Occupy Wall Street

Read it. It is inconclusive at this stage and hardly a resounding endorsement of Alan Joyce - but we will see in time.

 

It wasn't meant as an endorsement of his decision, but as an objective introduction to the whole affair. Don't mistake me for Eddie, yo.

I endorse Alan Joyce's decision, and my opinion digresses with that of the Economist article only in that I see the Unions' demands as unreasonable to begin with.

 

If there was to be a large general strike, I'd rather it be much larger than just inside the United States, as a strike just here wouldn't really stop the wheels of the corporations that are the biggest problems. Multinational problems deserve a multinational response. I'd rather see a symbolic day of strike in countries all over the world, from fully industrialized nations down to the poorer nations that are in even worse shape due to the international business climate. This could even be the excuse Chinese workers have been looking for to start creating better worker protections through worker organization.

 

well, the problem with such an action is organization because once you make the call it has to happen and hold---assuming things haven't reached such a pass that an unlimited general strike is the only option---otherwise the damage to whomever calls for it can be immense. and don't misunderstand what a general strike is: it's the theater of withdrawal of consent from the existing order. it's a kind of revolutionary action. that's one reason why i think oakland was a good action, personally. it's important to gradually ratchet up the stakes.

 

I understand your point, roach.

However, I strongly disagree with the notion that the Occupy movement should take such action.

As I said before, the Occupy movement has to act as a catalyst for widespread civil disobedience to happen.

Occupy needs to sacrifice pain, blood and sweat as human punching bags for the opponent, so that independent civil society groups and associations take up arms against the establishment on behalf of the Occupy movement.

That, in my opinion, is truly the most effective way to force the opposition into submission.

As we both talked about in another Thread, the Tahrir movement and its success was the result of months upon months, if not years, of setting the stage and then, in one decisive moment, galvanizing Egyptian society to act against the regime.

Occupy is the in the early phase of setting the stage. Taking action unilaterally at this point will impede its potential to truly effect change in the US.

 

i agree with you at the tactical level, remixer.
but at the level of strategy, it seems silly not to have such a mobilization available as a possibility and to be thinking about how one might organize it, even in a general kinda way.
but at this point, no. it's too early. that said, i still understand and approve of what oakland did. but i don't see it as more than a particular, limited action at this point.

it's interesting trying to figure out the impact of the general strike that immediately preceded the shit hitting the fan on tahrir, particularly by way of the western corporate media which (a) has a Problem with decentralization and (b) a horror of such actions. what's clear is that it was a spontaneous action that nonetheless presupposed the considerable organizational work that converged on 25jan--and could not have been better timed in shutting down the canal etc.

but the stories from the past of these actions not quite working out are more numerous.

 

unfortunately, the situation in egypt appears to be deteriorating and heading in a very nonliberal, undesirable direction. I'm not shocked, but still disappointed.
The problem with revolutions is that you have to be lucky enough to have George Washington or Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa as the rally point for the revolution. If you end up with Maximillien Robespierre or Ruhollah Khomeini or V. Ilyich Lenin, it's a whole kettle of trouble.

 

hello loquitor. long time no see.

well, the thing that the egyptians had was a national-security apparatus heavily funded and trained by the united states, which seems to have placed its marbles in their pockets and said, effectively, contain this democracy shit. but scaf seems unable to figure out how to do that, and is being forced, step by step, out of power. maybe. we'll see. what's sure from here is that things are far far from over.

 

see, I don't think there really was a revolution in Egypt. There was a military dictatorship before and there is a military dictatorship now. The only difference is that there used to be a nominally civilian president and now there isn't. The same kleptocracy, more or less, is still in charge, though without the head kleptocrat. The Egyptian military is much more than a military organization -- it has its fingers in lots of pies and outright owns chunks of the Egyptian economy. Like most centralized systems, it suffers from its own power. And you're right, it's not over yet.

Keep your eyes on the Sinai. Right now it has less law and order than Somalia, apparently.

 

After you spray yourself "start shouting for people to come toward your voice." I wonder how many cops are reading that and thinking "I know a great way to get people twice?"

 

I'm sure BASF and Dow are already working on a Maalox resistant alternate.

 

Here's a video I came across. Need violence breed violence? I thought I'd share it..



Not sure why this isn't showing up, but I'll leave it as a link.

 

what are numbers one and two?

 

I am thankful to the Occupy movement for making my fiancée link me to this Twitter page: http://twitter.com/#!/GSElevator

Lovin' it since Saturday.

 

apparently, cyn, they did figure it out. the article seems to demonstrate that. and for the record, i do think it's obviously important to figure this out. what i've been cynical about is the lack of differentiation in the local press coverage of the people who have come out complaining about aspect x or y of the occupation because it has seemed--sometimes more than others---like an attempt to create support for the bloomberg's obvious preference that all this democracy stuff go away. this runs in a different direction.