Occupy Movement Links To Communism?

[maiforpeace]

Thanks Andrew I appreciate that. I'll take another peek and jump in later, it is a bit long.

Videos on forums should be like articles in People magazine...short enough to watch in the crapper.

[Warren Dew]

They just want the ultra-rich, who have had the bulk of the gravy since 1979, to pay their share.

Ridiculous. If they only wanted the ultra-rich to pay their share, they wouldn't be talking about the 1%, who are merely rich; they would be figuring out how to tax the unrealized capital gains of the billionaires like Warren Buffett so he'd end up paying more than the 3% lifetime income tax rate that he has paid so far.

[Schneibster]

Since you seemed convinced that I am attempting to say it is about destroying capitalism,

No, I'm not. The only evidence you've presented so far to support or illuminate your views, however, features someone who is.

Just sayin'.

[Drewish]

Now now, don't speak ill of Warren Buffett. Sure he knows that it's the loop holes and not the tax rates that allow him to get away with paying so little, and that hiking the tax rates without closing those will hurt the small business owners and leave large corporations and the mega-rich like him untouched, but he's claiming to want to pay more in taxes, and it's really all about appearing to care about the poor, right?

[maiforpeace]

They just want the ultra-rich, who have had the bulk of the gravy since 1979, to pay their share.

Ridiculous. If they only wanted the ultra-rich to pay their share, they wouldn't be talking about the 1%, who are merely rich; they would be figuring out how to tax the unrealized capital gains of the billionaires like Warren Buffett so he'd end up paying more than the 3% lifetime income tax rate that he has paid so far.

Guys like Buffett and Soros advocate and want to pay their higher share of tax...unlike, say the Koch Brothers.

[Schneibster]

The guy is a pretty hard core libertarian going in assuming that the movement is about opposing capitalism. He gets into a series of discussions with various people. It certainly starts out looking like a, "make fun of the stupid commies," video, but over the course of it, a gathering of pro-capitalist supports start to engage him and tell him and the video takes quite a shift, and ends on some libertarian leaning protesters telling him that rather than attacking the movement for its perceived anti-capitalist members, he should be lending his support to it.

I am very wary of movements being pigeon holed or co-opted (I attended a few Tea Party rallies when things were starting out.) I was posting a video that I thought would speak to people of a pro-capitalist nature, to show them that while the Occupy movement does certainly have socialist elements within it, they are not the entirety of the movement and that there is a larger agreement regarding injustice involved, even if the solutions to that injustice can not be agreed on by the movement. One could argue that this makes the movement ineffective (and it might) but it is not accurate to say that it's a purely socialist beast.

That's better.

The problem with letting someone else's views speak for you is that you're likely to be misinterpreted.

Let me ask this: do you know the difference between socialism and communism?

Of course when I post that video here and it's automatically assumed that I'm pushing the notion that the Occupy movement is all a bunch of commies, then it really doesn't bode well for having a reasonable discussion on the subject :/

Well, you still haven't really presented anything that says more of your own opinion than that you're aware that Occupy contains more than socialists. So I don't know much more than I did except that the only evidence you've presented so far doesn't represent your opinion, and you don't think Occupy is all socialists.

I have had a hell of a lot of Libertardian propaganda shoved up my nose over the last couple decades, so pardon me if I'm a bit short about watching more of it. You are very much better off representing your own opinion, I will repeat.

[Drewish]

Let me ask this: do you know the difference between socialism and communism?

Yes of course, under communism the government (and supposedly by extension the people) own the means of productions. Where socialism deals with the redistribution of wealth. So when the government nationalizes or heavily regulates an industry it's drawing from communist tendencies. Where (by contrast) it would be possible to have a free market socialist society where all goods and services are provided by the market place, but the government has a progressive tax code that redistributes a set amount of wealth on a recurring basis.

[Schneibster]

They just want the ultra-rich, who have had the bulk of the gravy since 1979, to pay their share.

Ridiculous. If they only wanted the ultra-rich to pay their share, they wouldn't be talking about the 1%, who are merely rich; they would be figuring out how to tax the unrealized capital gains of the billionaires like Warren Buffett so he'd end up paying more than the 3% lifetime income tax rate that he has paid so far.

I don't agree. Yes, the 0.1% have taken more than half of the gains in income since 1979 that they share with the rest of the 1%; but I think their rate of sociopathy is about the same as the rest of the top 1%, that is, around half, and I think the sociopaths among them have done about the same amount of damage as the sociopaths among the top 0.1% have to the political system. In addition, we're talking about 30-some-odd percent (a little over) to the 0.1%, and 25-some-odd percent (a little under) to the rest of the top 1%.

I think it's perfectly fair to focus on the top 1%, and polls show that in fact they seem to support it; a bit more than half of them are in favor of raising their own taxes (thus my argument that it's only about half of them that are out-and-out sociopaths). And I'd call the top 1% "ultra rich," though we can wrangle about it a little for the argument's sake.

[Warren Dew]

Occupy isn't against capitalism.

Did you watch the video? I know it's kind of long, but it's worth seeing all the way through.

For a quicker take, here's Schiff's summary:

INTERNATIONAL. Last week, I spent the afternoon visiting the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in lower Manhattan. I brought a film crew and a sign that said "I Am The 1%, Let's Talk."

The purpose was to understand what was motivating these protesters and try to educate them about what caused the financial crisis. I went down there with the feeling that much of their anger was justified, but broadly misdirected.

Indeed, there were plenty of heated discussions. I did little more than ask how much of my earnings I should be allowed to keep. In return, I was called an idiot, a fool, heartless, and selfish.

But when we started talking about the issues, it seemed like the protesters fell into two categories: those who generally understood and agreed that Washington caused this mess, and those who could only recite Marxist talking points....

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=55049&t=1&c=34&cg=4

[sandinista]

Occupy isn't against capitalism.

which is why it'll never achieve anything. I should also add that, some people involved in the movement are against capitalism, to say that "occupy" isn't against capitalism isn't necessarily true.

[Warren Dew]

Guys like Buffett and Soros advocate and want to pay their higher share of tax

To the contrary, it's the folks like Buffett and Soros who want to keep the loopholes that allow the billionaires to pay Buffett's 3% tax rate, while raising taxes on mere millionaires like Schiff to above the 50% they're already paying.

[Schneibster]

Let me ask this: do you know the difference between socialism and communism?

Yes of course, under communism the government (and supposedly by extension the people) own the means of productions. Where socialism deals with the redistribution of wealth. So when the government nationalizes or heavily regulates an industry it's drawing from communist tendencies. Where (by contrast) it would be possible to have a free market socialist society where all goods and services are provided by the market place, but the government has a progressive tax code that redistributes a set amount of wealth on a recurring basis.

No, but a lot damn closer than most folks so more than half credit.

Socializing means taking something over as the proper business of government. Socialists are variously more or less radical depending on how much and precisely what they think the government should take the management of. My father, for example, who is a life-long devoted socialist believes that banking, insurance, production of work clothing and tools, education, practice of medicine, hospitalization, and production of all medical gear and medicines, production and maintenance of basic housing, provision, expansion, and maintenance of transportation, and production and distribution of food should all be socialized; I am more moderate. At minimum, anyone you're going to call a socialist in the real world in the US is going to be in favor of socialized medicine, and I am; in fact, I'm also in favor of socialization of hospitalization and production of some medical gear and some medicines. I am also in favor of socialized education. As for the rest, I am in favor of heavy, heavy regulation.

Now, when we start talking about automobiles, I'm in favor of a private industry. And I don't think the clothes you get from the socialized sources should be competing with those you get from private sources; basic coveralls, boots, underwear and what you gotta have to stay warm depending on local climate. Private clothes should exist, and should not suffer government competition; but if a private company chooses to produce basic socks, that's their problem. And if they're successful, that should be rewarded before it gets socialized.

I do not expect to see what I believe in in my lifetime; but that's OK, I'll be happy if we get most of the work done just on medicine provision and hospitalization, and get some regulation in place over the more egregious banking and insurance problems we've been having. Obama has made some strides on that, but he also has the economy to try to stabilize, and the Republican Teagagger Party is trying to lynch him because he's black and punish the rest of us for voting for him, by opposing anything that might create jobs.

Communism, OTOH, includes first of all very much heavier use of socialization than even my father is comfortable with. No private sector is permitted at all, and the community has all power over the individual; think COMMUNIty, COMMUNIsm. The basic unit of organization is the commune. Individualism is criminalized. We saw this in the Soviet Union, and they could not compete. Communism is over; it has lessons for us to learn, but it is not a viable form of government, to say nothing of the human misery and environmental damage it did.

So we see that socialism is an economic strategy, whereas communism is a total system of organization of a society.

Now, I'm not a communist; nor am I a scholar of communism. And some communists would argue with my characterization; there are less obtrusive forms of communism. But as it has been practiced by the collectivists of the 20th century, that's what communism looked like, and it didn't work out well. We'll see if there's anyone like that here who'd like to join the conversation before long, I'm sure.

So that might help you understand me some. And now you know more about communism and socialism than you did.

[Schneibster]

Occupy isn't against capitalism.

which is why it'll never achieve anything.

Bullshit. It's already achieved something.

We're now talking about the income gains of the top 1% since 1979 and the people who will be voting next November are listening closely.

[Drewish]

Just so you're aware Schneibster, I'm not an Objectivist, but I'm damn near close. Hopefully we'll be able to have some pleasant informative conversations

[Schneibster]

As I said, we'll disagree. No need to be disagreeable though. I'm glad you agree.