The General Politics Thread

traptunderice

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QngE6kKk8Lg#">http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... gE6kKk8Lg#</a>!

Occupy Oakland video: Riot police fire tear gas, flashbang grenades

Wow. That kind of shit makes me feel disgusted. Ugh.

Edit: I guess I should point out that this was a peaceful protest within city limits and presumably the result of them simply not having a permit as if Americans don't have the right to assembly.

Karmakosmonaut

traptunderice wrote
not having a permit as if Americans don't have the right to assembly.

Here in Belgium, as pretty much anywhere in the West I assume, protests beyond a dozen or so people have to ask the local authorities for permission, appointment of responsibility etc. Both for the safety of bystanders and the protesters themselves. Perhaps this does not conform to your view of revolutionary spontaneity, though.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
traptunderice wrote
not having a permit as if Americans don't have the right to assembly.
Here in Belgium, as pretty much anywhere in the West I assume, protests beyond a dozen or so people have to ask the local authorities for permission, appointment of responsibility etc. Both for the safety of bystanders and the protesters themselves. Perhaps this does not conform to your view of revolutionary spontaneity, though.

Well, the problem is that the permits aren't conforming to what these demonstrations are. A spontaneous crowd would surely not have a permit but these people are trying to work with local municipalities and are hitting walls. Cleveland's federal court recently sided with the Occupy group there, giving them 24 hour access to a park. Why can't other places work with the protestors? Should they simply not voice their grievances then? Or get out there regardless of not having a permit? Not having a permit doesn't equal riot-level response of flash bangs and rubber bullets. The brutality is what amazes me within the context of our liberal democracy.

Karmakosmonaut

The permits probably aren't conforming to the demonstrations because the point is, rather, that the demonstrations conform to the permits. I agree completely about the disproportional reaction of the authorities, though.

Goat

Karmakosmonaut wrote
I agree completely about the disproportional reaction of the authorities, though.

Indeed. Whatever you think about these people and their (lack of) ideas, treating them so roughly is outrageous.

dead1

Permits are a great way of preventing protests. If it's something the government doesn't want to be protested, then they don't allow a permit.

They do it here in Tasmania all the time especially with anti-forestry stuff.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
The permits probably aren't conforming to the demonstrations because the point is, rather, that the demonstrations conform to the permits.

And I think this points to a very different conception of politics between us. Permits should promote safety and organization which enable politics to appear, not that politics be limited by how particular institutions want to inhibit the possibilities of these actions.

Goat

Being fair, these camps aren't exactly safe or well-organised. Reading the minutes of a meeting at the London one, they seemed to spend most of their time arguing about whether alcohol and drugs should be banned, with some rather disturbing concerns about female safety. A woman was actually raped at a camp in Glasgow... And there were public health concerns in the Oakland camp re rats etc, no? Again, not excuses for riot police, but still very valid concerns that undermine a movement with potential.

Goat

... some concerns less worthy than others, of course.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7343370/health-and-safety-what-would-jesus-do-weep-obviously.thtml">http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/7 ... usly.thtml</a>

Karmakosmonaut

traptunderice wrote
Karmakosmonaut wrote
The permits probably aren't conforming to the demonstrations because the point is, rather, that the demonstrations conform to the permits.
And I think this points to a very different conception of politics between us. Permits should promote safety and organization which enable politics to appear, not that politics be limited by how particular institutions want to inhibit the possibilities of these actions.

True. It happens with both left- and right-wing demonstrations here, although there is always more bias against right-wing demonstrations (left-wingers are considered less harmful, I guess, even though they usually leave the streets in more of a chaos).

I don't think it's about different conceptions of politics, rather how statist we are in relation to one another. Permits should promote safety, indeed, but I wonder if that group of protesters you talked about actually tried to obtain one.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
traptunderice wrote
Karmakosmonaut wrote
The permits probably aren't conforming to the demonstrations because the point is, rather, that the demonstrations conform to the permits.
And I think this points to a very different conception of politics between us. Permits should promote safety and organization which enable politics to appear, not that politics be limited by how particular institutions want to inhibit the possibilities of these actions.
True. It happens with both left- and right-wing demonstrations here, although there is always more bias against right-wing demonstrations (left-wingers are considered less harmful, I guess, even though they usually leave the streets in more of a chaos).I don't think it's about different conceptions of politics, rather how statist we are in relation to one another. Permits should promote safety, indeed, but I wonder if that group of protesters you talked about actually tried to obtain one.

I think all of these groups are trying to get permits because they don't want their movement to fizzle due to arrests and they don't want things to spiral out of control such as what happened in that video. People are very conscious of that possibility despite it seeming so absurd.

@Zad: Yeah, vagrant camps (which is essentially what they are) are kinda doomed to shit like that unless there is a strict authority or code established and decent people involved.

I wonder how homeless people are responding to these spontaneous camps. I would totally bunk up with them rather than be alone. Which is kinda awesome from a political perspective if they could be brought into the fold properly.

traptunderice

David Harvey on Occupy Wall Street: <a class="postlink" href="http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2011/10/29/david-harvey-occupy-wall-stree">http://socialistworker.org/blog/critica ... wall-stree</a>

In response to the Occupy Wall Street movement the state backed by capitalist class power makes an astonishing claim: that they and only they have the exclusive right to regulate and dispose of public space. The public has no common right to public space! By what right do mayors, police chiefs, military officers and state officials tell we, the people, that they have the right to determine what is public about “our” public space, and who may occupy that space, and when? When did they presume to evict us, the people, from any space we, the people, decide collectively and peacefully to occupy? They claim they are taking action in the public interest (and cite laws to prove it), but it is we who are the public! Where is “our interest” in all of this?

Karmakosmonaut

Well, isn't the state in charge of regulating public space? And isn't the state (supposed to be) a solidification of the will of the majority of the public? So what's wrong then?

Goat

Trapt, this is why they should privatise everything. Problem solved!

( 😛 )

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
Well, isn't the state in charge of regulating public space? And isn't the state (supposed to be) a solidification of the will of the majority of the public? So what's wrong then?

I don't know if I'd say the state should be in charge of regulating public space entirely. And I think the point is that the state isn't representing the will of the majority of the public when they are arresting and evicting these people.

Karmakosmonaut

traptunderice wrote
And I think the point is that the state isn't representing the will of the majority of the public when they are arresting and evicting these people.

If the majority of the people feels that way, then they will vote accordingly. That's how it works, sadly.

traptunderice

Karmakosmonaut wrote
traptunderice wrote
And I think the point is that the state isn't representing the will of the majority of the public when they are arresting and evicting these people.
If the majority of the people feels that way, then they will vote accordingly. That's how it works, sadly.

If we had radical democracy then we could vote on that shit right now. Umm sadly the voting process in no way represents the issues which are on people's minds and the politicians we are given the option of choosing from don't represent those interests which they claim they will promote.

So I went to my first Occupy event last night. It was a teach-in to educate people about the movement and what possibilities it opens up and at the end of it we decided to hold a general assembly next sunday which is where we as a a group of all who choose to come decide just what our local branch is going to do. I was talking to some people and we're going to push for occupying the front lawn of the business college on campus. I like the idea. In combination with a list of other forms of dissent but that's what I want to focus on. Insofar as I'm not employed by the university I can do shit like that where my friends who have funding or jobs on campus can't.

Goat

Is it private property? What are your aims in occupying it? Are there provisions set up for litter disposal, making sure the women don't get raped, etc?

traptunderice

Goat wrote
Is it private property? What are your aims in occupying it? Are there provisions set up for litter disposal, making sure the women don't get raped, etc?

It's university property and hence public. We could get permission or we can simply occupy it and hope we aren't arrested. We know they won't give us permission to camp so the latter will probably be the option.

Aims? Miami University pumps out a shit ton of business folk. Doing teach-ins in front of their building would hope to form some kind of consciousness in them about the problems caused by corporations in this society. This is a town full of snotty rich kids, for serious, there is a 1% club here which started prior to our Occupy meeting. The streets are lined with BMWs and Benzs on streets that are only dorms and apartments housing students. It's repulsive. These kids don't get it. Rather than simply being antagonistic to them we would want to do a lot of business ethics teach-ins and testimonials so these kids get just what is happening in the country. Because they don't imagine that some people have it as bad as some people truly do. Getting people to come in from the nearby run-down post-industrial towns for support would be great. Forcing these kids to interact with the reality that they hide from in this bubble of college boozing and greek life would be good for them.

Provisions haven't been set up but we also haven't decided that's what we're doing at all yet. A lot of people who have sway in the group want to do it and we're meeting on Sunday to plan just what our goals and methods will be in this town. Trash seems easy.

Karmakosmonaut

Envy of another's well-earned property; classic proletariat sentiment.

Trash is indeed easy for that kind of people, check what they did in a room the University of Brussels had put at their disposal:

Change.

« Previous Page Next Page »