Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Jacob]

A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.

Unfortunately, they are problems without any really easy solution.

The solutions may not be easy, but that doesn't mean they aren't there nor that they shouldn't be attempted.

I used to think that an overall increase in socialist measures (I know folks in the US are sometimes allergic to the term "socialist", but whatever) would, in and of itself, be a solution. But it isn't as simple as that, as part of the problem is surely cultural - merely redistributing resources will not solve it, as creating new entitlements has the potential to exacerbate the cultural divide.

Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?

The countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.

Not to limit ourselves to developed countries either, the Bolsa Familia program in Brazil - a socialist redistributive measure if there ever was one - is widely credited with lifting the living standards and productivity of millions.

So yeah, while badly implemented social programs can be counter productive, I'm not sure what you base the notion that social programs inherently entrench social divisions on.

That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.

It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).

I mean, turn around is fair play and all, so if it was fair for lefties to mock the cringeworthy people at Tea Party events (demanding that the government stay out of medicare etc) then it's equally fair for right wingers to pick out the sillier of the Occupiers. Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.

[crazy canuck]

To put this in perspective, in Vancouver lots of people will protest just about anything at the drop of a hat.  Seems that is what happened in Sunday when a few thousand turned out on a beautiful day to march around, play drums and talk about their various pet projects.

This morning there appear to be less than one hundred that are more what what one might consider the usual suspects - the professional dreadlocked protestors.

Its a bit of a joke really given the fact that the economic circumstances in Canada - and particularly this part of Canada - are so dramatically different form those in the US.

[crazy canuck]

Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.

In what way do you think discourse is going to be shifted by any of this in Canada.  We have had much larger and meaningful protests.  In this country this is more like a bad copycat.

[Valmy]

It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).

Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.

[MadImmortalMan]

Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?

The countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.

My guess would be:

Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.

[crazy canuck]

Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.

Its is also pretty easy to label extremism as crazy just as it is pretty easy to label both the occupy and tea party movements as crazy.

[Razgovory]

...

That being noted, a bunch of anarcho-professional protesters dumpster diving around downtown isn't going to point the way to any solutions. If anything, they obscure the existence of the problems.

These protesters may not have a common 'program' or a common 'agenda' but they share a sentiment: rage.  They are like fuel lying about.  What's needed is a match to ignite them.  Knowing how our greedy elites operate - it won't be too long before their incompetence produces such a spark.

And then we shall see - won't we?




G.

You wanna give a date or do you want to just blow smoke out your ass?  Nothings going to happen.

[garbon]

Well right it is just good strategy to attack your opponents as crazy people.

Its is also pretty easy to label extremism as crazy just as it is pretty easy to label both the occupy and tea party movements as crazy.

I also don't think it is out of bounds when you look at who really has been protesting in NYC.  You aren't getting hordes of former productive workers that are now homeless - camping out. You're getting a lot of the fringe element and so I think people are right to point that out.  It took a couple weeks of the protest going on before residents of NYC were even talking about this.

[Razgovory]

They look like just college kids to me.  College kids are always protesting, something.  Every time I went up to Columbia (where the State University is), someone was protesting something.  Sweatshops, pollution, that there were sill some Jews alive somewhere (I mean pro-Palestinian protests), etc.

[Malthus]

The solutions may not be easy, but that doesn't mean they aren't there nor that they shouldn't be attempted.

On that much, we agree.

Really? What about the socialist measures and entitlements make you think they'll inherently cement the social divide?

Much depends on how they are implemented. The history of governments using entitlements to enact social reform is not always a happy one. Merely handing out bread & circuses isn't going to do it, and more targeted reforms aimed at enacting worthy social goals - think the mortgage tax deduction in the US - have had a nasty history of unintended consequences.

The countries with the most social mobility and lowest differences in incomes also have some of the most thorough social programs. In Denmark, not only is post-secondary education free, for example, but you get money from the government when you're in university.

Denmark is also small nation of remarkable social cohesion. A solution that will work in Denmark may not work so well in North America, home to a great diversity of social groups.

In general, the closer the social cohesion, the better pure socialism 'works' without driving wedges into the divide between social classes, ethnic and regional groupings.

A kibbutz is a purely socialist undertaking, but it is not necessarily a viable model for society as a whole, as it relies on a very high degree of social and ideological cohesion and uniformity to operate. 

Not to limit ourselves to developed countries either, the Bolsa Familia program in Brazil - a socialist redistributive measure if there ever was one - is widely credited with lifting the living standards and productivity of millions.

So yeah, while badly implemented social programs can be counter productive, I'm not sure what you base the notion that social programs inherently entrench social divisions on.

Iknow nothing of that program.

"has the potential to" is not the same as "will inherently".

It's comfortable for the "haves" to focus on the flaky pseudo-hippie lifestyle anti-establishment types that inevitably gather at these sort of things (just read this thread for evidence). This time around, however, it seems like they haven't managed to obscure the existence of the problem completely. Whether they end up doing so really depends on how much mass support they get from the hard-luck masses. Focusing on the "hippies" is a mistake, I think (except, of course, as a deliberate measure to minimize the situation and political impulse in question - much like some prefer(red) to focus on the flakiest tea party types in the hope that that would make them go away).

I mean, turn around is fair play and all, so if it was fair for lefties to mock the cringeworthy people at Tea Party events (demanding that the government stay out of medicare etc) then it's equally fair for right wingers to pick out the sillier of the Occupiers. Beyond the impact it may have on shifting the discourse it seems sort of pointless though, in the end the underlying issues remain and will have to be addressed one way or another.

Point is that if the protests are by "flakes" it compromises their effectiveness. Agree/disagree?

[The Brain]

A kibbutz is a purely socialist undertaking

Here we go again.

[Jacob]

In what way do you think discourse is going to be shifted by any of this in Canada.  We have had much larger and meaningful protests.  In this country this is more like a bad copycat.

I agree. What's going on in Canada - especially in Vancouver - is just the usual second hand effects of bigger events in the US. I think it would be a mistake to judge the US Occupiers by the Canadian demonstrations.

While there well may be some good arguments for Occupy Vancouver etc, the situation is pretty different from that in the US.

[Ideologue]

Yeah, you guys have a good country.

[Sheilbh]

ok, but if they are out to "change the world", shouldn't they have at least a remotely coherent common agenda? Or if that is not a requirement, why taking them seriously is?

I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world. 

I don't think protests change policy necessarily.  If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.

Protests change the focus and terms of a debate.  So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending.  If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.

Successful prrotests don't make anything happen.  They change what's being talked about and how it's understood.  I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

A growing split in society between "haves" and "have-nots", and a growing decrease in social mobility between these two groups, are real and substantial problems.

Agreed.  In addition I think for these guys it matters that the economy's stalled, at best.  I graduated in 2009 and I don't think the prospects are any better for someone graduating now, I very much doubt they'll be much better in 2012.  There's a real danger of a lost generation.

Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.

The countries with the most social mobility are Scandinavian or Antipodean.  The Scandi's have huge welfare states, the Aussies and Kiwis have pretty small ones that are extremely targeted at the very poor.  Both also have systems that tend to worry more about working age people than pensioners (unlike, say, the Med).

[Barrister]

I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world. 

I don't think protests change policy necessarily.  If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.

Protests change the focus and terms of a debate.  So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending.  If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.

Successful prrotests don't make anything happen.  They change what's being talked about and how it's understood.  I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.