linked above says 4K, and I have no basis for disagreeing with them.
But I really don't know how to estimate crowd size.
You look at their shoes. Big feet mean, well, you know.
OT: Any recommendations for which Transtromer collection to check out?
I love this:
Weary of all who come with words, words but no language
I make my way to the snow-covered island.
The untamed has no words.
The unwritten pages spread out on every side!
I come upon the tracks of deer in the snow.
Language but no words.
("From March 1979")
It's probably a reflection on my lack of depth, but I'd rather read my spam folder than that.
Crowd size at any particular moment is not a good measure of the size of the demonstration. There's a smaller semi-permanent group some of whom have been there since the start and who provide the leadership (even while denying there are leaders) and a much larger group of visitors, some for an evening, some for a day, some for several days or a weekend. Some visitors return regularly; some come once to stand up and be counted.
All of these are taking part (at some level) in the occupation.
Crowd size at any particular moment is not a good measure of the size of the demonstration.
Understood, but I was just curious what the crowd size at any particular moment happened to be, approximately.
No recommendations, but there sure are a lot of them out there. Even more than Jerk of the Month Clubs.
115 to 111.
I'm having trouble commenting today. I blame the lousy blog infrastructure.
Members of the Occupy Salt Lake City group staged a silent, peaceful protest outside Salt Lake City police headquarters overnight. The group of about 25 people claims police are targeting and harassing homeless people in Pioneer Park...The overnight protesters said they've taken in the homeless population as part of their group and they, also, should be treated well by police.
Usually no one can be in there at night but now they've got a cover for doing a some crack dealing during all hours.
"The police have been very cooperative with us in general, but the police here in the city have had a history with harassing the community at the park. That's something I was aware of a long time before this," one protester said.
I bet that twit never set foot in the park before the protests. Off to swim shoot.
