What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[Jester]

The people representing and involved in those newspapers or churches can go to the voting booth like the rest of us, same with the corporations and unions. Money shouldn't be free speech in my opinion.

The right to vote and the right to free speech are two separate rights. Having one does not negate the other...

-Jester

[eppie]

Does a corporation have the right to not be tried again for the same crime? Does a corporation have the right to a jury trial? Does a corporation have the right to invoke the 5th amendment? How about just compensation for property taken for public use? Do they have the right to protection from unusual search and seizure? How about the 14th amendment equal protection (i.e. not being singled out by law), and the right to due process?

I think what can be concluded that in the US (and in lesser extend also in other western nations) on paper you have democracies where every person has his or her votes that is worth the same for everyone but that in practice this has little meaning.

Stupidity is used by smarter people to get what they want via the voting box. In principle there would not be much difference if candidates would just use their money to directly pay voters, cash in hand, to vote for them instead of using their money for advertisements, spin doctors and other populistic methods.

Kandrathe, I guess you must agree with the buying of votes?

I personally would be against it but it seems a lot less hypocritical than the way things are now.

[kandrathe]

Stupidity is used by smarter people to get what they want via the voting box. In principle there would not be much difference if candidates would just use their money to directly pay voters, cash in hand, to vote for them instead of using their money for advertisements, spin doctors and other populist methods.

I'll see your strawman, and raise you one. We could do away with money, or voting. While people are corruptible, the system will contain corruption. You can attempt to implement a pure totalitarian communist state where each person is given all the food, clothing, health care and housing they need in exchange for slavery to the States assigned job for you. No money, no voting, no corruption of politics with vote buying, and political speech (or dissent of any kind) can just get you sent to a re-education camp in Siberia until you soon die.

Kandrathe, I guess you must agree with the buying of votes?

I'm not for using drugs, but I'd decriminalize their use. I'm not for prostitution, but for consenting adults, I'd decriminalize it. I can't control other peoples corruption and "sin", but I can support their "freedoms" while those freedoms do no harm to others.

So, for corporate speech... Why do we need to prevent them from expressing their points of view on political issues? If it is because "stupid" people might believe them, then what prevents the same criteria to be used for any persons freedom of speech?

We don't like it when people deny the Holocaust, so we'll make it illegal to do so. We don't like it when religious people make outrageous claims, so we'll make it illegal. We don't like it when politicians, and their allied 501C3 organizations make attack ads (or movies), so we'll prevent them from speaking at all.

But... No, I'm not for buying votes (which, btw, is separately illegal). I am for allowing people, (even incorporated groups of people) to speak to open-minded or close-minded people (or groups of people) to attempt to sway their opinions and actions. If I don't like what I'm hearing I can refuse to listen, walk away, hum "lalalalala I'm not listening", turn the channel, or not buy the movie ticket.

When Micheal Moore or Citizen's United make a movie, they are not giving me money. I think they may be attempting to change my opinion by misrepresenting the truth, and so YOU may want to accept their word at face value without your own independent investigation. But, then, I think you would be in that number of stupid people you mentioned earlier.

[FireIceTalon]

The people representing and involved in those newspapers or churches can go to the voting booth like the rest of us, same with the corporations and unions. Money shouldn't be free speech in my opinion.

The right to vote and the right to free speech are two separate rights. Having one does not negate the other...

-Jester

But by equating money to free speech, is essentially giving such individuals or parties TWO votes. No democracy there. There are LIMITS on free speech as I said before, and conflating money and politics is one of them because it infringes, even if indirectly, on other groups, or individuals, rights by rendering their vote meaningless. Corruption, especially when hidden or protected behind constitutional rights, undermines democracy.

"Totalitarian Communist state" - ROFL. Impossible, since communism and totalitarianism cannot fundatmentally co-exist. For communism to exist, there must be democracy in the first place. If there isn't democracy, or if the state is involved, then it ain't communism (though it could be socialism, depending on the ratio of democracy and state/corporate control) since in such a society it is the people, NOT the state, which own the means to production and makes collective decisions regarding politics and civil matters in a democratic fashion. A totalitarian state is undemocratic, thus it destroys the very principles of Marxism and would forbid it to exist. People need to quit looking at Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot (who were not communist by any stretch of the imagination, Lenin and Trotsky are debatable) and start looking at REAL Marxist proponents like Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, Clara Zetkin, and Franz Mehring if they really wish to understand it.

[Tris]

My big problem with OWS, and occupy who knows what else, is that they are overshadowing the few good ideas they have with absurd desires.

I agree that investigations should be done regarding the banking industry collapse, and that if there was criminal activity, those who committed it should be held responsible.

However, silly things like getting rid of debt are just absurd. Credit/debt makes it possible for people and business to advance faster than their present financial circumstances allow. Credit/debt if used properly is a great thing. If used poorly it's a death trap. While there are some exceptions to this statement, credit/debt is generally a personal decision.

Fortunately, winter is coming to the Northern Plains, and I highly doubt "occupy" and seriously cold temperatures are compatible

[LavCat]

The people representing and involved in those newspapers or churches can go to the voting booth like the rest of us, same with the corporations and unions. Money shouldn't be free speech in my opinion.

The right to vote and the right to free speech are two separate rights. Having one does not negate the other...

-Jester

But by equating money to free speech, is essentially giving such individuals or parties TWO votes. No democracy there. There are LIMITS on free speech as I said before, and conflating money and politics is one of them because it infringes, even if indirectly, on other groups, or individuals, rights by rendering their vote meaningless. Corruption, especially when hidden or protected behind constitutional rights, undermines democracy.

In an interview in Time magazine that I read tonight, Justice Stevens said (and I am paraphrasing since I do not have the text in front of me) that equating money to free speech, logically extended to the exteme, would justify the Watergate breakin since the burglers were paid from campaign contributions.

Not having a fine legal mind I can see no justification for a connection between money and free speech, and the protection thereof.

It's scary to think that Stevens was a Supreme Court clerk before I was born. (But just by a few months.)

[kandrathe]

ROFL. Impossible, since communism and totalitarianism cannot fundamentally co-exist.

Yeah, crazy. It could never happen.

So then... Stalin was chosen by the CC as the successor to Lenin. Why is it that everywhere communism is attempted eventually results in mass executions and deprivation? I'm just having a little trouble grasping how you can believe that something is great in theory, but then so disastrous in execution. So, yeah, let's just not look at all those places where it's been attempted.

But by equating money to free speech, is essentially giving such individuals or parties TWO votes.

Nope. What the SCOTUS ruled on was speech, and only speech. The ruling was, "A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Should Joe McGinniss be allowed to write, and make money from a book about Sarah Palin? Should Penguin be allowed to sell it, and make money from it? Or, is it some fuzzy and quasi-legalistic wrangling since she hadn't quite declared if she was going to run or not. Do political opponents just need to make sure they get their speech in before the muzzling window drops? What he did was to exercise his freedom of speech, and specifically exactly the same thing that Citizen's United did, only they did it as a movie about Hillary Clinton. Let's say a political movie is a hit, and when the 30/60 day window arrives then all the theaters must pull it. Or, all the book stores need to shelve their best seller. It seems clear to me that it impinges on free speech. Money is just the means by which a newspaper is printed.

[eppie]

When Micheal Moore or Citizen's United make a movie, they are not giving me money. I think they may be attempting to change my opinion by misrepresenting the truth, and so YOU may want to accept their word at face value without your own independent investigation. But, then, I think you would be in that number of stupid people you mentioned earlier.

I understand your way of thinking but let's not try and find extreme cases here. There is a clear difference between countries like the US and Italy and countries like e.g. Holland and Sweden. Of course in the Netherlands we also have our share of populists and poltiticians who arrange certain things behind the backs of voters, but you must agree with the fact that private payments tho campaign funds and owning 75 % of a countries media are completely different things.
What I mean to say is that to me the difference between the Dutch and the US system is bigger than the difference between the US system and the direct buying of votes. And don't start playing the communist card here, this has nothing to do with communism and everything with democracy.

Of course drawing a line is not easy, but I think making it illegal to get private (corporate) funding for election campaigns would be a big step.

[kandrathe]

Of course drawing a line is not easy, but I think making it illegal to get private (corporate) funding for election campaigns would be a big step.

Yet... We have limits on how much a corporation, or an individual can contribute to any campaign. That part of US campaign finance reform stands.

What the SCOTUS did rule was that political speech, in the form of newspaper articles, blogs, movies, books, etc. cannot be limited without impinging on the rights of everyone. So, if Micheal Moore could make a film as an individual, but no company could distribute it -- that also muzzles speech. You could engage in speech as an individual (in making a movie, or writing a book, or a newspaper opinion piece) so long as no corporation distributes what you are saying, including newspapers, TV, or the internet.

Where it really started to get dicey was when the government was looking into shutting down political web sites... Or having to ban foreign IP addresses containing political speech. Enter the jack booted thugs.

I know your position on gun ownership, but bear with me... The NRA exists as a political organization to defend the 2nd amendment. Because of the law they were barred from having an opinion, or running ads for or against political candidates in the 30/60 day window before an election. They were essentially taken out of the debate.

[eppie]

I know your position on gun ownership, but bear with me... The NRA exists as a political organization to defend the 2nd amendment. Because of the law they were barred from having an opinion, or running ads for or against political candidates in the 30/60 day window before an election. They were essentially taken out of the debate.

It is true that there are many ways of influencing people's opinion. E.g. internet, on the other hand I would not visit all those sites.....while I would probably see the commercials during the latest episode of House.
Also newspaper and TV stations show their opinions as does Michael Moore but still this is a different thing than commercials made by a high budget campaign team.

About guns I can be short. Indeed my opinion is that guns make a society less safe (and I think the number support that view) but I have come to appreciate, understand and respect the opinion of people that are in favour of the right to bear arms.
(this as a message to Bolty, Treesh and others that have the idea that we are just a bunch of left and right wing people doing mental masturbation. I don't think that if I did not visit the lounge an took part in discussions here my opinion on this topic would have changed or mellowed down. ).

[kandrathe]

...but still this is a different thing than commercials made by a high budget campaign team.

I'm not sure how you draw the line. How about a 30 minute infomercial type show? It's not an ad. Do they need to go through the charade of presenting it as a movie drama, or a documentary in order to have speech rights? Is 30 seconds unacceptable, but 5 minutes is better, or an hour? Or, is it the format? When someone buys TV time, I just don't know how you discriminate which is good speech and which is bad speech. Who gets to judge that, or do we suffer a stream of lawsuits every election cycle?

[FireIceTalon]

ROFL. Impossible, since communism and totalitarianism cannot fundamentally co-exist.

Yeah, crazy. It could never happen.

So then... Stalin was chosen by the CC as the successor to Lenin. Why is it that everywhere communism is attempted eventually results in mass executions and deprivation? I'm just having a little trouble grasping how you can believe that something is great in theory, but then so disastrous in execution. So, yeah, let's just not look at all those places where it's been attempted.

But by equating money to free speech, is essentially giving such individuals or parties TWO votes.

Nope. What the SCOTUS ruled on was speech, and only speech. The ruling was, "A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

Should Joe McGinniss be allowed to write, and make money from a book about Sarah Palin? Should Penguin be allowed to sell it, and make money from it? Or, is it some fuzzy and quasi-legalistic wrangling since she hadn't quite declared if she was going to run or not. Do political opponents just need to make sure they get their speech in before the muzzling window drops? What he did was to exercise his freedom of speech, and specifically exactly the same thing that Citizen's United did, only they did it as a movie about Hillary Clinton. Let's say a political movie is a hit, and when the 30/60 day window arrives then all the theaters must pull it. Or, all the book stores need to shelve their best seller. It seems clear to me that it impinges on free speech. Money is just the means by which a newspaper is printed.

Communism has never been truly attempted by any state yet. You are conflating Stalin's own selfish interests with what communism seeks to achieve, which are two fundamentally different things. Stalin couldnt have cared less about making a truly equal and democratic society, and in fact, murdered many of his own generals and peers that were in the Revolution when he came to power. If there is no democratic political system, then communism CANNOT be implemented, period. Democracy is essential to Communism's existence in the same way a fish needs water. Why do you think Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacus Movement rejected the October Revolution of 1917? Because it was a party revolution, which Luxemburg knew would lead to a dictatorship and undermine the very goal of what communism seeks to achieve. It had to come from the bottom up, not the top down, it was to be not a party revolution, but a workers revolution. In other words, the cure was equally as bad as the disease in this situation. Had the revolution been a workers movement, the result may have very well been different. And of course, the other problem was the geopolitics of it. A revolution in a agricultural state like 1917 Russia is a backwards revolution, Marx himself even stated it must take place on a global level starting in the most capitalist state, which at the time, would have either been Germany, Great Britain or the US. But certainly not Russia or China. In general, people throw words like communism, socialism, fascism, democracy and such around, without knowing what these words truly mean or what objectives they seek. Thus, they become pejoratives and lose their meaning. Like the anti-Obama nut jobs who call him a Fascist-Communist (which is also impossible)....Truth be told, the US was more socialist than the Soviet Union ever was, especially during the Cold War. Taking the principles of what defines an ideology or system, communism, has in fact, been responsible for exactly ZERO deaths, since we have never had a communist system before. Totalitarinism and Capitalism (which are different systems but both go very well together, democracy and capitalism on the other hand, are incompatible) in contrast, the list is almost endless

[Jester]

Taking the principles of what defines an ideology or system, communism, has in fact, been responsible for exactly ZERO deaths, since we have never had a communist system before. Totalitarinism and Capitalism (which are different systems but both go very well together, democracy and capitalism on the other hand, are incompatible) in contrast, the list is almost endless

Combining the mighty power of No True Scotsman with the Reductio ad Absurdum, you have created a shield of pure meaninglessness, impenetrable to contradiction

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Taking the principles of what defines an ideology or system, communism, has in fact, been responsible for exactly ZERO deaths, since we have never had a communist system before. Totalitarinism and Capitalism (which are different systems but both go very well together, democracy and capitalism on the other hand, are incompatible) in contrast, the list is almost endless

Combining the mighty power of No True Scotsman with the Reductio ad Absurdum, you have created a shield of pure meaninglessness, impenetrable to contradiction

-Jester

You can throw all the technical, fancy jargon in the world at me, and it doesn't change the fact that totalitarianism, and communism, are two completely different things, and one cannot be conflated with the other. Good day, sir.

[Jester]

You can throw all the technical, fancy jargon in the world at me, and it doesn't change the fact that totalitarianism, and communism, are two completely different things, and one cannot be conflated with the other. Good day, sir.

I'm sorry if that was too complicated for you. Let's try again.

Not only are you not right, you're not even wrong. You're just not making any sense.

-Jester

[Ashock]

and one cannot be conflated with the other.

I believe you misspelled cornflakes. However, I personally prefer Cheerios.

[FireIceTalon]

I thought I made the post crystal clear. What is there not to understand about it? Democracy and Totalitarianism are fundamental opposites (I think all can agree on this). For a true communist society to exist, democracy must be present first (there is no debating this either, unless you just jump on the popular bandwagon without actually reading Marx's work, but then one has no credibility in such a case). If a state is Totalitarian, then it isn't communist, or is so only in name, but certainly not in practice. I fail to see how this does not make any sense. Rosa Luxemburg was Communist (she valued equality, freedom, democracy, and the rights of workers, and no or minimal state control), Stalin was Totalitarian (he valued complete state control and his own personal power, nothing else), and both for the most part, acted on their values and principles. If Stalin was a true communist as so many historians label him as such, he certainly did not practice what he preached. If this doesn't make sense, then I don't know what does.

[Jester]

I thought I made the post crystal clear. What is there not to understand about it? Democracy and Totalitarianism are fundamental opposites (I think all can agree on this). For a true communist society to exist, democracy must be present first (there is no debating this either, unless you just jump on the popular bandwagon without actually reading Marx's work, but then one has no credibility in such a case). If a state is Totalitarian, then it isn't communist, or is so only in name, but certainly not in practice. I fail to see how this does not make any sense. Rosa Luxemburg was Communist (she valued equality, freedom, democracy, and the rights of workers, and no or minimal state control), Stalin was Totalitarian (he valued complete state control and his own personal power, nothing else). If this doesn't make sense, then I don't know what does.

You can spend your days fluttering around with definitions if you like. The rest of the world is interested in Communism. That is to say, the political movement. The historical phenomenon. The parties, countries, and individuals who have identified themselves as Communist. Saying only Rosa Luxemburg was a Communist, and that Lenin, Castro, Stalin, Trotsky, etc... weren't, is like saying Mother Teresa is history's only Christian. It makes it impossible to talk about it sensibly.

What you are talking about is no more sensible, or relevant, than the bickering that goes on at the fringes of religious movements about who is a "true" Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, whatever.

No true scotsman. There is no faster way to render your argument specious and meaningless, than emptying the set to preserve its purity - if there are no Communists, then nobody cares that Communism never killed anyone. You might as well say that all Communists live on the moon, or that Communism comes with whipped cream and sparkles, because nobody can contradict you.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Again, identification and action are two different things. Just because someone identifies themselves as something, does not mean they are. I can sit here and say I am all for peace, but then if I try to pick a fight with every person I see, am I still considered an advocate for peace?

Maybe you find it ok to follow the rest of the little white mice in the world and agree with norms. I prefer, however, to think critically and question the stereotypes and norms in history that distort the truth. I could care less if 90% of the world disagrees with me, I'm only concerned with the facts. If the facts point to what the majority says, fine. But if I see distortions, half truths, myths, or anything that is otherwise flawed or misconstrued, I will form my own view and stand firmly by it regardless of how much in the minority I am. If the sheep don't like it, I really couldn't care less.

As a true Marxist, I find phrases like "Totalitarian communism" or "revolutionary state socialism" to be hilarious, since they are just words that have very little relationship to reality at best, and are complete oxymorons that distort and rewrite history, at worst. And as a true Marxist, I think Stalinism is quite deplorable and is not worthy of being mentioned as a branch of Marxism since it completely undermines the very values and mission of what Marx envisioned. Rosa Luxemburg, in contrast, was a genuine Marxist, and believed in equality, freedom and democracy for all, to the core, as any true Marxist does. I also do not find it ironic that history, in general, has chosen to ignore the likes of her and other traditional commies, and focus only on Stalin and Mao and to a lesser degree Lenin, who were not Marxist in practice (and probably not in intent either), in an attempt to paint socialism and communism as an evil ideology and those who advocate it to be evil persons, albeit in a very biased and selective way.

[Jester]

Maybe you find it ok to follow the rest of the little white mice in the world and agree with norms. I prefer, however, to think critically and question the stereotypes and norms in history that distort the truth. I could care less if 90% of the world disagrees with me, I'm only concerned with the facts. If the facts point to what the majority says, fine. But if I see distortions, half truths, myths, or anything that is otherwise flawed or misconstrued, I will form my own view and stand firmly by it regardless of how much in the minority I am. If the sheep don't like it, I really couldn't care less.

There are two types of "fact," as you call them. For the philosophers, these would be synthetic and analytic. Synthetic propositions actually say something about the world. "It rained today." That can be true or false. If it's true, we call that a fact. It has content.

Analytic propositions are questions of theory and definition. They are true and false entirely based on how you define your terms. They do not say anything about the world.

Your distinctions take what are perfectly decent synthetic facts, and contradict them, not by contradicting evidence, but by simply defining the problem out of existence. You have transformed a synthetic fact into an analytic "fact" that no longer has any meaning we care about. In logic, the classic problem of induction is usually illustrated with the proposition "all sheep are white" - what happens when you discover a black sheep? Apparently, if we follow your reasoning, we just define the black sheep as not a sheep, and go on our merry way.

In your example, Communism hasn't killed ayone, because everyone who ever killed anyone is not a Communist; you have basically defined it thus. But pacifism has never been any part of Communist doctrine, and its relationship to democracy has been shaky at best. But that doesn't matter; your Communism is a pure, theoretical entity, shorn of anything that might blemish it, and, in the process, completely severed from all but the most harmless bits of its historical content. This leaves only harmless, killed-before-her-time Rosa Luxemburg, and presumably a handful of other people who never had to govern anything larger than a breadbox. And even she gets Bowdlerized.

-Jester