The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > After the Melbourne crackdown: rebuilding the ‘We are the 99 per cent’ movement > Comments

After the Melbourne crackdown: rebuilding the ‘We are the 99 per cent’ movement : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 27/10/2011

Social movement against neo-liberalism need to be broad and tolerant.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
There is definitely a right to peaceful protest and the police in Melbourne were wrong to prevent it. I don't agree with the protesters about most of their complaints, but that's not the point.

However, I wonder if the protesters feel the same about Andrew Bolt and the hobbling of free speech caused by the court upholding the "offence" complaint against him.

Abraham Lincoln famously said: Those who would deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves
Posted by DavidL, Thursday, 27 October 2011 9:00:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is evident that Tristan has virtually no idea of current trends when he talks about tendenancy to monopalisation and tax the wealthy. On tax, he may have had a point in the 1980s but not now.. most of the old rorts have been closed off and the ATO, in fact, spends a good part of its time chasing the wealthy. Perhaps Tristan could google data matching and the ATO and start reading.

As for the monopolisation tendency, an unregulated market does tend towards monopolisation. But again Tristan does not seem to be aware that all recent reforms have been directed against price fixing, and preventing monopoly suppliers. He should find some material on the trade practices act and the Australian Pruduential Regulatory Authority and, again, start reading.

Theory will only get you so far.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 27 October 2011 10:15:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon; Ok let's be specific then -

Superannuation concessions brought in by Howard (and supported by Keating actually) favour the rich heavily and cost billions every year.

On both sides of politics there's constant talk of 'simplifying' and 'flattening' the tax system. Relative 'flattening' of tax (including income tax) has been going on since Hawke and Keating too.

Company Tax has been falling also for decades - but while people say high company tax rates 'flow on' to consumers, but the same token when you cut Company Tax you have to make up for it somewhere. This can be through more regressive 'flat taxes' and user pays mechanisms.

Dividend Imputation also heavily favours the rich, and to the extent that cutting it back would affect ordinary people's superannuation - this could be ameliorated by easing pension means test, and providing other concessions for people on low-middle incomes.

Finally - as I say in the article tens of billions are heading overseas to foreign private investors from the mining industry also.

re: monopolisation There is little competition in banking and between supermarket chains. Though not technically 'monopolies' there is a TENDENCY towards monopoly inherent in the capitalist system. In the case of Australia we have several perhaps-collusive oligopolies.

It begs the question why we don't start thinking of natural public monopolies again - as these have no incentive to rip off consumers.

Or alterantively government business enterprises (eg: in banking) with a charter to actually push competition...
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 October 2011 10:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, you quote an ACTU stat (no chance of any in-built bias there by the way) about rich/poor divide then refer people to some strange little marxist apologist website as your source. Oh dear. Not looking good mate. Now, if you want to get a clear idea of who the really greedy 1% are go to www.globalrichlist.com and find out the shocking truth.

Occupying a position of steadily reducing relevance is about all the movement has to look forward to if it cannot present cogent, well researched arguments.

And if it cannot present more than broad brush gripes & (based on what I have tried to find out about them) no viable solutions of any kind they will only achieve that sad goal sooner.

Finally, the "fascist police" argument is a bit lame Tristan. A move on order was given, people chose to stay and be removed by force. I don't condone violence from either side but you cannot lay all the blame at the foot of the coppers. Let's see what the video ref has to say on that matter shall we? Liberal democracies tend to work that way last time I looked.

Finally finally, I note the clever use of grossly defamatory flyers by Occupy Melbourne to attack one member of the coppers who cleared City Square. Talk about cutting off one's nose.
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 27 October 2011 11:07:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, nostalgia.

Don't let them tell you that nostalgia's not what it used to be. This article is straight out of the Private Eye/Dave Spart playbook from the seventies. I wonder if the "Dollis Hill Facebook Anarchists Against the Tory Cuts Collective" is still active? I bet it is.

All those "police in full riot gear smash[ing] a peaceful protest" brought it back to me, as if it were yesterday. [It was yesterday - ed.]

Back then, though, one of the unspoken agreements between demonstrator and police was that the protesters remained within the law. As I understand it - and I only know what the fascistic mainstream media wants me to hear, so I'm open to alternative views - the Melbourne folk were occupying the wrong sort of space.

It is understood that they want to be as comfortable as possible, and avoid too much walking about, so finding a spot where loitering is permitted is always going to be a problem.

But that's the price protesters pay, and have been paying for decades. It's not the iPhones that give them away, so much as the insistence that they "have the right" to protest, in comfort.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 27 October 2011 11:10:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Pericles, the London occupiers seem to have solved the problem of being cold and uncomfortable -- they just leave their tents up and go home at night.

http://tinyurl.com/6k6nm3v

I guess Rent-a-Crowd doesn't pay overtime rates.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 27 October 2011 11:19:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy