So now Occupy is against world trade and capitalism? They will lose support of the 50+% of the 99%

[applegrove]

they had. They will morph right back into what activists were before Occupy last fall. The 1% wins. The 1% has the 99% divided again since Occupy is not just against inequality, but all of capitalism.

"Occupy Wall Street @occupywallstreet This fight didn't just begin #Sep17. #OWS taps into a rich history of activism & organizing against globalization & capitalism"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. And can you name one thing about globalization that has been positive? nt

[applegrove]

4. Millions of people in Asia and Africa are now middle class. Bill Clinton wrote in his book that

actually the only trade the US does not get a net benefit from is with China and buying oil from the Middle East. Trade gave us the start and growth of a middle class in the West 300 years ago. It stops wars. It is pushing Iran to stop with building nuclear bombs as we speak (sanctions are working). Liberalism came out of trade. The word was 'liberal trade' back then.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. At the expense of the impoverishment of millions. Not good enough.

You need to come up with a better one.

[applegrove]

9. The people who are impoverished are the subsistence farmers who face famine. That is a tough life.

That is why people move off of farms mostly, not onto them. How would you like to spend 3 hours a day getting water? Lose 1/3 of your siblings to disease that could be stopped with a $10 bed net? The people who live on less than $500 a year are the truly impoverished. There is no comparison between the harshness of their lives and the lives of anyone in North America. Trade brings jobs and wealth that then lead to a tax base so a transfer of wealth can take place, and those subsistence farm kids can go to school in this generation. So they can get good jobs when they grow up. And become part of that growing middle class.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Capitalism and globalism consist of the rich taking the lion's share and leaving

impoverishment behind. Really it's only a small percentage that benefit greatly. There's nothing good to be said at all about globalization, and capitalism shows very little that is positive. However, it's got one hell of a solid system of propaganda.

[pipoman]

13. There is no requirement for participation

in "free trade" to improve standard of living or working conditions...If you think the Chinese, Indian, or Mexican governments intend to voluntarily "transfer wealth" I believe you are mistaken.

"The people who live on less than $500 a year are the truly impoverished. There is no comparison between the harshness of their lives and the lives of anyone in North America."

So we should allow our standard should be lowered to raise theirs? To create parity? May be a fine concept...you first.

[applegrove]

17. No. Democracy takes ahold and people demand adequate taxes on the rich. Same thing Occupy is

fighting for in the USA and the Arab Springs are fighting for in the Middle East. Not to be controlled by the 1%. I am an Occupier. I am the 99%.

[pipoman]

19. Not without the right to demand anything,

and that right will take centuries or bloodshed to achieve. People in 3rd world countries are oppressed by their governments. Take Mexico. Why would one 70 year old life long farmer/rancher seldom ever had to carry water during his lifetime of farming while the norm 500 miles away is that every farmer transport water by hand or beast..to this day? It is the government allowing for merely subsistence survival of the people and corruption eating up the profit from the sweat of the people. This will not change without it being a condition of participation, with violations leading to increasing levels of tariffs or trade sanctions. Free trade, as it has been shoved down our throats bi-partisanly, will do little for the plight of 3rd world slaves and has resulted in massive unemployment here. Many, many people would get behind a candidate who promised to reform our trade agreements..they are broken.

[JDPriestly]

67. Free trade as established by our trade agreements destroys democracy -- our own

as well as any nascent democracy in third world countries.

That is because these agreements set up international trade courts that can prohibit a country that does something the court does not like. The courts can then penalize the taxpayers in the country in which democratically elected representatives enact a law that the Court does not like.

Please. Please. We need to be informed before we post on DU. I am informed through experience and careful reading of the relevant NAFTA provisions. Other trade agreements contain the same or similar provisions.

It is one thing to have an opinion. But that opinion should be informed. I would be interested in any specific and well documented statement that disagrees with mine.

There are a lot of propagandists for free trade out there. They will argue that it is so wonderful for the poor folks in third world countries. We could easily help them without giving up our own sovereignty. Reciprocal trade agreements that are not enforceable in international kangaroo courts would be fine. The trade agreements into which we have entered and are about to enter are, as is explained in the Amy Goodman interview, just excuses for placing corporately controlled courts in authority over our democratic institutions.

I oppose all trade agreements that establish trade courts. They are fascistic.

[OrwellwasRight]

76. +1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1117741

[donheld]

137. totally agreed!

[girl gone mad]

124. I agree with JDPriestly above.

You are posting while uninformed.

[JDPriestly]

20. They move off the subsistence farms as American farmers did back in the 1930s

and during the Industrial Revolution. Then, once they have lost their land and are living in cities and towns and have jobs in factories and elsewhere, the 1% decides to move out and move on (just like they have here) so that they can find cheaper labor. In the end, the people moving off the subsistence farms, the Africans and Asians, will end up like urban Americans -- owing water and gas bills, paying exorbitant rent -- all to the 1% -- and unable to find work.

We need fair trade, not free trade. Fair labor laws, not just global markets for capital and goods.

[limpyhobbler]

23. +1

[jtuck004]

69. That is the same argument Mi$$ Rmoney and the Teabaggers use. Got another?

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Not trying to be insulting - but we are a lot richer in many ways because of all the trade. The impoverishment of the American middle class is a direct function of the recklessness and greediness of the financial sector and those who enable them, not because we trade with others.

[OrwellwasRight]

72. It is all part of the same neoliberal economic model.

The companies offshoring jobs are the same ones lobbying for lower taxes and less regulation. The financial sector is greedy and reckless, and a big supporter of opening financial markets overseas through trade agreements so they can do to foreign countries what they have done to the US.


We are not "richer" because of trade -- though corporations are. They push costs down by seeking to produce in the country with the lowest wages, worst labor standards, worst environmental enforcement, etc. Then they sell here, and keep the huge profit margins. Yes, the price of clothing may be a but lower these days (if you shop at Old Navy), but the price of many other things is up (education, medical care, insurance, housing, etc.). Families in the US are not doing better because of the congruence of neoliberal trade, tax, and deregulatory policies.


And certainly people treated one step above slave labor are not either.

[sabrina 1]

99. 'We', who is 'we' who are a 'a lot richer'? We have the largest income inequality

gap in history right now. The top 1% own approx. 43% of this country's wealth, which has occurred over the past three decades. We are approaching third world status when it comes to income inequality. So if the 'we' you are talking about are the richest 400 or so in this country then I guess you are right. But for the bottom 80% they are getting poorer and poorer.

Wealth and Income Inequality in America

Over the past 30 years the rich in America have become a lot richer, while many millions of Americans have seen their income stagnate or decline. As Warren Buffett, the second richest man in America, famously said, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Wealth and income inequality today is by far the worst in the industrialized world and has fallen in line with many Third World countries. Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz explains why this is bad news:

Where is the money going?




So again, who are the 'we' you are talking about?

Occupy Wall Street exploded across this country in a matter of weeks because this was their message and because the American people are not stupid, they KNOW they are getting poorer and poorer. Which is why the message resonated.

If you are going to post in this forum, you will need more than your opinion as most people here supported this movement BECAUSE they were the first to speak openly about Income Equality and what caused it.

[jtuck004]

100. Cute. But I stand by what I said.

And by the by, Occupy was in no way the first to speak openly about income "inequality" (yup, spell checker didn't fix your line "BECAUSE they were the first to speak openly about Income Equality". I assume you would have preferred to have typed "inequality", yes?)

Occupy, at least so far, has been about as effective as everyone else. And gotten a few people hurt, for what I am not sure yet, (Hint: Just being against something is not a goal). I am supportive of the effort, but this is a grown-up world, and grown ups have business plans and goals, or at least a proposal that people don't laugh at. I haven't heard anything from Occupy that is nearly serious enough to affect change at a very high level. I suspect the message is not refined enough, because these demonstrations should be garnering 5 and 10 million people who I know think like you do. They aren't, and that's a problem.

Our trade with other people has brought us language, art, music, dance, other foods, cultures, and inventions that the people here never would have dreamed of. Adoptions of kids. Medicines. Materials we don't have. The list is long. It brought an improved standard of living for hundreds of millions of people who previously only had disagreements, poverty, and war to look forward to. Trade helped some of them, and transformed a few of them into obese people who argue about money. More like Americans. We still have all those ills, of course. Trade was and is not a magic cookie, but it has changed life for the better for many. And if you MUST reduce it to money, we sell a couple hundred billion dollars worth of stuff "out there" every year, much of which is just standard trade, because they need what we got. I am assuming that you don't want to destroy those? (A lot may be in weapons, but maybe they could beat 'em into plowshares or something. Surely they need plowshares somewhere.)

If you can't see the good, and don't see that we are richer for it, your problems include more than your spelling. We are more secure, too. We don't pick up the bat phone and threaten missile strikes, we have people over for dinner so the press can report on how they didn't hug like long-lost cousins. Am I hoping against hope that you can understand we are more secure because of that?

I stand by what I say, we are richer for it, not all trade is bad.

That said, income inequality is an unmitigated evil perpetuated by the fraud of greedy people. Pretty graphs above, but you aren't telling me anything new. ( btw, I don't need your permission, not do I care if I have your approval, to post here, It's an opinion, like yours, but in black and white, on an Internet bulletin board, not a refereed journal). I've quoted all the same stuff. I suspect most people who read this have it more or less memorized by now.

The real problem is that the people who are perpetuating the fraudulent behavior have a plan. The people who are against it don't seem to. Well, other than "they are bad, and need to stop doing it, or we are gonna, uh, march. Or pass some laws. Or throw rocks. Or hit cops in the flashlight with our heads".

Sigh.

It took us about 40 years to get to this point, beginning with Reagan who conned the American people into not living with the short-term pain that Carter proposed to get the economy back under control. (That was back when we had a thing called "Opportunity". Get someone over 50 to tell you about what WPA and CETA and full tuition paid by the government for millions and people building domes inspired by Buckminster Fuller on college campuses did for them or theri life. It was a great time.). From that point on we have been selling off and undermining labor at every turn. To some, capital has always been more valuable than people. But around that time the "neoliberals", AKA greedy bastards, started infecting this country with their disease, and it has reached nearly a fever pitch.

We spent the past 40 years selling off most of what we own, along with much of our human spirit, it seems. Those excesses need to be curbed. But if you bring all that stuff back, who says anyone will buy from us? They can and already are buying all the stuff we would then be making from their current suppliers. It would take us at least 10 years, probably more like 25, and, I don't know, 30, 40 trillion dollars to rebuild WHAT WE HAD IN THE PAST. (And the same bad guys will still be screwing everyone they can).

Some things would work out ok, but I suspect there's a lot of old stuff we can't rebuild. It very likely would not be competitive against the rest of the world at their wages. We would wind up shrinking our markets, selling insurance to each other. You think it's bad now, try that world on. On the other hand, we could create a plan that invests in our people, so our country becomes stronger and more literate, more able to invent the future, more able to battle bad guys,and then we would have, again, things other people want. It's probably gonna be just as expensive, but look at what we did with the GI bill after WWII, Korea, Vietnam. We didn't wall ourselves off, we engaged the world in rebuilding, and began to educate our people to go to the moon. We invented the Internet. That flush feeling of having money in our pockets came from that investment we made in people, and infrastructure, and it paid off. In spades.

We forgot about investing in people. We started selling all the wealth created by all the labor, and taught by example that the only value in something was what it could be sold for. The greedy bastards know this well, and they only care about one thing. Assets. They are not scared of protest parades, force. They buy politicians and cops for sport. The only thing greedy bastards care about is assets. (Btw, the reason I like cooperatives - if you and some friends can put something together you can own the assets. And you don't have to sell them if you don't want to, even if they would make you fabulously wealthy at the expense of a lot of other people).

I think Occupy needs to affect those bigger issues.

The game is rigged. Nearly every action that I have seen people take is framed by our opponents. And they are taking a greater percentage of the money every day. People can walk away from jobs, march in the streets, put up tariffs, yada, yada, yada, but that is still the game played by the opponent, and seems suspiciously like trying to re-create an imaginary past. (That last thing is a favorite pastime of loser Rethugs, btw).

Where is the movement toward the future? Where is organizing, and teaching people to be autonomous and smart and strong enough to beat those people AT SOMEONES ELSE'S GAME?

de La Botie wrote " you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve
no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?"

I'm big fan of the "spirit" of Occupy, (I went to our local one, provided some support) but not of the behavior I have seen so far. We need demand, but perhaps a new way to achieve it. There are sustainable, practical ways to move forward, such as co-ops, sustainable agriculture, throwing away the banking model for teaching and replacing it with more experiential learning and philosophy, things that would take the game away from the greedy bastards. I don't hear about nearly enough of that, if Occupy is working at that level.

What's the plan, Stan?

[sabrina 1]

101. As I said, you will need more than your opinion

Where is the movement toward the future? Where is organizing, and teaching people to be autonomous and smart and strong enough to beat those people AT SOMEONES ELSE'S GAME?

I thought you knew something about the movement? How about opening their own banks as one example? Moving their money, billions in a few days into community banks and forcing BOA to abandon their plan to raise fees just because they are greedy? Did Congress manage to stop those fees? No, but a few protesters, well organized did what Congress either refused to do or could not do. How about conducting learning sessions with some of this country's top economists, like Stiglitz eg? Or stopping foreclosures, something else Congress couldn't manage to do but a few protesters accomplished and still are every day, and showed them the way, not that they care.

Just a couple of small examples you apparently have not heard of. As for 'hitting cops', that never happened, it was the other way around, old ladies and the disabled among others, beaten, nearly killed and hospitalized, I guess because 'no one is scared of protests'? They sure act like they are. But if all you read Breitbart et al or the Corporate MSM, I guess you would focus on that rather than what has actually and is being done every day. Not everything is about a 'big march' you know.

This movement is in its infancy but is already worldwide and despite your unawareness, hint, as you like to say, it is not ALL ABOUT marching, in fact that is a small part of it, it is here to stay until things change. Stop relying on the Corporate Media if you want to know what's really going on. They changed the language. Have you heard this president say the words 'Austerity' or 'Share the Sacrifice' since polls showed that over 80% of the public agree with OWS's message? Or read how the US Attorney credited OWS with giving him the backing he needed to stand up against 'making a deal' with the Banks when the pressure on him to do so was intense. Or the other elected officials who have joined the movement themselves and some who have joined lawsuits against the brutal crackdown on protesters and the press and even elected officials?

As for the straw man you built, WHO is against Trade? Opposition to Wall Street Corruption and unfair trade does not translate into 'anti-Trade or even Capitalism. OWS has never opposed Capitalism or Trade. You left out the main word that has caused so much opposition to the current economic system. So that shows how little you know of the movement.

And, I do not use 'spell-check'. But fyi, even if I did it would not correct the word 'equality'. It's called 'SPELL-check' for a reason. Inequality was used throughout the post, so I don't know what point you were making, other than a gratuitous attempt to divert, distract, insult, none of which were achieved if that was the goal. Also, advice is not an order. Anyone can post uninformed material here, there is no rule against it, my advice was to try to be informed IF you want credibility.

The rest of your post was not necessary, most of which I agree with, had you understood the topic you chose to take on, OWS you would have known that. And that was the reason for my 'advice'.

[jtuck004]

102. Good luck with your crusade. Sounds like you got it all figured out. n/t

[sabrina 1]

108. No, I don't have it all figured out. I just know the facts, figuring it all out is going to take a

very long time.

I see you did not dispute the facts though.

The crusade we on the Left are on is to correct these imbalances, I'm assuming since you are here, you are part of that crusade.

[jtuck004]

109. Dictionaries and people on Jeopardy are full of facts too. Doesn't mean they accomplish much.

So far the biggest crusade I have seen is the one that serves egos, not social justice.

But I hold out hope...

[sabrina 1]

110. We've all seen the egos served and their obscene bank accounts, which is why OWS

exists in the first place. The fact is, which you can deny all you want, but doesn't make it true, is that the income inequality in this country today is a threat to this democracy.

Thank the gods for OWS, who have awakened the people to that fact and who are no longer blind or wondering about it.

[jtuck004]

112. Ah, you think it takes money to be ego driven.

Income inequality is a big threat. So are people who insist on thinking of themselves as more important than they are, based on little in the way of accomplishments.

When we stop increasing the numbers of people in poverty, start employing anywhere close to as many people as we screw over with student loans, lower the foreclosure rate (which is higher than it has been in 3 years, and that's AFTER the big ol' OWS marches), I'll believe there is something more to this than people who want to wrap themselves in a bandana and march around the streets proclaiming how righteous they are.

Tell, you what, forget all that. My dog could open a bank (course, he would eat all the money). If he could talk I bet he would be full of excuses too, like "we just started, it's take a long time", blah, blah, blah). How about something that would really make an impact? Move us from 27th in math to, say, 15th, (open a Free University, like the ones we used to have in the 60's and 70's) or figure out how to create enough demand to employ 10 million people, or figure out how to provide people on food stamps and the ones who will be joining them with REAL opportunity. People have worked all their lives to get screwed over, and a bunch of people who appear to have done little except live off of taxpayers in schools suddenly showing up and telling them how they are the latest with the greatest is probably not going to be as well received as one might think.

Maybe a serious set of goals and road map to get there, with signposts so you can be held to account for what you do or don't accomplish? (Note: that is what many people who actually accomplish things do). Maybe educate a couple million more people so they understand what has happened to them, hopefully motivate them to be angry enough to do something? (Please realize the freakin' Raelians think we are were all created by the Elohim from outer space, and THEY got 64,000 people. So unless you can beat the space cadets, it's still not so impressive).

I don't give a rat's ass what OWS does, or what happens to it. I care about my brothers and sisters in the struggle, about their lives and how they are being used and hurt. If OWS can help, then quit preaching to the choir and get something accomplished that actually improves peoples lives, beyond offering them a nice afternoon stroll through the park.

[sabrina 1]

113. All goals set by Occupy have been accomplished.

Sorry to disappoint you though, and interrupt the dispensing of the Corporate Media talking points. It's fun though, as it was totally predicted, just about everything you have said so far.

What's interesting is how much longer they have stayed around, and how much bigger the movement grew than was initially intended. It was meant to last not much longer, if that, than a month.

Shows how well their message was received since no one else was articulating it, that they are now a movement that, rather than lasting a month, will not be going away any time soon.

Btw, how many banks have you started? How many homeless have you fed? How many homes have you saved from foreclosure? Occupy has done a lot, but they can always use, and welcome, advice from experts such as yourself.

I look forward to your sharing of your expertise and your accomplishments for your 'brothers and sisters'.

[jtuck004]

114. Well, sounds like you are suitably impressed. good luck. n/t

[sabrina 1]

115. I'm always impressed by success!

No luck involved, it was hard work and lots of planning long before they hit the streets. Their pre-public-protest material was impressive and the execution of the plans was almost flawless, helped along of course by the brutality of the police. We thank whoever is responsible for the brutal crackdown, which got world wide attention, for their stupidity. It helped spread the movement across the country and the globe.

[jtuck004]

117. I'll be looking for other accomplishments beyond self-aggrandizement. Thanks. n/t

[sabrina 1]

118. I think you already missed them.

You never answered my request for your advice on how to do all of this right?

Or my question regarding your own accomplishments that might in any way match those of OWS so far.

Eg, how many people have you helped stay in their homes?

How many homeless are you helping to get housing and food?

Are you working with your city council members and/or owners of abandoned buildings to provide care for the homeless?

How many court cases have you won against police brutality and false arrest, or exposed for their harassment of minorities?

How many lawsuits are you participating in to defend the right of the Press and ordinary citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment rights?

How many elected officials have you influenced to not make deals with the crooked banks that would have precluded those wrongfully fore-closed on from being compensated for the wrong done to them?

How many Banks have you influenced to stop charging unnecessary fees?

Well, how about just listing YOUR accomplishments, as the list of OWS's accomplishments so far, is long and I have to get to work.

I am always interested in the accomplishments of those who are blind to the accomplishments of others. I always assume, maybe mistakenly, that they surely must be highly accomplished themselves.

[jtuck004]

120. Lol, cute deflection. I have potatoes to feed, more important. But you don't need to have launched a

rocket to know that when one blows astronauts up in the sky that someone isn't getting the work done. And after all the chest pounding foreclosures are still up, 25 million people need jobs, 50 million are on food stamps. The list you provided is not specific to any org, there are tens thousands of people who have been working for this for a long time before the overly-proud OWS choir appeared. And we still do, with or without you.

But this is now a waste of my time.

so, bye.

[sabrina 1]

121. Lol, nothing is a waste of time. I learned a lot, so thank you for that.

The fact is that not one person was helped by Congress to fight the corrupt and illegal foreclosures of their homes. OWS has saved many homes from foreclosure and shown how it's done, IF Congress had the will to do it.

I am very impressed with how many Americans have been able to remain in their homes thanks to the efforts of the growing Occupy Our Homes phase of the movement.

OWS has saved many homes from Foreclosure and while doing so have exposed Congreass' lack of interest in the people they claim to represent. But as this phase of the movement grows, as it is doing, I am almost certain that some members of Congress will feel compelled to start representing the people, rather than the Banks, or lose their jobs.

And now we have people from OWS running for office, who hopefully will challenge those who did not lift a finger to help average citizens who became victims of the Corrupt Mortgage Crisis.

This is my favorite new phase of the movement so far, and I am thrilled to see how it is growing.

[jtuck004]

122. Yeah, what you said. And u asked what I have done. Today I saw two little girls running

a lemonade stand. I went and got my wife and we BOTH bought 25 cent lemonades. I put money in the hands of the business owner, who can then decide how THEY want to deal with the bank. They also happen to be consumers, the real "job creators".

I don't know what I will do tomorrow, but something.

But now I have to go feed bacteria to the caterpillars eating my potato leaves.

I pretend they are bankers, 'cause this stuff gives worms a stomach ache and makes them no longer a problem.

ltr

[Chathamization]

119. OWS shouldn't take credit for BoA changing it's debit card fees

That was caused by a general consumer revolt and bad press, not OWS. It's true that some people in OWS have done a lot of good stuff, but I don't think it does any good to claim successes that aren't true. People also need to remember that just because individuals in OWS have done a lot doesn't mean that anyone who hangs out with the group has done a lot. There are people that don't do much themselves, but are happy to take credit for the hard work of a few people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. Aproaching? We're there

[2pooped2pop]

24. and now millions of people in America who used to be middle class

are now poor and have lost everything they worked their entire life to achieve.

[Zalatix]

52. applegrove has no response to that. THIS is why anti-globalism is ascendant in America.

[truedelphi]

57. You have nailed it.

Applegrove has no explanation as to why it is good that we (formerly) middle incomed Americans are now impoverished...

okay, so when Sallie Mae, the student loan agency, calls this household checking on our student debt, it may be a good thing that someone in Bangladesh is now employed. But it is a bad thing for my household because it:

One) shows that no one in Congress cares one bit about the need for such jobs to be here

Two) the reason for the call is to make an explanation of programs we, the student loanee, need to sign up for (Think of Medicare Pt D, only more complicated

How can we make a choice in programs to choose if the person that is explaining legal concepts to us has a third grade education and barely speaks English? And how can Americans pay off their debts if they cannot even get a job tele-debt-marketing for
Sallie Mae?

[applegrove]

73. Because the rich have taken over in the usa with tax cuts and economic bubbles that they make money

betting for or against on. Trade does not require tax cuts for the rich. That is what Americans have voted for in the last 30 years. If the rich were taxed adequately then retraining, infrastructure spending and r&d would create more jobs. The problem is the democrats elected end up only cleaning up the mess the Republican presidents leave behind.

[JDPriestly]

65. At the expense of the United States losing its sovereignty,

its right to pass and enforce labor, environmental and other regulations of great importance to us. Under these trade agreements (which have the same force of law as the Constitution under Article III of our Constitution), international courts composed of judges chosen not by the president of the US or our democratically elected representatives and senators but by corporations or world institutions not democratically elected by anyone, can decide to render our laws void.

Please, please watch this video in which Amy Goodman and her guest explain this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734456#post8

This is not a conspiracy theory. I have seen the workings of the NAFTA court in a matter involving environmental laws of a member country. The country's sovereignty and democratic processes were in my opinion violated.

Please. This is not a stupid conspiracy theory. We are not just governed under our Constitution but also under our treaties. These international trade agreements are written so as to make our laws void if they conflict with something in the agreements or with a decision by certain international courts.

There is no joke here. Occupy is right to oppose these trade agreements.

[OrwellwasRight]

70. trade does not stop wars

where are you even getting that stuff? What is your evidence?

That last time the world was as globally integrated as it is now, that trade flows were as large as they are now, was right before WWI. It didn't stop WWI, did it?

Africa is frankly not growing because of trade. It is the one region of the world that has not grown and benefitted in the last 20 years. Its people remain largely impoverished, and its economies stunted. Nigeria is one of the most oil rich countries in the world. It has massive trade and investment, and yet it remains impoverished.

Besides, aren't you being a little hyperbolic? Did anyone call for the end of trade and globalization or just a fight against the current model?

[applegrove]

71. That is what I take issue with. Demonstrators will say they are anti-capitalist when they mean

anti pure capitalism....which doesn't actually exist. Or anti right wing capitalism. All countries in the world are mixed markets, with the exception of North Korea. I wish so much they would be specific with what they are against... like being against inequality policies that only help the 1%, like they were in the fall.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. But they aren't just "anti pure capitalism"

They are against the current model of capitalism, which is corrupt, unequal, and leaves most folks without the fair shot it promises--whether it is pure or not. So asking Occupiers to hew to your specific wording isn't just unrealistic, it's not likely consistent with the variety of views that Occupiers have.

[applegrove]

78. But Obama is for trade. If you say you are antiglobal trade you cut out a whole host of people in

the middle, many of whom support Obama. Why would Occupy want to morph into an organization exactly the same as the anti-trade demonstrators of the last two decades? Occupy had the support of 50% + of the American population in the fall because it talked about inequality in all its varieties. It was something new. Many people were woken up and joined. "I don't mind that you are rich; I mind that you are buying my government" was one of many, many signs of the Occupy Movement. If you make it all about being anti-trade, without talking about specific inequality gripes, you make Occupy a much smaller movement. It scared the right last fall. Doubt they'll be scared of an Occupy that is much smaller and creative than it was last fall. If fact I'm sure they have actively been working to make sure it morphs into a traditional left wing anti-Nato, anti trade organization. Then they win. And I don't want to see it happen. Not when Occupy touched on something new in the fall of 2011.

[OrwellwasRight]

82. Yes, Obama is for trade. That doesn't make him right.

Part of "buying the government" is buying trade agreements which primarily benefit the 1%. The rules of global trade today are written by and for the 1%. The longer it takes for us to wake up from that, the more damage will be done.

[sabrina 1]

111. They are anti-CORRUPTION

They are not anti any system that is fair, whether it is Capitalism or not. They are for FAIR TRADE.

We don't have Capitalism, we have an Oligarchy, we have a few hundred people in this country holding most of the wealth. This took a lot of time and corruption to achieve.

Check out Argentina's history if you want to know what protesters all over the world are opposed to.

I frankly do not know where you are getting your information on this movement. But if it's the MSM, then that would explain your lack of understanding of why this Global Movement exists.

[Zalatix]

54. I can think of several positive things.

Americans are losing their jobs.

Jobs now pay less than before.

The dollar is devaluing.

Our national debt is increasing.

Job security no longer exists.

Americans are becoming poorer.

(This is, of course, all sarcasm.)

[movonne]

2. Probably not....

[MannyGoldstein]

3. I've been hearing of the imminent demise of Occupy since the day it started

And of how it will harm the 99% irreparably for decades to come.

So far, they've been the most positive thing on the political scene in 30 years.

I hope to keep hearing of their imminent demise for many years to come.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Occupy is the only truth-telling organization today. nt

[greytdemocrat]

26. That's funny!!!

Thanks for the laugh!!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. Clearly you know of more organizations speaking truth to power? Care to share? nt

[emulatorloo]

7. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Is this your mission here? The daily slam?

Please consider the SOP of this group.

[applegrove]

11. I'm objecting to the change of focus from inequality onto all manner of leftist causes. I have a

voice. I'm alowed to worry about the future of Occupy. I can warn that this is exactly what the 1% want. People were worried that Occupy would fold into the Democratic Party. But it hasn't, it has folded into the far left. Which has support in the country and participants. But at much less than 50% of the population. Occupy was so popular (over 50%) because they spoke to so many, many realities that were the 99%. Today they don't. I and many people were worried that if Occupy started to draw a list of demands they would not find that a successful tactic. I was one of many who said this. Are you denying that many Occupiers liked the anti-hierarchical practice that accepted all realities & views mostly on the issue of inequality?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. You're just objecting. Nothing has changed.

[applegrove]

16. Occupy wasn't anti-NATO or anti global. It was anti-power in the hands of a few - same as Arab

Springs everywhere. That is a big change. A change the 1% will love and support (and probably had false flag operators to encourage).

[2pooped2pop]

25. nato is the militarized arm of the 1%

wars are fought not only to gain a country's resources but also to make the bastards who supply the war machine even richer. They must have perpetual war to keep their profits risings.

it's the poor and middle class who are used as the cannon fodder to fight these bullshit wars. The rich reap the benefits.

wars are waged to make the super rich richer and they care not how many lives are lost or ruined as long as their coffers continue to grow.

nato absolutely should be protested by Occupy.

[TBF]

33. Absolutely correct - and anyone who is not questioning unfettered capitalism

needs to have their heads examined. Look what it is doing to this world - extreme luxury of 1% vs. everyone else, destruction of natural resources, profit over all else.

Why would we NOT protest that?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

30. I doubt many people who are offended by OWS

protesting NATO were fans of OWS to begin with.

[drynberg]

56. EXCUSE ME,

but where is your supporting data? Your opinion is yours but it ain't fact unless its fact.

[applegrove]

18. I am a big supporter of Occupy. I want to see it become a permanent world wide movement to fight the

Last edited Sat May 19, 2012, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

inequality around the world. Same as arab Spring. Same deal. Don't let the 1% control the world. I don't want to see Occupy be marginalized as it will become if it collapses into the mandates of other movements.

[2pooped2pop]

27. I understand ur concerns

There have been many times that Occupy chose a route that I felt was unwise and I was concerned with them losing support. However each and every time I was able to talk to Occupy and they relieved my fears, or the action I was concerned about turned out great.
Occupy is what it is. The only way to influence it's direction is through direct participation and involvement. I too want occupy to last forever and be the catalyst of worldwide change. However if it does fail at that, it has already achieved more than any group in decades.

i must let occupy makemake the decisions it feels is right it

[TBF]

34. What type of "inequality" are you seeking to fight?

If you are interested in economic inequality why would you resist fighting against capitalism?

[applegrove]

35. The rich buying the government. A lack of taxes on the rich. Credit card legislation that helps

the banks and not the people or small business. Deregulations that result in a lack of competition as the mid sized corporations are all destroyed. Drug laws that favour white people over black. A lack of people centered news and information. Inadequate regulation where there is need for the public good. The privitization of schools, the dismantleling of union laws. And on and on. There is a **** load of stuff that needs to be fought against not just the things I mention above. Calling capitalism the enemy only isolates the middle from the left. Fight against naked capitalism or crony capitalism instead. That was Occupy's message and it warmed the hearts and lit a fire in the belly of Americans on the left and in the middle. People from all walks of life wanted to be part of the 99%.

Now fighting NATO (which freed Lybia, stopped ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and went after bin Laden who did attack the USA) is popular with a smaller group of Americans. And fighting against 'capitalism' will isolate Occupy even more. Because mixed market capitalism won the cold war and now every country in the world, with the exception of North Korea, practices one form or another mixed market capitalism. You lose the message by being against these two things. And when Occupy loses its popular message, it may make some on the left feel whole, but it will not get independants to feel part of something greater than the hierarchical world view the plutocrats and corporations have been imposing on Americans for 30 years. They'll go back to being sliced up and diced up by wedge issues instead of wanting to be part of the 99%.

[TBF]

36. And you've seen what happened to the world in the past 50 years

with capitalism. Can't imagine why you're defending it. Moving to the right and seeking compromise is not working for us. We are getting steam-rolled.

[applegrove]

37. You are talking about what has happened to America in the last 50 years. Other countries, like mine

Canada, are doing well. We regulated our banks properly. We didn't have a recession. Our conservative government spent a lot of money when it looked like a recession might happen because our greatest trading partner, you in the USA, was no longer buying. Germany, Nordic Countries, Asia, they have all had a much, much better last 50 years.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The roleback of regulations and taxes in the USA caused the inequality and the recession in your country. Capitalism needs to be harnessed and reigned in no doubt. Like they do in Germany.

[TBF]

38. This is a student protest in Montreal - YESTERDAY - you're doing smashingly. nt

[applegrove]

39. Students in Quebec don't want to pay $3000 dollars a term for University. They are

the luckiest students in Canada. Quebec is a very left leaning province. They are fighting to keep things that way and not go the way of the USA where university costs a lot more than that a year and has been increasing.

[TBF]

40. I have a feeling your definition of "lucky" and mine vary widely.

That's fine - it's good to know which side everyone is on.

[girl gone mad]

125. why are so many Canadians obssessed with American political forums?

You guys are in a housing bubble which is about to crash, btw.

[applegrove]

129. There is only a housing bubble in Toronto and Vancouver (two cities that have had high housing

prices for decades).

[truedelphi]

61. + my household. n/t

[pipoman]

10. No,

I believe the masses of blue collar and farmers oppose exportation of US jobs, A.K.A. "free trade"..

[xchrom]

14. Bull shit. Nt

[kysrsoze]

21. They're making one fatal mistake - they're not running anyone

As much as i despise the movement, the teabaggers have run candidates who have won - they may not win much more, but it is possible they will, to most peoples' detriment. For all the stuff I hear about a 3rd party or changing Dems from within... the 99% movement are not running anyone who truly speaks on their behalf. Sure, Elizabeth Warren speaks for the 99%, but out of her own volition. They should take a page from the Wisconsin recall movement. Wisconsin got out the votes and the candidates.

In the U.S., people would rather watch a low speed helicopter chase than a protest. IMO, protests bring about SOME awareness, but changing things from the inside is much more effective. Occupy needs to get into office. Otherwise, they are destined to fail.

If this message is true, they also need to learn to live in reality. Globalism and capitalism aren't going away. However, fairness rules need to be enacted and policed. And that's what we used to do back in the '30s or '40s, before we forgot everything we had learned.

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. Occupy can neither support nor engage the very system causing all of our trouble.

Purchased politicians who care nothing about the people...Occupy is about pressuring the system into sanity, not putting people into it, to be purchased.

End Citizens United! End money in politics!

[Chathamization]

47. Getting involved in elections

Getting involved in elections is a good way to pressure people. Look at how freaked out the people on the right are that they might be primaried. They've instilled a sense of fear into those in power, and now there's a number of Republicans that feel that they have to act crazy or else.

Political power is about putting pressure on politicians, and you do that through elections. You're absolutely right that the focus on electing "good people", then handing them the keys and hoping for the best, is insane. But that doesn't mean you should eschew elections. It means you should use them to as demonstrations of political power that will instill enough fear into others that they'll end up supporting you, even if you aren't directly involved with them.

[Fire Walk With Me]

48. None of them are even discussing taking back the trillions upon trillions of dollars given to banks

and wall street, so there is plenty of room for the application of new pressure...before they trick us all into taking financial responsibility, through infrastructure cuts and defunding, for that very theft.

[Chathamization]

49. It's insane

It's insane that Obama ended up being the voice defending the bailout. The bailout was hated by most Americans, and was an anathema to his base. But politicians do political calculations for everything, and his calculation was that the base would eventually have to swallow the bailout and support him, and other Americans wouldn't care that much about it. In the end, they figured pissing off Wall St. would have been a lot worse than pissing off most Americans. Can you think of anyone that really paid a political price for it?

Politicians just don't feel like these issues will seriously threaten them. Until a network comes about that's actually able to slam them for acting like this, they have no reason to act otherwise.

So yes, I agree with you that there is a lot of room to apply pressure. I don't see much happening in the way of that, though. There just doesn't seem to be enough people who are ready to really play the long-game political hardball, building strong local organizations that will hammer the most corrupt and scare the rest.

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Yes on all counts.

And that's why I'm Loud, if anyone has noticed

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. In San diego alone we had three candidates for congress in three different districts

Two of them made it to the November ballot, red districts...

[sabrina 1]

116. This movement would destroy itself, if it were to do as you suggest. However, there are OWS

members running for office, and in fact, there are elected officials who are members of OWS.

But it should never, ever become a political movement. I think you are missing the whole idea behind this movement.

[limpyhobbler]

22. Instead of anti-globalization, think alter-globalization. We want FAIR trade.

Trade deals between countries should have protections for workers, consumers, and the environment built in. Currently this is mostly not the case. And in rare cases when these protection exist, they are usually not enforced.

All trade deals should have promotion of economic and social justice at the core of the agreement. Instead of what we have now, where trade deals exist only to serve the interests of corporate profits, which mostly ends up enriching those who are already super-wealthy.

In other words, trade pacts and organizations should exist to serve human need, not human greed.

That's an anti-capitalist message. In my opinion it's very close to the heart of what Occupy is about. Without that message I'm not sure Occupy would even exist at all.

It's the common interest that allows labor, environment, anti-war/anti-imperialists, and other grass roots activists to come together in a common cause. Occupy is a convergence of anti-capitalist activists, in my opinion. Separately we have suffered decades of defeats because the power of big-money special interests (capitalists) is too strong. But together we stand a chance of being able to win some victories against the big-money special interests.

[applegrove]

44. Then OWS should be clear that they want to alter globalization not end it. And they should be clear

they don't trust crony capitalism instead of capitalism.

[limpyhobbler]

45. The movement has people with diverse views who agree on some common actions.

Then OWS should be clear that they want to alter globalization not end it.

It's already clear to me. There is almost no such thing as anti-globalization anymore. There is only alter-globalization now.

And they should be clear they don't trust crony capitalism instead of capitalism.

We are big enough to include those who seek only to reform the economic system with regulations. But there is also going to be open talk about how capitalism is the problem, and how we need a system that serves human need, not human greed.

So please be tolerant of friendly anti-capitalism . Participate or not in any actions where you feel comfortable.

Maybe try not fixate on philosophical differences between those who seek small reforms, those who seek deeper changes, and those who don't have a fixed opinion. It seems divisive.

Just like if you are a Democrat, not all Democrats agree on every issue, but they agree on a common action. Similar deal here.

We agree on some common actions.

[tama]

138. Was there ever?

It has always been just anti neoliberal and capitalist globalization, with slogan 'another world is possible'. There has been just conscious effort to change the word from negative to alternative.

[GeorgeGist]

28. In the sense the Capitalism includes PROFIT ...

capitalism is by definition UNFAIR trade. I agree that most people don't know that and therefore are brainwashed into supporting Capitalism.

[Zorra]

29. IMO, your Third Way neo-liberal 1% plutarchy supporting propaganda is not

welcome in this group.

You obviously either have no conception of what Occupy is, and is about, or you are here to disrupt.

Occupy is not like Third Way "Democrats" and is not willing to sell out our ideas and ideals to appease the sheeplike conservatives who wish to maintain the system of inequality and injustice so cruelly foisted upon us by the 1%.

Occupy is not a popularity contest, and we are not trying to sell ourselves in order to get elected.

Occupy is a collective of concerned human beings dedicated to making a world and system that is for the benefit of all human beings, and not just for the 1% and their greed and profit.

I've seen your shtick before, Applegrove. You're wasting your time here, it won't work.

Go try it out on the Fox News crowd. They'll buy anything.

[applegrove]

31. My positions are like Obamas on world trade and nato.

I want to see Occupy succeed. I don't want to see it fade away. I'm worried that we are playing into the 1% hands and losing what tied the greatest group of Americans together we have seen in a generation. I don't see why Occupy cannot just be about inequality. Let peace groups demonstrate against NATO. I'm worried and I have a right to be.

[Zorra]

32. Ah. I get it. That's why you framed the debate so well right in the subject line of your OP.

"So now Occupy is against world trade and capitalism?"

We are against control of our world by the 1%. Since they own most everything and control most everything, it may seem like we are protesting against capitalism when we protest against the 1%.

And Occupy is not about Obama.

"I'm worried that we are playing into the 1% hands and losing what tied the greatest group of Americans together we have seen in a generation."

Really? Thanks so much for your concern.

Let peace groups demonstrate against NATO.

"When the Power of Love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace".

"I don't see why Occupy cannot just be about inequality."

We're all about equality and justice. That's why we do what we do. We're protesting against the 1%, on their turf. It won't do anybody any good for us to protest in front of St. Mary's Mission and AIDS hospice, they're on our side.

Why does Occupy protest against the 1% economic system? Equality and Justice, of course.



Here's just a smidgen of information about the injustice and inequality that Occupy is going to rectify at some point in the future.

How Unequal We Are: The Top 5 Facts You Should Know About The Wealthiest One Percent Of Americans

C- For effort. Try using non-cliched methods next time.

☮ccupy

On edit: The 1% owns a much greater share of the wealth today. That pie chart is 6 years old.

[Zalatix]

53. Your positions are like that of the Koch's and the US Chamber of Commerce.

[applegrove]

79. No they are not. They are like Obama's. Like the vast majority of people in the USA. Occupy touched

on something inside many, many americans. I don't want to see them box themselves into a corner by being anti trade and anti nato. We already have a left. Why would an anti 1% organization morph into exactly what the left wing demonstrators have been for the last 20 years. Occupy was something new.

[Zalatix]

83. Yes, your ideas ARE aligned with the US Chamber of Commerce.

Rachel Maddow: Chamber of Commerce Champions Outsourcing American Jobs (Video)
http://archive.truthout.org/rachel-maddow-chamber-commerce-champions-outsourcing-american-jobs64239

Outsourcing American jobs is outright discrimination against American workers. Free trade takes more jobs away from us than it brings to us.

For you to support free trade you must invariably be against American workers having jobs. Period.

That is why Occupy is turning against free trade. That is why most of America has turned against it. Bernie Sanders is not in favor of what you believe in. Even Paul Krugman has turned in favor of tariffs.

The revolution against offshoring is on, applegrove. We're fighting back and we will never, ever back down. We will win.

[applegrove]

85. My ideas are the same as Obama's. That is who I follow. The right wing wins if Occupy becomes a

clone of the far left.

[Zalatix]

86. Nope, your views are in line with the US Chamber of Commerce. Not Obama.

This is what President Obama has done.

The anti-offshoring revolution has begun. We will not be stopped. Dig it!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/11/obama-signs-tariffs-bill-to-aid-manufacturers/

Obama signs tariffs bill to aid manufacturers
Critics demand pressure for free-trade accords as deficit expands

President Obama on Wednesday signed a bill lowering tariffs on materials used by U.S. manufacturers and urged Congress to approve $5 billion in additional clean-energy tax credits, saying the moves will help the country meet his goal of doubling exports in the next five years.

But the signing ceremony was held hours after the Commerce Department announced that the U.S. trade deficit in June climbed to its highest level since October 2008, with exports falling by $150 billion as imports of foreign goods rose by $200 billion. That news fueled critics of Mr. Obama’s trade policies, some of whom cited his failure to persuade Democrats in Congress to approve three pending free-trade agreements.

Mr. Obama did not specifically address the trade deficit in his remarks. Instead, he reiterated his support for U.S. manufacturers and noted that the sector has added nearly 200,000 jobs in seven months this year.

[applegrove]

87. I'm sorry but I follow Obama on trade policy. You can say 'nope' all you want. I know the right

loves it when Occupy goes off message. We are the 99%. And I hope Occupy rethinks and decides not to follow the far left only, but follows itself and the multiple realities on inequality that made occupy so great.

[Zalatix]

88. I know you're wrong. Obama signed a tariff law. You oppose tariffs. You know you're wrong.

The only way you can hope to be right is if this did not happen:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/11/obama-signs-tariffs-bill-to-aid-manufacturers/

[applegrove]

91. I don't oppose tariffs. I'm for tariffs on chinese goods if they are messing with their dollar.

I just think world trade is important.

[Zalatix]

92. So your OP was an attack on a straw man?

Nobody's against ALL international trade. What Occupy and the rest of us are against is the utterly LOPSIDED deal in which American workers lose jobs far more than jobs come here from elsewhere.

We are running a monster trade deficit, even after eliminating oil imports. This is increasing our national debt while also devaluing our currency. No one else in the world runs this kind of trade deficit.

American workers are losing out in this situation. We need balanced trade, not unrestricted free trade. Occupy has never waged war on ALL trade, like you suggest.

[applegrove]

93. Like Bill Clinton said, America is winning on trade except for China and the middle east. The

problem is not developing alternative energy, not penalizing China for their currency manipulations with tariffs, not taxing the rich enough, not enough stimulus spending on infrastructure and retraining. You know what country is doing well? Germany. They have free trade with all the EU. And they have the most engineers of any country in the world. They have good social programs. They are doing it right. And they have open trade. Now how does that happen?

[limpyhobbler]

98. Do you support Obama's 2008 position on trade, or his 2012 position?

I suggest that Occupy is against free trade that does not include protections for workers, consumers, environment, human rights, and democracy.

That is very similar to then Senator Obama's 2008 position.

[OrwellwasRight]

74. If your position on trade is the same as Obama's

then it is also the same as Bush's because their trade policies are at least 90% identical. Look, Obama thinks the system is fundamentally sound, but needs tinkering around the edges. A new reg here, a bit of a change there, etc. But that isn't right. The entire economic model is wrong. Adding a few regs is not going to solve the problem where the 1% write all the rules in their own favor. Occupy isn't about tweaking the way we screw over the vast majority or workers, its about not screwing them over in the first place. Our system is not sound, and as long as money keeps corrupting policitics, it will not be sound.

[applegrove]

80. I totally agree money is corrupting politics and the 1% have too much power. Why I want to see

Occupy do that instead of doing what the left has been fighting for the last 20 years.

[OrwellwasRight]

81. How do you think you can fight that

without fighting the system that they control and that benefits them? How exactly do you fight the 1% while leaving the system perfectly intact?

[truedelphi]

58. Thank you greatly for making this apparent to those

Who not only refuse "to get it," but who somehow need to keep slamming their propaganda in front of us. As though their mis-information can clear up a single thing!

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Against corrupt capitalism, certainly, and has been so from the beginning.

Starting with a demand to end money in politics (ending "Citizens United", where corporations were given free reign for unlimited donations, thus turning money into speech...and those without money, have to be silent).

I sense doubt on the part of most, to engage in the conversation of what would be better, than what we have. Certainly, with the 1% grabbing up 93% of the benefits of economic growth in 2009/2010, there is a problem and capitalism is it. They profited wildly through crashing the system, then grabbed more money in bailouts...all of it being our money.

California had $673,000,000,000 stolen by banks. Now they're saying there's a $16,000,000,000 shortfall and they'll have to trash schools and government employees. BULLSHIT. That's pennies from what banks stole, so why don't they just get it back? They're the legislators, the supposed real power in the country. But they don't, and won't, and are pulling "austerity", which means "socialized payment for theft". WE have to pay for a theft the government will neither punish nor retrieve.

Which is extremely telling, innit.

Student loan debt just topped $1 trillion dollars, and repugs voted to allow interest rates to increase even further. Students in Quebec are massively protesting against a 75% hike in tuition over a five-year period. Yet students are less than 50% likely to actually get a job in their field, much less a McJob, due to capitalism outsourcing and over-sea-ing jobs en masse.

There IS a problem in this country, and it's not Occupy

[Hatchling]

46. World trade and capitalism are the primary tools of the 1%.

Unfettered capitalism (of which world trade is one manifestation) is the leading cause of inequality. NATO is the military arm of the 1%.

[Zalatix]

51. Considering that the majority of Americans are AGAINST offshoring, Occupy will win BIG on this one.

Anti-globalization is ascendant. Like a rocket.

[truedelphi]

59. Stand with you in Solidarity of Occupy. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

55. Without inequality there is no capitalism. Inequality drives the system.

What you refuse to do is look at the rule of capitalism instead of focusing like a laser on an exceptional period which cannot be replicated.

There is no competing economic paradigm, the low hanging resource fruit has been plucked, global competition has bee n rebuilt, and the population of the world has exploded.

There are more issues than just regulations. The system is built on inequality from the root up, the whole thing is predicated on being heavily weighted to investor class and devalues labor.

The New Deal Era cannot be duplicated and no one is even pretending they are trying to.

[truedelphi]

60. You seem to have ignored a most vital

aspect of the Big Corporations take over of third world regions. It is not at all about
"improving conditions."

The "new Green Revolution" requires a huge culture based on pesticides, and fertilizers. Not only that, but the fact remains: GM seeds and crops destroy the health of the soil, and the crops end up with blights such as fusarium. Often such high levels of mold and fungal growths come about that the crop is inedible.

The nation of India has already witness over 100,000 farmers dying once they realized that the contracts for Gm seed had locked them out of even a subsistence way of life.


This article lays it out but there are plenty of other articles out there that will also offer up an education in what is going on in the "real world."

http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2012/06/05/bono-obama-and-the-g-8-ally-with-monsanto-to-bio-wreck-african-agriculture/

[secondwind]

62. THERE ARE OVER 70 MILLION DEMOCRATS IN THIS COUNTRY.

IF EACH OF THEM SENT TEN BUCKS A MONTH TO WWW.BARACKOBAMA.COM

WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAT THESE SUCKERS AT THEIR OWN GAME

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. As a left-libertarian, I'm opposed to Occupy being co-opted by Old Left and various Old Left groups

Many of whom have been hobbled and hollowed out by people who are not who they say they are, over the course of decades if not at their time of founding.

BUT -- That being said, I have to totally disagree with the OP in most other aspects.

Globalization was a problem ten years ago when the anti-globalization movement rallied more people in the streets than we see at the moment. People didn't rally then because it was leftist -- they rallied because they understood that globalization in the post-Reagan sense was a problem that was destroying the traditional local economy everywhere. Part of the issue with Occupy is not to let it become just another series of street protests.

We need a radical POPULIST movement in this country with Occupy as the initial volley of that effort. You can't be a radical populist movement if you don't go up against established status quo.

If nobody's (bronze) ox is being gored then no change will occur.

But it has to be cast (get it? bronze ox?) in terms that are directed by and towards the 99%, not narrow catchphrases of the "old" (authoritarian) left.

No offense meant to social leftists. There are social democrats and leftists who understand that the government has become, if not always was, instituted primarily to benefit the ownership class and the only way to challenge that is from below. But it is a fundamentally (left) libertarian or populist premise and hence a fundamentally American premise. No need to resort to intellectualisms of the self-isolated left activist groups -- the ones that don't want to engage or reach out to people they disagree with. That includes left-libertarians who associate entirely with isolated left causes and don't actually practice what they preach...

[JDPriestly]

64. Opposing trade agreements is wise. These trade agreements are a cover for the

establishment of a world government run by the corporations. That is quite true. I became very familiar with the text of the NAFTA agreement some years ago. It was a blueprint for setting up international courts that we Americans cannot control and that can overrule our local and even federal laws protecting our environment, our labor rights, everything we hold dear.

Please watch this video. It's Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101734456#post8

In particular these trade agreements overrule our environmental protections.

Remember, under Article III of our Constitution, treaties including these trade agreements have the same force and effect in the law as our Constitution itself. We are governed under the Constitution and our treaties. Other laws must comply and be consistent not just with our Constitution but with our treaties. And these treaties, like NAFTA, set up international courts that can overrule our courts.

World trade sounds wonderful, but it is another word for international corporate dominance of everything we are, have, and value.

I know. Sounds like hyperbole, like exaggeration. It isn't. Nor is it a conspiracy theory. It's the law. Trust me on this. I have seen it in action.

[applegrove]

66. Bill Clinton pointed out in his book that the only trade the USA was not doing well on in balance

was trade with China and Opec Oil countries.

[JDPriestly]

68. Do we have trade agreements with China or Opec Oil countries that bind us

to follow the decisions of international trade courts? I am unaware of that.

Overall, trade agreements have cost us jobs and weakened the core of our economy.

It is, at this point, not a matter of even the balance of payments. Our weapons sales to other countries are lose/lose deals. They result in everyone having to spend more on military equipment, on war and killing.

And what else do we export? A little food, but more and more we are importing food.

We used to export textiles, manufactured goods, even furniture?

When is the last time you saw stoves or refrigerators or furniture or textiles made in the USA?

I think you can find a few clothes (I've mostly seen workclothes) made in the USA, but the fabric? Where is it made? Is any of it made in the USA?

We don't make very many electronic items. We don't make the things that people buy like electric toothbrushes, I-phones, etc. Most everything we buy or use is made in some other country by cheap labor.

I would be for free trade if I could see that it was increasing employment and opportunity here. It is not.

I will be happy to change my mind if you can present evidence that ordinary Americans are better off now that we have free trade. I don't see it. I see people who are out of work or underemployed and underpaid. I see them everywhere.

[OrwellwasRight]

77. He has since then admitted that his idea that we could save Haiti through trade

has totally backfired.

OK, so this source is LaRouche (ick), but if you want to look elsewhere, you'll find it. He said it. And he was the big cheerleader for NAFTA. Trade is no substitute for a real development policy.

http://larouchepac.com/node/13962

It is just taking time for the rest of the world to catch up.

[Zalatix]

84. This is the truth about free trade - it's all about keeping Chinese and Haitians poor.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-03/news/30003110_1_minimum-wage-haitians-garment-workers
Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

A Wikileaks post published on The Nation shows that the Obama Administration fought to keep Haitian wages at 31 cents an hour.

(This article was taken down by The Nation due to an embargo, but it was excerpted at Columbia Journalism Review.)

It started when Haiti passed a law two years ago raising its minimum wage to 61 cents an hour. According to an embassy cable:

This infuriated American corporations like Hanes and Levi Strauss that pay Haitians slave wages to sew their clothes. They said they would only fork over a seven-cent-an-hour increase, and they got the State Department involved. The U.S. ambassador put pressure on Haiti’s president, who duly carved out a $3 a day minimum wage for textile companies (the U.S. minimum wage, which itself is very low, works out to $58 a day).

[OrwellwasRight]

89. Wow. That's disgusting.

Things are worse than I thought with the Administration. But I guess that is the point of this thread. Occupy isn't about taking "realistic positions" so that the new Dems will jump on board. It's about realigning the system so that everyone doesn't have to sell out to corporations to be considered a serious politician.

[TBF]

94. The answer is that we fight against capitalism globally.

Capitalists are organized globally, we need to be as well. There is no reason for us to be putting down labor in other countries - we should be in solidarity supporting them. The very richest in this country will stoke the "American jobs" meme and we should reject that. ALL people should have the opportunity to work, no matter which country they happen to live in. The top 1% worldwide keeps their power and luxury (these are the billionaires) by keeping the rest of us as poor as possible. This needs to stop.

[Zalatix]

95. We would have supported them by fighting for an $8/hour minimum wage in Haiti.

[Odin2005]

90. What crap. Capitalism is the problem. Socialism is the solution.

Capitalism and the parasitic Capitalist Class is the ROOT of the problem, anything else is a mere band-aid.

[egbertowillies]

96. It depends on the brand of Capitalism

OWS or most that I know believe in free enterprise not casino capitalism which is what we have now.

[applegrove]

97. Then why don't they call it 'casino capitalism' on the signs. It alienates OWS from part

of the 99%.

[tama]

139. Capitalism As We Know It

No point going into meaningless discussion about some idealistic utopian "capitalism". That's for the looney rw libertarians.

People in Soviet block didn't revolt against some idealistc utopian "socialism", but tyrannical oppression as they knew it. Same in US and everywhere. Overly intellectual and idealistic theoretical debates about catchwords is not what this is about. But keeping it real. About what matters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. I highly recommend you become VERY FAMILIAR with the term HARMONIZATION

and it's meaning in international trade...

So yes, some folks have somewhat benefited, but some folks have truly lost ground... since Occupy Wall Street is in the place where the losses have occurred...

But you seriously should become very conversant with the term.

[applegrove]

104. I'm not denying trade with China is bad. They are messing with their currency and should face

tariffs. Then it would only be oil in the middle east that doesn't result in a good trading relationship.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. It's not china

FTA's final intent is harmonization, who benefits? Not as simple, s it?

[Remember]

123. Understand

Globalization can be done thru trade exchange or empire building. The good old USA has done both. Every war after the Korean War has been done for the wrong reasons. People worldwide hate because we kill their people, strip their countries of their riches and say this is for their freedom. Capitalism is good as the very basic ideal but unfortunately it is on steroids now. Remember the tern Greed is Good. OWS has it right but unfortunately people only read the surface not the depth. Look deeper my friend this is how we don't see the coming storm. Be careful think outside the box, why are things done not the most oblivious.

[On the Road]

126. I'm With You on This

Of course, I think the death knell of the Occupy movement was when the parks were cleared. Since then, it has little media visibility and little ability to focus on issues.

If anti-globalism and anti-capitalism becomes part of the platform, it will devolve to the level of the Indymedia folks and have just as much influence.

[snot]

127. It's crucial to distinguish kinds of "globalism."

I have nothing against jobs for poor people in other countries, so long as multinational corps. remain subject to effective rules and enforcement against exploitation of labor and the environment.

[Speck Tater]

128. Every single reply in this thread to the OP is OFF TOPIC.

The topic is not whether capitalism and world trade is good or bad. The topic is, and this is an important point, "does the message Capitalism is evil resonate with all of the 99%, or just with 30% or 40% or 50% of the real 99%?"

If the message goes too far outside their comfort zone then regardless of whether it is true, partially true, or untrue it will not get significant support among the real 99% And it then follows that OP's point is absolutely spot on. "Occupy" will become just another name for "radical left" and will lose most of its support.

[applegrove]

130. Occupy will lose some of its support, not most of it. But it was those supporters that had woken up

that will be lost. Do we want that?

[Chan790]

131. Doesn't matter.

Of course it's outside their comfort zone...it's a revolutionary thought. But...the longer we talk about it and don't allow ourselves to be shut-up or marginalized...the more I've found people of all stripes warming to it even a little...and a little...and a little more. Let's be honest, it's an incendiary thought and those make people uncomfortable at-first, they draw thoughts of revolutions and uprisings. Noe of us thought this was going to be a quick effort to change the system...it's going to be a long haul...but being normalized is not productive.

We're going to stick to talking about the evil of capitalism because the conversation turns in our direction and we're building a critical-mass movement from dry kindling and a spark.

[tama]

140. Also rw libertarians

are very much opposed to Capitalism As We Know It - in fact much more so than "lefty" liberals who "stand with Obama" and Federal Reserve and MIC.

99% of American's don't like Capitalism As They Know It any more than any other people of this globe.

[JackRiddler]

132. This promises to be an erudite conversation!

[applegrove]

133. My point is the middle class came together over inequlity during that occupy fall. Don't we want to

capture that connection that was made? Instead of going back to how the left and centre were before: separate on the inequlity issue? It is a single point I made and that is what I do - I don't enable discussion being a quiet type myself.

[JackRiddler]

134. Your terms are seriously skewed.

First of all, "globalization" is not "world trade." PLEASE be honest in your use of terms, okay? Globalization is a particular program of the capitalist class to create the same conditions for multinational corporations in all countries, so that they can always find cheap labor and are not tied down by laws or taxes. The battle against globalization is not against "world trade," but against the kind of trade that breaks the working class.

What remains of the middle class is being pushed into economic precarity - by capitalism. A lot of people are waking up to that right now. There's no reason to be pandering to anyone's fantasies. It's about time capitalism is being directly addressed as a disaster, because it is a disaster. Capitalism necessarily creates inequality, is destructive on a global scale and ultimately unsustainable.

[applegrove]

135. My terms are not skewed. I'm make an observation. Occupy appealed to over 50% of Americans

because it attracted many from the "centre". I just think we should have a discussion before we lose those people who woke up. The far left agenda has always had a base, just not over 50% of the population. The GOP and plutocrats get a lot of mileage out of wedging the centre from the left. My question was simple: do we really want that on the equality issue re: Occupy?

[Zalatix]

136. 91% of Democrats and 87% of Republicans oppose offshoring.

http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/made-america-gets-strong-backing-voters

'Made in America' Gets Strong Backing from Voters
New poll shows Americans back manufacturing but don't rate Washington efforts to support it very highly.

Listen up, Ralph Lauren. A survey of 1,200 Americans shows that 97% have a favorable view of goods manufactured in the United States. Moreover, there is a high level of support across the electorate for strong Buy America programs for public works.

Republicans (87%), Democrats (91%) and independents (87%) all favor Buy America policies, according to the survey released Monday by the Alliance of American Manufacturing.Even when presented with arguments from critics of Buy American about higher costs and increased taxes, voters supported Buy American policies by a wide margin.

The survey found that 53% of voters rate manufacturing as the industry "most important to the overall strength of the American economy."

“It’s striking how clearly voters—Republican and Democrat alike—see strengthening manufacturing as the key to rebuilding the U.S. economy,” said Scott Paul, AAM's executive director.