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. 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
It's been well over 40 years since my Uni Days with its heady left wing demos and Anti- Vietnam Marches.

Yet, I feel in a time loop with this Writer, only the Names have changed .The rhetoric is unchanged ,absorbed with the same blind belief that we had then and. I assume, they do now.

We had Soul then and are not Fools nowadays.( If you don't get it, look up the Quote )

Welcome to the 1960s, Tristan
Posted by Aspley, Thursday, 27 October 2011 11:34:16 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
Jon J, pity they don't have "like" buttons here. Good point.
Posted by bitey, Thursday, 27 October 2011 12:32:12 PM
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
Tristan

You've got quite a bit wrong there. Company tax rates are the same now as they were in 2000-01. The personal tax rates have, in fact, been falling through the adjustment of tax brackets, over several years (the sequence ended only in the last budget, I think). Look back over the past six or seven budgets. The ATO site will also be able to tell you about past rates. Also look at the last compliance enforcement statement by the ATO and their efforts to collect tax from major companies.

The dividend imputation system was brought in by Keating in order to end many of the rorts which you are complaining about, and eliminated severe distortions in the system. Doubt if it favoured anyone overall. Being able to owe shares is an advantage of being rich but has nothing to do with the tax system. Keating stated the super system not Howard - but your argument has some relevence in super. Not a lot but some.

The bit about billions of resource dollars flowing overseas is left wing fantasy. Look up the stuff on where the resources tax debate finished up, and bear in mind that such taxes have been in place for decades. They didn't start with Rudd's proposals.

As for this statement "natural public monopolies again - as these have no incentive to rip off consumers".. Bbbwwwhahahah! Tristan you are an innocent. To take one example, the old Telstra had its monopoly taken of it for very good reasons, and no one was sorry to see it go. Maybe you should read up on that one too..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 27 October 2011 1:03:40 PM
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
Given the failures of almost every socialist experiment world wide from the 70s and 80s, I would have thought the lesson would have been learnt that over taxing the rich very seldom improves the lot of the poor. The super taxes simply meant the rich moved their money and/or themselves oversea along with their entrepreneurial spirit.

Since the 80s whilst the income gap has increased, the real income after inflation of the lowest earning bracket has also seen a dramatic increase, so while the highest earning have benefited the most, the lowest have not been left behind.

The occupy movement has no idea of what it really wants, and it would appear that most of them are there so that they can be seen to be green.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 27 October 2011 3:03:16 PM
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
The only green bit is that little spot right behind the ears. Copycat agenda, dun nothing but cause disruption, and a lot of garbage. Telstra was a pain for a lot of years to the consumer, but paid well for the govt; Telstra's shares still have not made what they were sold for. A sure thing was the bribe.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 27 October 2011 3:24:58 PM
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
Shadow Minister; You talk of 'the failure of socialist experiments' and condemn more robust regimes of taxation.

But surely Sweden, Holland and Denmark show an alternative is possible; with these nations experiencing relative prosperity compared with other countries - regardless of very robust welfare states.

On the other hand the United States is in a lot of trouble.

In reality different 'models' can 'work' in different ways. It depends what your aims are and what your criteria are. And it depends what your values are.

For me: I want everyone to share fairly in the benefits of prosperity.

And I want a genuine democracy - with political, social and economic citizenship.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world. And yet it has almost 10% unemployment, and high levels of inequality, poverty, homelessness.

How do we measure 'economic success'?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 October 2011 6:18:04 PM
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
Doug Chalmers over at 'Australian Social Liberals' (a Facebook group I am a member of) accuses me of a "xenophobic delusional rant" for saying the rise of China and India will create more competition for a finite world market and so increase the risk of war. To make my position clear - the following:

I'm not meaning to say China and/or India would be to blame for a future war; I am saying competition in a finite world market could lead to war. This competition would involve all the great powers - so to this I could add Europe and Japan; And certainly you would have to add the United States - which has engaged in proxy wars in the past to defend economic spheres of influence..

Imperialism in the past has involved competition for colonies; for Great Powers to dump excess produce upon; and from which to extract raw commodities cheaply; In the past control of industrialised territory was deemed even more valuable as the markets involved were bigger. This helped lead to War in 1914. Over 10 million people were killed. The war included the Ottomon Empire. (non-Caucasian) Am I (quote) "Xenophobic" to mention this?

Today the United States and China are beginning to face off economically. There is competition for markets in Africa. China could potentially be a competitor with the US in the sense of competing world economic systems based on core-periphery economic relations. (see; Immanuel Wallerstein) This could cost the United States share in the global market. When economies fully develop they potentially become 'competitors' and 'rivals'. Hence the so-called "Project for a New American Century". And yes one day it could lead to war.

From a democratic socialist perspective the ideal would be full development of all economies - rather than exploitative 'core-periphery' economic relations. But world economic relations are about power as well, and keeping peripheral economies in a dependent position serves the ends of political power.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Thursday, 27 October 2011 7:48:18 PM
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
I am unsurprised by the condescending tone of the replies to this article. It seems anyone who dares voice support for the international 'Occupy' movement is naive and uninformed. Yet the protests represent a genuine yearning for change. American protestors have a stronger case than their Australian counterparts. The consequences of unregulated capitalism in a country with hopeless tax, health and education systems are now apparent. There are Middle class people living in tent cities due to the financial meltdown in that country. Blame is laid squarely at the feet of what the movement refers to as the 1% (an excellent film "Inside Job" analyses this). There are concerns in Australia also. Kerry Packer was an example of an exceedingly wealthy man who did everything he could to avoid paying taxes. He was never successfully prosecuted for this. I have happily paid my 40% tax, and had I wanted to could not have afforded lawyers to avoid paying it. These kind of stories motivate the occupation. The spectacle of mining companies preventing an elected government from increasing the mining tax demonstrated to me that large corporations are more powerful than governments. Their ability to manipulate public opinion was deeply concerning. That money could have improved our public infrastructure. This is exactly why the Occupy Movement must exist – it attempts to re-establish democracy that is based on fairness. It concerns me that Victorians are willing to support the actions of the police. They were excessively violent towards what was in fact a peaceful gathering. The police numbered 400 to the 100 protestors. There are friendly and peaceful ways the issue could have been resolved. There was no dialogue, no negotiation – just muscle, and aggression. The Hearld-Sun’s reporting on this issue has been partisan and biased. The Age and the The Australian, while both critical of the unclear objectives of Occupy Melbourne, both expressed outrage at the violent actions of the police and condemned it. We should demand that our police force treats us all with humanity, regardless of our beliefs and opinions. It is fundamental to a healthy democracy.
Posted by jord, Thursday, 27 October 2011 8:13:07 PM
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
Something should be done about so-called "Captains of Industry" giving themselves huge bonuses whilst at the same time sacking staff.
What about us bank customers being charged exhorbitant bank fees whilst the Banks rake in Billions!
These anomolies should be fixed by governments, but they fail to act.
Why?
Posted by Raise the Dust, Thursday, 27 October 2011 9:36:36 PM
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
jord/tristan

In America the occupy movement is essential pointless but understandable, given what's happened. In Australia it is both pointless and stupid. The problem that led to the GFC occured in the US system not in the Australian. We had our financial meltdown in the late 80s early 90s, and that resulted in a major shake up of the financial system, as well drastic tightening of regulation in everything from the issuing of prospectuses to bank oversight. As a result the systems in Aus held up well - a point that drew international comment - although we had a major advantage in that our property market remained flat (fewer temptations to be greedy).

In other words, we're in the most advanced, western country for judicious restraint of capitalism. The occupy people in Melbourne were simply copying the US protests without realising that the legal and regulatory systems here are completely different. I have no comment to make about the protest itself, but don't let sympathy for the way it was broken up delude you.

They are completely clueless.

Tristan mentions Denmark. Sure the Danish system is completely different, and it works for the Danish, but can you import it into Aus? Doubt it. For one thing the interaction between trade unions and the government is quite different, from memory - and that's just for starters. For that matter, does it produce a better result, and by what measure?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 27 October 2011 10:42:19 PM
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
The problem exists here too.Only the flogging off of resources and energy is saving us.The problem is the banking system that creates from nothing,the money to equal increases in your productivity as debt.Hence the more productive you are,the more debt you incur.

It is world wide and it is destroying the world economy.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 27 October 2011 11:02:34 PM
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,

Even Sweden, Holland and Denmark have had to wind back the socialist experiment, such as company tax which is lower than here, with VAT at 25%, the lowest paid are more highly taxed than here, while top tax rates have continually declined, and are still set to do so.

If you have been there, like I have, the cost of living is higher than in Sydney.

Overall, in Europe the socialist trend is in reverse.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 28 October 2011 4:22:30 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
A lot of the posters make solid points about reform everywhere.

However, there is room for policy change. While each nation will undertake reform according to its debates, Tristan is right to refer to different national examples to show that we are not all forced to do the same thing. Australia has chosen its policies, including a much greater reliance on mining (China), debt, and record house prices, although we are now not alone.
Posted by Chris Lewis, Friday, 28 October 2011 6:12:07 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
True. But I don't believe that's the key point being made here Chris Lewis.

>>However, there is room for policy change<<

The basic problem with Tristan Ewin's article - and so many like it all over the internet - is the language employed.

It is a warmed-over pastiche of pseudo-revolutionary Spart-speak, containing absolutely no relevant information whatsoever. Slogans and broad-brush anti-capitalist accusations do not a cogent argument make, I'm afraid.

While there have undoubtedly been some egregious examples of unfettered greed and barely-legal rent-seeking over the past thirty years or so, the system is not, in itself, the problem.

To rail against unfairness *within* the system is therefore perfectly valid - I applaud it as a necessary wake-up call to governments everywhere - but at the same time it renders the random nature of the "stick-it-to-the-man" content both impotent and meaningless.

We are presently blessed (?) in this country with a strong, resilient economy, and a weak, ineffective and values-free government. Complaining about unfairness is one thing. But to advocate the destruction of that economy and the overthrow of the democratic system in order to correct it, is entirely another.

For all Mr Ewins employs the words "democratic" and "democracy" in his article and in his comments, his suggested solution to the problem is anything but.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 October 2011 8:57:35 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; The Danish model works in the sense it reduces unemployment via labour market flexibility but provides meaningful and deep security for workers via a strong welfare states. That security is the precondition for workers to accept flexibility.

It succeeds on the criteria of material security, living standards, unemployment...

I'm not certain how far they take that flexibility and thus whether I'd support all the policies. I think there are many ways of reducing unemployment. But it shows a farier alternative (than we have in Australia and the US) is possible; and can work based on these critera.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 28 October 2011 9:09:54 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
Okay, fair enough.. my recollection of the Danish system is that the workers get paid a high percentage of their old wage if they lose their job and that there is considerable intervention and retraining..

But that high intervention, high-paying system has to be paid for so you come back to the question of taxes and just how much the Australian community would be willing to bear.. and no, its not good enough to brush aside that point by saying we can make the wealthy pay. As we discussed earlier, much of the shift in tax law in past decades has been towards closing off rorts enjoyed by the wealthy. I forgot to mention the introduction of the capital gains tax, and lots of rules about lending from private companies now being declared a deemed dividend.. and so on, and on..

So you have to work out how to pay for that higher level of security, and how it would fit into a community with considerably less social cohesian than the Danish, not to mention making major changes in institutions mentioned before, including the way wage increases are negotiated.

Doubt if it would work in Aus - particularly when you start talking about the tax increases necessary - but you're welcome to waste your time that way as any other..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 28 October 2011 10:14:43 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
Pericles - what specifically is "undemocratic" about my arguments? Do you suppose there is some "essential nexus" between economic liberalism and democracy? Have you not heard of "social democracy"? Do you suppose democracy and citizenship should be limited to the political sphere - and not to the social and economic? It is to fight against the grain to support social and economic citizenship - but how is it 'undemocratic'?
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 28 October 2011 12:05:12 PM
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
*But it shows a farier alternative (than we have in Australia and the US)*

But its not a fairer alternative Tristan, its simply a claim to
entitlement by those who don't want to put in the effort to paddle
their own canoe and want everyone else to paddle if for them.
Lazyness really.

We in Australia are somewhere in the middle between the two
extremes of Denmark and the US. Not a bad spot to be, actually.

The latest Mercer global pension index for instance, shows that
Australia is no 2 in the world, when it comes to pensions.
Healthcare costs nearly as much as it does to feed people (around
5500 $ per person per year) mostly paid for by Govt. We have
pensions for everything. Most Australians simply don't realise
how well off that they really are.

We know what happened when taxes went over 50%. People have a sense
of fairplay and if they are working hard for their money, underground
miners, shearers, etc, its hardly fair on them if all that effort
is not rewarded, so that the lazy can sit around claiming
entitlement.

Next you have a brain drain, some of the smartest people head overseas
where effort is actually rewarded. The mega rich move their affairs
offshore too.

Even the Swedes are realising that now, thats why they have started
flogging off state enterprises and are changing their system.
Its not much good to Sweden, if the average person has been taxed
so high, that they have no savings. Otherwise Swedes might actually
own Volvo, rather then the Chinese. I'm just waiting for the day
when the Chinese have learnt enough, shut the whole Volvo show
down and move it to China.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 28 October 2011 1:51:43 PM
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. There seems to be a lot of commentary around delusion. You have nothing to say about the protest itself you say, except that the protestors are deluded and clueless. Sounds like you have plenty to say about the protests! I have had conversations with people loosely aligned with the movement who are erudite, articulate and rational. They are concerned that an imbalance is occurring between democracy and capitalism and that the only recourse is to take to the street and announce this to the world. Politicians no longer speak for the people, they speak for there own self interest and the interests of the most powerful lobby groups. People feel disconnected and disaffiliated from the organs of power, so they do the only thing they can do - protest. It has always been thus. I acknowledge there are some extreme ideas attached to the movement, and ironically when I disagree with their ideas I get the same response from them as from you - you're delusional! Unfortunately, this is the state of contemporary debate. Polarisation and a lack of dialogue.

Again, I really do not understand how anyone can justify the actions of the police last Friday. The Age today has revealed that the reasons given for the eviction are very shaky and will provoke a legal challenge. What a mess. The city has become angry and divided from an event that could have fostered the beginnings of fresh dialogue regarding our democracy. Who actually asked the protestors what they wanted? Nobody. There have just been assertions and insults. From what I gather the Baillieu government has given carte blanche to police strong arm tactics. Nixon and her successor were attempting to introduce more tolerant models. The Baillieu government made short work of those ideas by ousting Overland and the Victorian police have used this opportunity to come out swinging. Back to the Kennet era when batton wielding police knocked down lines of mothers and children. There needs to be more dialogue and less aggravation. We all want a better world, right?
Posted by jord, Friday, 28 October 2011 2:37:39 PM
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
Nothing at all, Tristan Ewins

>>Pericles - what specifically is "undemocratic" about my arguments?<<

I was talking about your proposed "solutions", which are freely accessible by anyone with the patience to wade through your blog, your web site, your articles for the Fabians etc. etc. ad naus.

If you were advocating a more responsible government, who a) have defined policies, b) articulated those policies prior to their being elected and then c) adhered to those policies once elected, you'd have my vote. That would be a reasonable facsimile of democracy, in my book.

Instead, you continually frame the problem in terms of class warfare, whose concepts and terminology rightfully belong in a distant, largely-imaginary and pinkly-hued past. The only possible conclusion is that you would like to achieve the removal of "class warfare" through undemocratic means, since the Australian electorate has demonstrated - democratically - many times over, that it prefers things to remain reasonably stable.

Sure, have a moan about the rorters of the system, but leave the system itself alone, please.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 October 2011 2:51:32 PM
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
jord

In fact, all I had to say about them was the straight truth. that they are copying an american protest movement without realising that conditions here are completely different. I don't know anything about why or under what conditions the protest was broken up, or about the behaviour of either side, so I have no comment to make on that aspect of the matter.

The fact that members of the protest seem articulate and intelligent in casual conversation is neither here nor there. They are still blindly copying an American protest that doesn't apply here.

That makes them clueless by any definition. Why anyone would want to defend them from that point of view is beyond me.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 28 October 2011 4:01:11 PM
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. The movement does not copy America. It is inspired by America where the worst examples of economic mismanagement are prevalent. The system of deregulated capitalism has spread throughout the world. The protests have followed a similar trajectory. Europe, Australia, NZ, the Americas. Are they all clueless as well? I don't think so. There is a sense that something is not right and people are responding. Deregulated capitalism has disempowered governments, which has disempowered people. This international movement is about readdressing this power imbalance. This is healthy for democracies everywhere. As stated in my previous post there are glaring inequalities in Australia. To add to this consider indigenous people living in third world conditions in one of the richest countries in the world - fact. The conversations I mention are relevant as these people form part of the movement and are certainly not clueless. Such statements are misinformed unless you have taken the time to challenge protestors directly. Supporting protestors is supporting democracy - simple as that. I certainly don't agree with the whole range of opinions. But I support this author stance! A swing back to the left is what this country needs so we can start looking after people again and not just the pursuit of profit.
Posted by jord, Friday, 28 October 2011 10:56:22 PM
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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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