Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by Ramil

Let me think... Egypt? LOL The problem is that resolve is not enough. See below.

Both, actually. But let me ask you these questions. That 'go through with it' thing - can you clarify what exactly those protesters want to go through with? Revolutions require blood and violence. That's a sad fact. Revolutions usually ruin economies completely. Those protesters' lives will be much worse if they succeed. Besides, what are their goals? What is their program? Who is their leader? Imagine those capitalists appear and surrender. What's next? Right now they're nothing more than a poorly organzied mob (well, let's hope it isn't organized). Pray it wouldn't taste blood and the police can handle it. If not - there'll be another London. There's more - such movements gain a certain magnitude and without anything happening they either explode or disappear (people will simply grow tired and leave the Wall St. for good).

I know it may shock someone, but if they really want the capitalists to change something they ought to start hanging the wrong guys. I'm serious (to answer your question 'what should people be doing instead'). See above - revolutions require blood. Read Marx - he proved that. The only way the lower classes can overthrow the top is through violence. Their problem is - they're still lacking the guy who'd tell them who exactly the 'wrong guys' are.

What these people want? To get rid of the banks? They can try that, of course, but I doubt they'll find their lives changed to good afterwards. No, I don't believe the Americans will go this far.

The truth of the matter is, I'm inclined to AGREE with about 99% of what you're saying Ramil.. the only part I disagree with is that I, for one, am not at all afraid of involving myself in the blood part of a revolution, and that I don't think the better choice would be to back down from the opportunity to do so, once we've hit this point - that's what the would-be-revolutionists of the 60s did (responded to gun-barrels with flowers, then they got shot..hmm), and it led to another bag of gold doubloons buying off another generation of everywhere-increasingly-in-chains individuals, 'til there was no fight left in them, 'til they became the thing they were once doing battle with..

I agree with you because of one tricky little thing... Most people know that they want/need change, but they don't know EXACTLY what needs changed.. *I think* the reason for this is, the EXACT things that need changed are like a set of diodes on an infinitely-complex computer chip inside an infinitely-complex machine... By the time a person knows what those things are and that they need to be changed, he's become so minutely focused that not only could he himself NOT be the leader of a movement (by definition requisite of a relatively well-balanced and far-seeing person, not a niche-educated socioeconomics specialist without the spine for the big and the vague), but that he also has effectively NO ABILITY to communicate that niche knowledge to the outer fringe, where reside those massses with the HEART for revolt.

This is what I call a 1984 trick... There is a problem and it is malignant, but it is comprised of so many moving parts that no one person can effectively back away far enough to see it, and still be in orbit near enough TO it to make a change.

Still... If there is going to be a revolution, it MUST be bloody, you're right... not only must it cut down the reigning kings (who would prefer this to their surrender, believe me) but ALSO the currency of the reigning kings, which for so many years has been illusory anyway - like a paper wrapper wrung around a finger, in pithy representation of what was once a wedding ring.. Only when value can be re-established from the ground up, from things which retain their intrinsic value from inalienable utility (food, transportation, livestock, shelter, weapons) can there be any hope of routing out the roaches and rats from the walls of our country, and doing something honest.

Originally Posted by Ramil

P.S. Unlike many of my countrymen I respect the Americans and not as prejudiced as I may seem. My quarrel is with your government, not the people. Some of the Americans I know personally are quite nice.

Hey, Ramil, as far as I'm concerned, you've always been a good guy.. If you ever find yourself in the same town as me, I'll buy you a beer.

the only part I disagree with is that I, for one, am not at all afraid of involving myself in the blood part of a revolution, and that I don't think the better choice would be to back down from the opportunity to do so

Here it goes, how far can one go following implementation of his/her ideas, and what's meant by the "blood part"?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Here it goes, how far can one go following implementation of his/her ideas, and what's meant by the "blood part"?

Well, these are pretty heavy questions, but I respect where you're coming from.

How far can one go in implementation of his or her own ideas? It depends on what you believe of history, and what you feel we can draw from it. Sun Tzu and Confucius, Caesar, Jesus, Machiavelli, Charlemagne, John the Baptist, Ghandhi, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Patton, and so on.. There are a lot of people to try to draw an answer from the records of.. "Far," is a fair but facetious answer, "but not everywhere:" . You can get a lot done on your own, but not everything. Most of the people on this list got to BE on this list not because of the solidarity of their own ideas, but because of their a) ability to communicate those ideas to others and b) the receptiveness TO those ideas found in the crowd at that time and place.

It can be dangerous to say the right thing, if you have a), but not b). I believe Michael Moore was more or less just that - a non-leader, who got it in his head to say the right thing [ "a)" ].. but to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time, and certainly (by choosing himself) with the wrong mouthpiece. It's been said a good general must show that he can do all he asks his troops to do, and more. Moore in that respect is a poor show, and even if the words appealed to the intellecutal facet of his audience, his appearance and self-respect level soured him against the INSTINCTUAL facet of his audience. I knew from external research that he'd been pulling a lot of the right threads with his first movie. But I didn't even need to get hit with the poison-pill campaign that followed; after getting to know who he was, I didn't like him as a leader, and this made me intellectually struggle with listening to him, even as I knew a lot of what he was on about was dead-on.

Beyond a certain point, I'd bet Ramil will be right, that without a decent leader (and the ACLU doesn't count as such), this movement will fizzle, like any army without a general.

But just like the guy on the receiving end of Groucho Marx' "tutti frutti" grift, I know that we can't beat them at their own game; we can't out-gamble a cheater with his own loaded dice. So, as much as my moral heart might grind at the idea, SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF CARD CHEATS IS TO THROW THE TABLE OVER, grab your money, and storm out. Then, at least, when the table's picked back up, the guy doing the cleaning up thinks real hard about preventing such CHEATING next time a gambling outfit is set up.

Since you can't show enough people at one time the insidiousness of the system of laws, bills, and bills-tacked-on-back-of-bills, and logrolling, and congressional/commercial/industrial hand-shaking that goes on, and still be dealing with the minds of THE MASSES instead of a handful of really bright individuals who are able to conceive so many moving parts at once, essentially you can't show everyone at the table that they're being cheated, until you get close enough to the cheater to draw the hidden aces from his sleeve.

Sad as it is, that would require blood. And if we had a leader capable of this sort of direction, I wouldn't be afraid to help achieve that end.

But it's a bit of a moot point, because without a leader, we're really just as Ramil said, more of a danger than a help. Wish it weren't so.

Maybe a leader will come, pull the sword from the stone of wall street, and then we'll see. It's not over until the fat lady sings.