Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[Seth]

You think little old ladies who thought they should "check out" a riot in progress ought to get a pass? Please. Little old Marxist ladies and men can take the same medicine as everyone else who defies lawful police orders to disperse. The same applies to the fuckwit parents who bring their kids, in utero or not, to use as shields, hoping that their presence will prevent the police from running illegal protesters out of the park. THEY should be arrested for felony child neglect and endangerment.

The Occupy protesters had their say. Their right to free speech was carefully respected in quite literally every case. Indeed, it was tolerated far longer and with greater reluctance to enforce the law than most protests. But, there's a time, place and manner for lawful protest, and they have exceeded the budget and now it's time for them to move on because their protests are now unlawfully disrupting commerce and the peace and order of the community.

Just because most of America and the world are ignoring them does not mean that they have gained the right to break the law. If they want to stand in the park with signs and peacefully protest and petition their government, fine. But the problems with the camps are obvious, and have become a public health hazard and a safety issue, so they will have to go home each night and come back each morning to continue their protest. That's not an unreasonable regulation of the time, place and manner of their exercise of free speech.

And if they don't agree, well, the police have the authority to enforce the law by using tear gas, pepper spray and riot-batons.

PB170003.JPG

Have fun! Take photos when the front-loaders and the cops show up please. Also, if you get a face full of pepper spray, don't rub, just makes it worse.

[Seth]

If you wre referring to a true marxist revolutionary movement, I'm sure you would be right, and not just in the US. What makes me think that the whole Soviet style mass move into marxism won't happen again is simply that enough people know enough history to realise it is a dead end.

They may not call it Marxism, but ultimately the motivations for such revolution are timeless: the "elite" have most of the money, but the "99%" have most of the people. Thus, the "99%" can overwhelm the elite, take their riches away, and distribute it amongst themselves.

They may not articulate it well, but ultimately the motivations of most of the Occupy movement are simple: the jealousy and greed of "they have money and I want it!"

I think that is both facile and unfair to most who want reform in this area. What they want is an end to a self-perpetuating elite, one that has all the political and economic clout to stack the deck immensely in their favour.

The problem with that argument is that when capitalists stack the deck in favor of capitalism, everybody wins! When Marxists stack the deck in favor of Marxism, everybody loses except the Marxist elite.

The majority would not be arguing against quite significant income differentials, or an abandonment of the need for personal incentive as a motivator. You can accept that, but at the same time argue that corporations and the monied class who control them have their snouts far deeper in the trough than is fair. And far more that is prudent, if they don't want sandinista's visions to one day become reality; pressure cookers without safety valves go bang...

Well, if the Occupy movement would focus its message on getting the snouts of corporations out of the public trough I'd be with them. As a Libertarian I don't like the notion that ANYONE, particularly the big banks, are getting bailouts. I'm outraged that GM got a "bailout" by being bought by Obama and then, after defrauding the secured bond-holders, resold to the labor unions too.

But there's a substantial distinction to be made between preventing the government from giving taxpayer money as bailouts and Marxist revolutionary agitation against the "wealthy" with the intent to tax and redistribute their money simply because they have "too much" of it.

And this is why I say that the Occupy movement is made up of Marxists and useful idiots, and the Marxists are driving the message right down the road of the Marxist dialectic for revolutionary overthrow of the government. I don't think they'll get there, but the LEGITIMATE message that Occupy has, insofar as they have one calling for the government to let free markets determine which companies/banks survive and which don't, is completely lost in the increasingly strident and militant Marxist rhetoric.

If Occupy is to have any real effect other than pissing the 98 percent off (Occupy is actually not the "99 percent," they are the <1 percent of the radical fringe...the other 98 percent are at work) and getting themselves gassed, they need to focus and get rid of the Marxist agitators in their midst.

[Seth]

ultimately the motivations of most of the Occupy movement are simple: the jealousy and greed of "they have money and I want it!"

Which is theoretical, as opposed to the demonstrable proven greed of the rich. That is, after all, how they got that way.

There are people who like to work, they in fact make up the majority, and when you deny it the lie is glaringly obvious, as is the view into your psychology.

Yeah, and the majority, who do indeed like to work, are AT WORK, trying their best to get rich in the only economic system on earth that gives them the chance to do so, not camping out pretending to be the oppressed class.

[Seth]

Most who want reform in this area are not part of the Occupy movement. Heck, I want reform in this area, and I'm certainly not part of the Occupy movement

Actually, this is one thing that both the Occupy Movement AND the Tea Party Movement want reform in. Too bad we want it to happen in totally different ways. We had a Teabagger join us at Occupy Santa Cruz's rally last night. He was invited to tell his story to the crowd, and it resonated with a lot of people.

Could you imagine if we could actually find a common ground and join forces?

Focus your message on preventing government from meddling in the free markets and stopping it from bailing out companies that need to fail and I might join you. But as long as the message contains any hint of "take money from the rich and redistribute it to me" I'm going to be standing on the other side of the police line with my gas mask on watching them run the Marxists out of the park and taking pictures.

[Schneibster]

Yeah, and the majority, who do indeed like to work, are AT WORK, trying their best to get rich in the only economic system on earth that gives them the chance to do so, not camping out pretending to be the oppressed class.

Is this like the butttheresnoglobalwarming thing?

[Warren Dew]

Most who want reform in this area are not part of the Occupy movement. Heck, I want reform in this area, and I'm certainly not part of the Occupy movement

Actually, this is one thing that both the Occupy Movement AND the Tea Party Movement want reform in. Too bad we want it to happen in totally different ways.

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind. As you pointed out earlier, they are more about pointing out problems than providing solutions. They aren't even behind a "don't do any more corporate bailouts" solution to bailouts, at least not yet. The Tea Party has at least come out against some ongoing forms of crony capitalism like ethanol and other farm subsidies and things like the Solyndra loan, but the Occupy movement isn't there yet.

Also, while I think that extreme degrees of wealth inequality are problematic - not because I mind having rich people around, but because when wealth gets too concentrated, we get oligopolies and crony capitalism rather than a free market - I'm not sure the Tea Party is on board with that yet. Even if they are, the Occupy movement is going to have to drop its divisive "99 percent versus 1 percent" rhetoric if any kind of consensus is to be forged. For one thing, the problem is not the 1% - it's the 0.01% or fewer. For another, the rhetoric can be turned around, arguing that the 1% at the bottom should be cut off so they don't drag down the other 99%.

That kind of "us versus them" rhetoric needs to cease for there to be common ground. The billionaires and megacorporations aren't a problem because they're preternaturally greedy, any more than people on welfare are preternaturally greedy. They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money. We need to take a step back so we can look at actual solutions, like how to return some of those record corporate profits as dividends to the retirement accounts of people in the middle 90%, so it can be spent or invested in ways that employ people instead of being kept locked up in corporate coffers.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

To take this one step further, surely this is because the big money end of town, via their wealth, have the ability to have excessive influence on the process of government?

[Warren Dew]

Warren Dew wrote:

They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

To take this one step further, surely this is because the big money end of town, via their wealth, have the ability to have excessive influence on the process of government?

Close, but not quite. It's not the average person, even in the affluent neighborhoods, that has influence. It's only the few people at the very top that have influence.

Soros, Buffett, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs? They have excessive influence. The stock brokers that work for them? They do what they're told.

And from the standpoint of finding constructive solutions, what's the solution? You can either assassinate the Soroses of the world, or you can vote in a government that will make them pay their fair share. I'd prefer to give the voting solution a chance first - which means working on the government end of things first.

[JimC]

Warren Dew wrote:

They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

To take this one step further, surely this is because the big money end of town, via their wealth, have the ability to have excessive influence on the process of government?

Close, but not quite. It's not the average person, even in the affluent neighborhoods, that has influence. It's only the few people at the very top that have influence.

Soros, Buffett, Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs? They have excessive influence. The stock brokers that work for them? They do what they're told.

And from the standpoint of finding constructive solutions, what's the solution? You can either assassinate the Soroses of the world, or you can vote in a government that will make them pay their fair share. I'd prefer to give the voting solution a chance first - which means working on the government end of things first.

I certainly mean the democratic option, but sometimes, democratic change is preceded by mass movements that articulate the need for change well enough to influence the usually turgid machinations of party politics...

And when I say, quite loosely I suppose, the "big money end of town", it is a little broader than a few ultra-rich individuals. Corporations take on a life of their own, and they have the money to pay for a lot of spin, a lot of lawyers, a lot of PR...

And in some cases, a lot of politicians...

[Schneibster]

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind.

The Teagaggers just want to give it all to the rich people, so that looks like a push to me.

[maiforpeace]

Have fun! Take photos when the front-loaders and the cops show up please. Also, if you get a face full of pepper spray, don't rub, just makes it worse.

I take it you've never been to Santa Cruz.

Most who want reform in this area are not part of the Occupy movement. Heck, I want reform in this area, and I'm certainly not part of the Occupy movement

Actually, this is one thing that both the Occupy Movement AND the Tea Party Movement want reform in. Too bad we want it to happen in totally different ways.

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind. As you pointed out earlier, they are more about pointing out problems than providing solutions.

I never pointed that out...I simply said that the purpose of protest is to bring attention to a problem. The movement has offered tons of ideas for solutions in regards to reform, they just don't share the same solutions the tea party has, which are the ones that appeal to YOUR logic.

From Occupy Santa Cruz

[Seth]

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind.

The Teagaggers just want to give it all to the rich people, so that looks like a push to me.

To quote someone I read recently. "Lie."

[Schneibster]

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind.

The Teagaggers just want to give it all to the rich people, so that looks like a push to me.

To quote someone I read recently. "Lie."

Well, perhaps they've merely been pwnt by the Republican Teagagger Party flacks.

[Seth]

For one thing, the problem is not the 1% - it's the 0.01% or fewer. For another, the rhetoric can be turned around, arguing that the 1% at the bottom should be cut off so they don't drag down the other 99%.

Try the bottom 50 percent, who pay no income taxes at all.

That kind of "us versus them" rhetoric needs to cease for there to be common ground.

True, but the problem is that there is no common ground with Marxists, who created the "99%" "us versus them rhetoric" to begin with. It's all part of the Marxist dialectic of class warfare. Nobody knows exactly who created the "99%" slogan, but it has links back to 2010 and a group called "The other 98%" whose only identifiable participant is Progressive Washington flack Trevor FitzGibbon, who has direct links to George Soros through MoveOn.org and a leftist/progressive 501c3 shill organization that collects donations and provides email blasts for small groups called "DemocracyInAction."

There's little actual doubt that the Occupy movement is driven and heavily influenced by behind-the-scenes Marxist handlers whose entire program requires the "us-versus-them" rhetoric of class warfare.

The billionaires and megacorporations aren't a problem because they're preternaturally greedy, any more than people on welfare are preternaturally greedy. They're only a problem because the government has set things up to encourage excessive concentration of money.

How so?

We need to take a step back so we can look at actual solutions, like how to return some of those record corporate profits as dividends to the retirement accounts of people in the middle 90%, so it can be spent or invested in ways that employ people instead of being kept locked up in corporate coffers.

Interesting assertion. However HuffPo writer Bernard Condon points out that while corporations are alleged to be sitting on 3 trillion in cash, they are also buried in debt.

"U.S. companies are sitting on $358 billion more cash than they had at the start of the recession in December 2007, according to the latest Federal Reserve figures, from June. But in the same period, what they owed rose $428 billion.

Before the recession, you have to go back at least six decades to find a time when companies were so burdened by debt."

This means that companies are sitting on cash so that they can service their debt during a recession where profits are declining severely, just so they can stay in business.

The way to get them to spend this cash and employ people is to lower their tax burden and give them regulatory certainty for at least three to five years so that they know they won't be blindsided by politically-motivated tax increases and crippling (particularly environmental) regulations that will suddenly and unpredictably increase the cost of doing business...like Obamacare.

[Seth]

I don't think the Occupy folks have a cogent solution in mind.

The Teagaggers just want to give it all to the rich people, so that looks like a push to me.

To quote someone I read recently. "Lie."

Well, perhaps they've merely been pwnt by the Republican Teagagger Party flacks.

Lie.