OWS movement is the last warning to end corporatism and re-establish genuine capitalism

Whatever their other demands may be, the things all the protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement seem to agree on are,

1. An end to crony capitalism i.e., corporatism and
2. An end to US military interventions in the rest of the world.

At the moment there are only two schools of thought that promise these changes without any equivocation: the Libertarians and the Communists.

In otherwords, if the Ron Paul revolution doesn't succeed, there will be a communist revolution.

I anticipate the OWS movement to remain apolitical but with the only political messages coming out being those endorsing Ron Paul's candidature for Presidency in 2012. If Paul doesn't either win, fails to deliver on his own promises after winning or is eliminated by the corporatists in some other way, this movement will quickly morph into a violent communist revolution. The writing is on the wall.

As gun happy as some parts of America are, regardless the failure of any side of this movement, I seriously doubt any of this will come to any real gun-battle revolution.
People will protest til they're blue in the face, and politicians will pay lip-service to the most vocal causes as has always been done, but, all in all, any real changes that get made will be small, incremental, and probably get rescinded by whoever the next guy is that comes along to office.

Edit: Further, any presidential CANDIDATE can make any sort of promise they want under the sun, but, in the end, they don't have presidential security clearance to have full understanding of why 'things' are the way they are, and why none of the promises they made before they had security clearance will work.

But,

how do we know that the "communists" would be genuine?

what IF they are TPTB just changing names again?

most "communist" systems have proven to be just as "capitalistic" as well, ...... let me think ....
capitalists !!

the money always disappears !

reply to post by Observor


There are no historic basis for such assumptions. In fact there has never been a single case of such events in western history.
First of, the general ideas which communism are founded on oppose to the use of violence. Not saying that a communist couldn't be violent, but it is wrong to assume that this would be an actual tool to start a revolution. If you do wish to create a revolution in the mind of your fellow man, it would be highly inefficient to approach him with a firearm in hand.

Your hypothesis is not only wrong, but goes directly against all logical and historical evidence. It is propaganda.

To cut it out for you - Communism = Community = People living in harmony with one and other.
Trying to obtain this by violence would be not only counterproductive but downright stupid!

Originally posted by nineix
As gun happy as some parts of America are, regardless the failure of any side of this movement, I seriously doubt any of this will come to any real gun-battle revolution.
People will protest til they're blue in the face, and politicians will pay lip-service to the most vocal causes as has always been done, but, all in all, any real changes that get made will be small, incremental, and probably get rescinded by whoever the next guy is that comes along to office.

You are right. But the objective of the protests is to prove to everyone exactly that, that the system cannot be changed except through a violent revolution. I doubt anyone in the entire political spectrum will claim crony capitalism is the right kind of system, but everyone pretends it is not what the actual system is and instances of such are aberrations. The objective of the movement is to prove that, that is not the case and the system is crony capitalism by design.

There is another financial meltdown in the offing and another bailout too. When that happens, few will be left with doubts about what the system really is. Battle lines will be drawn between those seeking the perpetauation of the system because it benefits them on one side and those opposing it for either moral reasons or from self-interest perspective on the otherside.

Originally posted by xuenchen
how do we know that the "communists" would be genuine?

You don't. So there is a risk.

what IF they are TPTB just changing names again?

Possible. But there is a chance it isn't. Those taking the chance will join the revolution. Others can stand and wtach the proceedings.

most "communist" systems have proven to be just as "capitalistic" as well, ...... let me think ....
capitalists !!

the money always disappears !

The revolution won't happen if genuine capitalism is established. What it will replace is crony capitalism with another system.

reply to post by Mads1987

Would your objections be addressed if I called it a Marxist Revolution instead of a communist revolution?

reply to post by Mads1987

There are no historic basis for such assumptions. In fact there has never been a single case of such events in western history.
First of, the general ideas which communism are founded on oppose to the use of violence. Not saying that a communist couldn't be violent, but it is wrong to assume that this would be an actual tool to start a revolution.

well,

which "communist" ...ahh... "revolutions" have been non-violent ?

or are you referring to "communist" foundings that have never happened yet ?

textbook philosophies rarely become reality.

any exceptions?

reply to post by Observor


Partially. But I still find the scenario unlikely.
Violence, retribution and competition between men will always result in a greater loss of recourses than what would have been used on cooperating. I think a Marxist would agree with me.

Who ever starts this violent revolution if there is to be such a thing, will be a deluded moron.
Anyone who encourage violence behavior can be nothing but an anarchist, in my eyes.

reply to post by Observor


Ah yes,

utopia does have its' risks..

take a look at the Norway system....

might make sense as an alternative to extremism and might be easier to "get there".

Originally posted by Observor
Whatever their other demands may be, the things all the protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement seem to agree on are,

1. An end to crony capitalism i.e., corporatism and
2. An end to US military interventions in the rest of the world.

At the moment there are only two schools of thought that promise these changes without any equivocation: the Libertarians and the Communists.

In otherwords, if the Ron Paul revolution doesn't succeed, there will be a communist revolution.

I anticipate the OWS movement to remain apolitical but with the only political messages coming out being those endorsing Ron Paul's candidature for Presidency in 2012. If Paul doesn't either win, fails to deliver on his own promises after winning or is eliminated by the corporatists in some other way, this movement will quickly morph into a violent communist revolution. The writing is on the wall.

edit on 9-10-2011 by Observor because: (no reason given)

Damn, and I thought my theory that this whole thing is a reptilian-backed distraction to enable to overlords to slip their body-snatcher plan through without our noticing it was the craziest theory on this board. Looks like it's back to the Batcave for me.

What I don't get is all the OWS proselytizing that's going on in the forums.
Supporters or detractors of the movement, most anything said here in an effort to sway opinion either way trucks very little value.
The value of anything anyone might say, for, or against the movement is to be had out on the street where the movement is taking place.

Commenting on developments and discussing ideas about what and where this movement is going, and speculating about what the 'real' reasons are for the movement are one thing, but getting all rah rah rah, go team go, or boo and hiss about what's being said and done is another that should really be taken out onto the street where the protests are occurring.

My opinion, of course.

reply to post by xuenchen




You got me there. No I personally do not believe there has ever really been a communist revolution - the textbook kind that is. And you are 100% right that these rarely happen, if ever.

But returning to the fear of violent communist revolution in THE WESTERN WORLD. I think you missed that part. Because yes there has been violent revolutions under dictatorships, and they have created dictatorships. Nice. Like in Cuba for instance. Yes, they did have a violent 'communist' revolution. They have however never had communism in its actual form, and they weren't a democracy to begin with.

So I do not feel that there is not any basis to fear a violent communistic revolution in an otherwise internally peaceful democracy. There has never been a violent communist revolution in a peaceful democracy ever in the world.

I just want to make it clear that communism and violence are very far from each other.

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by Observor

 

Partially. But I still find the scenario unlikely.
Violence, retribution and competition between men will always result in a greater loss of recourses than what would have been used on cooperating. I think a Marxist would agree with me.

Who ever starts this violent revolution if there is to be such a thing, will be a deluded moron.
Anyone who encourage violence behavior can be nothing but an anarchist, in my eyes.

It is not important whether any particular individual approves of it or not.

Marx predicted violent overthrow of what he considered the capitalist system because he expected it will lead to increasing unemployment and those joining the ranks of the unemployed would forge a unity because they are conscious that the system is responsible for their plight and they cannot win by cooperating with the system. While he has been wrong about several things, all the conditions he saw as leading to a violent revolution exist in the US today.

reply to post by Observor


Yes, but he foresaw that people in general would become violent. Not that they would become communist or Marxist and then violenct. Basically he just said that the way capitalism runs, sooner or later it will break down and that will piss people off.

Which is indeed true.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Observor

 

Ah yes,

utopia does have its' risks..

take a look at the Norway system....

might make sense as an alternative to extremism and might be easier to "get there".

Not sure if you were listening to those supporting the OWS on here. If you propose an alternative, the onus is on you to prove it can be achieved. Not merely throwing suggestions around as to what is possible or preferable.

There are people who are absolutely unwilling to let the status quo continue and that is who the OWS represents. Unlike those analysing it from the sidelines, these people don't believe they have much to lose or that the system is just. So both on moral and self-interest grounds they seek drastic changes to the system. You are free to bring about a change that you deem just and/or works for the protesters. They are not looking for intellectual guidance, but results.

Originally posted by Mads1987
reply to post by Observor

 

There are no historic basis for such assumptions. In fact there has never been a single case of such events in western history.
First of, the general ideas which communism are founded on oppose to the use of violence. Not saying that a communist couldn't be violent, but it is wrong to assume that this would be an actual tool to start a revolution. If you do wish to create a revolution in the mind of your fellow man, it would be highly inefficient to approach him with a firearm in hand.

Your hypothesis is not only wrong, but goes directly against all logical and historical evidence. It is propaganda.

To cut it out for you - Communism = Community = People living in harmony with one and other.
Trying to obtain this by violence would be not only counterproductive but downright stupid!

edit on 26/06/87 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I think the OP was referring to reality rather than fanciful coombayah fairy tales.

Communism = the violent suppression of the individual even in the rosiest circumstances. In most reality situations- well, just look at the historical facts in this reality. Not sure which bizarro reality tunnel you are currently looking at.

Actually, these type of events happen all the time in history. I realize that self absorbed hipsters want to be special and have people acknowledge their feelings and whatnot, however - see the panic of 1907.

As far as poor people clamoring for empowerment as groups, "the people", collectives, "the 99%", what have you, it ALWAYS ends the same. They are easily manipulated by certain groups into embracing their own enhanced slavery under some false pretenses that they mindlessly accept.

If this thing doesn't fizzle out, which it likely will, the results will be that elites maintain power and "the 99%" will have done their part to ensure it.
History repeats itself constantly, and we are far from unique.

It seems like the countries that were to accept communism didn't manufacture products that could be sold on the domestic or foreign markets which we have been headed toward since Reagan was in office. In fact he said in a speech that we were no longer going to be a manufacturing country but one that provided services to the rest of the world and it became a downward spiral for the working class thanks in part to the weasel Phil Gramm who began dismantling the safeguards that had been in place to prevent the kinds of financial disasters that have occurred in recent years... I have noticed that countries that have adapted to democratic and capitalism after being under communist rule have become heavy exporters of manufactured goods.... When things get bad and the ultra rich begin to fear reprisal watch them head off for Dubai like Dick Cheney who moved the world headquarters there a couple of years ago... Most of them have houses outside of the US already and have been planning to run and hide like the rats they are.

I don't think this is a final warning, but what will be a slow growing grass movement for change. A steady, but increasing beat of protest across the country by people that are tired and want a change.

One sure sign that the movement is making an impact is seeing the politicians who represent the 1% increasingly slamming the protests. The paid for politicians and talking heads are trying hard to make OWS appear as some type of communism movement or a bunch of hippies. Which is comical due to hippies not existing since the early 70s. Then again, they don't get out of their guarded and walled communities very often.

reply to post by radosta


Communism works pretty much on the same principle as well..communes, except expanded to a national level. In pure Communism there is no state at all. Anyway, it is nice people are actually doing 'something', i still think it is slightly misguided and will easily be manipulated to fit an agenda that is not in the best interests of people, but even that is still better than being utterly apathetic, stuffing your face with fast food and watching reality tv.