What went wrong?

What went wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4
youtu.be/W81A1kTXPa4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

U.S. is capitalist
Commies are stupid to think they can gain a foothold

Proto-SJWs derailed it with their identity politics

The proletariat are too deluded to fight for their own interests

>disorganized mass of different leftist factions
>no clear leadership or list of demands
>camps become inundated with homeless squatters and drugs
>quietly liquidated overnight by police

protesting doesn't have much effect on politics

>I'm mad as hell at these rich assholes playing the market or whatever
>obviously the best way to stick it to the man is to inconvenience middle class people by making their daily commute just that much longer and more arduous, this will surely win them to my side
>now that I have turned a once beautiful municipal park into a squalid shanty town, it is time to get down to business and make some coherent demands
>too bad nobody in my camp can agree on any actionable items cause every single anarchist, communist, hippie, burn-out, druggie, and general loser within 200 miles is just using this "protest" as an opportunity to make a spectacle of themselves
>decide the best way to get organized is to dive into identity politics and drive off everyone with a semblance of a plan while we make believe utopia in our hobo camp
>somehow months pass without anything happening and then we are forced to vacate by police, and after the first few winos are arrested the rest of us scurry away like cockroaches, our "movement" evaporating like a puddle of bum piss on a hot summer sidewalk

>"Reeee down with private property"
>"No no this is my ipad"

banks own this country and they control the batons in the cops hands, that's what went wrong.

The short answer is college students ran the movement.

- They were a bunch of snowflakes that were ironically derailed by winter.

- They didn't simply fail to have a coherent set of goals, they actively refused to have a set of goals because of some esoteric logic that could have only come from critical theorists.

- Identity politics drove the most sane people away.

- The most insane people were allowed to stay and define the movement because white liberal college students fetishize/fear the alien and thus refused to push out the creeps among them.

>starving to death in the gutter because dear leader has declared food to be capitalist decadence
>their own interests
Lol, workers are never gonna fall for communism ever again. Get over it.

For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.

Cringe.

These. Communism will never work in a rich country.

Read the sticky nigger.

Bait harder

Leftist retards

Should have gone violent

and open rebellion that welcomes everyone
>too much paranoia with agent provocateurs, to many assholes wanting to go to the front of the line/hijacking the movement ala dickard spinner

unfocused

unplanned

unprepared

run by people who have no responsibililty and think that the movement amounted to sleeping in tents and posting on facebook..
and constantly yelling "MIC CHECK"

since they were lazy potheads the movment quickly lost steam once the establishment starting putting real pressure on them.

Nonviolent protesting has never had an effect on politics without the threat of violent revolt to back it up.

>civil rights movement

Winter came and all the college communists went home because it was too cold.

>>without the threat of violent revolt to back it up.

>girls threatend to ivolently revolt
if you're referring to MLK he didn't and he was literally the sole mechanism that allowed CR to happen for blacks

Was violent as fuck. The Long Hot Summer of '67 alone saw dozens dead and thousands wounded in violent riots. MLK's assassination also sparked riots that killed almost 50 people and injured thousands. The Army deployed troops.

The civil rights movement would have petered out if it weren't for the outrage and the violence expressed by these riots. And the threat of more riots made later protests more effective.

MLKs death and martyrdom won them some of their demands. All of their historical revolts failed to do the same. Even the nation of islam killed each other move than government workers.

It's a fact, communism is a dead ideology.

This. Then I could've laughed at some dough-headed millenial socialist scum get themselves btfo by riot cops.

>opposing political corruption and extreme inequality makes you a communist

>MLKs death and martyrdom won them some of their demands.
The people in power had agreed on what was going to happen long before MLK became popular. MLK and friends were just shock troopers meant to get the middle-classes to support the coming financial and economic changes either by guile or by force.

Wasn't there a theory that identity politics like SJWs were created because of this?

India's independence.

>Anushilan Samiti
>India House
>Ghadar
>HSRA
>Non-violent
Indian Independence didn't suddenly happen because Ghandi you know, it was a decades long process of violent and non-violent revolutionaries

Fuck OP your picture baited me into this thread cause I was hoping it was a poster for movie on the Minoans comming up

I wonder how many of those tards then went and voted for the same party that allowed it to happen and gave billions to the banks?
Only have themselves to blame.

>I wonder how many of those tards then went and voted for the same party that allowed it to happen and gave billions to the banks?
>Only have themselves to blame.
They weren't Republicans though.

It does sway public opinion.

This. I was in NYC at the time.

The broad based economic message collapsed into tribal SJWism, alienating the middle class professionals who actually had the skills to organize and turning the public against it.

>- They didn't simply fail to have a coherent set of goals, they actively refused to have a set of goals because of some esoteric logic that could have only come from critical theorists.

This is very important, the media TRIED to be sympathetic to them, and hosted their "spokesmen" to hear their grievances, but the protestors jut used these opportunities to make fun of the media and to make ridiculous and insane demands, to prove a point about how they have no leaders, man, we, like, run on consensus, baby! As a result the media turned on them and that was that.

Who said that? Overtly and explicitly claiming to be commies is what made so many of the Occupy faggots commies.

Cringe.

There are a lot of stupid people in the world so I'm sure one of them came up with this brainfart. Identity politics has been building strength in academia for at least 40 years, I saw the rot setting in in the social sciences when I as at college in the 80's.

>HURR the Dems are the party of the people!

Good goy.

the dems have been controlled by the jews since woodrow wilson/FDR/LBJ, and the republicans have been controlled by jews since Bush Sr.

there is LITERALLY no point in voting for either of the parties in current year when they are both the jewish party

Protip dope: BOTH parties are the party of the ruling class, and they always have been.

not true, the old school republicans didn't get corrupted until relatively recently, all of them up to eisenhower were objectively top tier presidents, reagan being good and nixon/ford being meh

the democrats have brought literally the worst things onto this country starting with wilson

>(((federal reserve)))
>income tax
>social security
>giving away the panama canal
>literally every welfare program
>higher taxes
>the cia
>most cancerous alphabet agencies
>the 1965 immigration act which lets in literally one million shitskins a year

meanwhile with republicans you got the iraq war

democrats have done more to JUST this country up than the republicans by far

oh and i forgot to mention both the bushes were shit, bush sr is when the republicans became basically the same as the democrat party

I was in Wellington at the time where they also held a Occupy protest, and this homeless drifter fellow I had befriended earlier said he was using it as a nice free place to sleep. I imagine half the camp was just people looking for a place to sleep and hang out with other crazies.

>not true, the old school republicans didn't get corrupted until relatively recently, all of them up to eisenhower were objectively top tier presidents, reagan being good and nixon/ford being meh

What does that have to do with what I said? Are you claiming the Republicans weren't motivated by the interests of the ruling class? Even their opposition to slavery was due to the clash between the industrialist elite in the north and the slave-owning elite in the south, you think they cared about the slaves, or about teh effect emancipation would have on the people (protip, it drove wages down across the board)?

The Dems introduced the shit they did to further the interests of the political elite, who wanted more money to buy votes with, and to simultaneously make large parts of the population dependent on govt handouts, which would ensure their loyalty to "their" party. There is nothing pro-social about welfarism and high taxation, both these things serve the ruling class only (who of course avoid paying the taxes they force everyone else to pay thru various legal loopholes only they are able to take advantage of).

>I'm mad as hell at these rich assholes playing the market or whatever
>obviously the best way to express collectively is to get rid of old means of protest and create our own medias to circumvent the neo-liberal owned mass medias
>now that we regrouped ourselves into a symbolic place, disrupted the monotonous meaningless daily life of Americans, it is time to get down to business and make some coherent demands
>It's very hard because democratic process takes a lot of time, discussing difficult issues with people from different backgrounds and ideologies is not an easy task. We create a framework for discussion to enable everyone to speak, especially those who never speak or dare to.
>Collectively agree the best way to get something out of it is to stay for a longer time despite heavy pressure from concerned authorities and condemning medias.
>We raise awareness on the state of our country, rampant poverty and third world tier inequalities, the lack of a social security system like in any developed country, institutionalised racism and sexism deep rooted in the State, police brutality and many other issue.
>somehow months pass and we manage to build strong bonds within the activist community and create a revolutionary counter culture, non-existant at the time in the US. We tie links with Spanish's Indignados, French's Nuit Debout, Turkish Taskim Square, Egyptian's Tharir square, Greeks activists and many others around the world
>The state and their dogs finally get rid of us by the use of force since their media propaganda was ineffective.

>t.leftypol revisionist

Too bad for you morons, this event is still recent enough that most of us know you're talking complete shit. Give it a few decades before you try to use the same lies you use to make Gommunism seem less like the awful train wreck of evil and failure it was on the Occupy fiasco.

>sits in tents for several months

>25 Years

Not everyone who talks about the proletariat and its interests is necessarily putting forward communism as an answer.

Meh. This is more likely to be an interesting history thread than the 19329432th Hitler thread.

Proofs?

Eh, they pretty much are. Not necessarily "vanilla" Gommunism, but nearly everyone who uses the word "proletariat" is some flavor of Marxist.

Probably. I'm a bit different. I use terms like "proletariat" all the time, yet I'm not a communist. The communists aren't wrong about everything, and they have no magic ability to poison words that they use in such a way that they become unusable by others.

Use the word "proletariat" and you label yourself a Marxist, whether you are one or not. Is this unfair? No, people don't have time to question literally everything they hear to make sure the person they're talking to is using the words they use in the way those words are typically used, or with some weird autistic meaning no-one else attributes to them.

But you can be a non-Marxist and use the word "proletariat" in basically the same sense that Marxists do. Your argument is illogical. There's no innovation of esoteric new meanings going on. You're just making excuses for making assumptions about what other people are saying rather than reading what they actually are saying.

She didn't prep the bull

>But you can be a non-Marxist and use the word "proletariat" in basically the same sense that Marxists do.

If you're arguing with a Marxist, sure. Otherwise, you have identified yourself as a Marxist by using their jargon, whether or not you intended to do so.

> making assumptions about what other people are saying

Like I said, I have neither the time nor the interest in clarifying what people mean by every single word they use, I simply assume they are using the words in their usual manner unless they specifically clarify otherwise. Do you do otherwise? Spoiler: no, you don't.

Nothing went wrong. It was a fucking retarded idea to begin with. You can't protest Wall Street and their practices while you simultaneously use shit that comes from wall street everyday. If you really want to boycott wall street then just stop fucking buying what they're selling

I got you, senpai.

youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4

Progressive Stack ruined their leadership

>Like I said, I have neither the time nor the interest in clarifying what people mean by every single word they use, I simply assume they are using the words in their usual manner unless they specifically clarify otherwise. Do you do otherwise? Spoiler: no, you don't.
What I'm trying to get through to you is that, while the word "proletariat" has the Marxist meaning as one of its meanings, that is not its only meaning. It's not that I like being misidentified as a Marxist when I use the word, it's that there's no point in making up a new word when the existing word already precisely refers to what I mean by it.

You really think nig nogs are ever going to get behind true collectivism? They sit on welfare now because nothing in their checks gets garnished except for child support. When they work their shitty low end 2 hour a day job for some extra side cash alongside their welfare and half of it gets garnished there will be a chimpout the likes of which you've never seen before.

>fuck OWS with progressive stack
>use Hollywood to rub it in later

>no point in making up a new word when the existing word already precisely refers to what I mean by it.

"Working class" already exists as a term.

>What I'm trying to get through to you is that, while the word "proletariat" has the Marxist meaning as one of its meanings, that is not its only meaning.

Unless you are talking about ancient Rome, then there is only the Marxist meaning of the term. You might find this a useful term, but the fact that it is exclusively used by Marxists means you WILL be taken as a Marxist for using it.

The same group hired by the democrats and responsible for "bird dogging" during the election subverted occupy. They also ate themselves because of diversity, even back then. There are videos of speakers arguing over who is most privileged and whoever had the most genders and ethnicities got to be the momentary leader.

Wouldn't you make the same complaint if I used the term "working class"?

part 2

This

youtu.be/W81A1kTXPa4

No, why would I? If you said something stupid like "the capitalist class oppresses and exploits the working class" then I might think you're a Marxist, but just "working class" alone is pretty neutral.

It failed so they moved on to cultural marxism.

Lot's of threads being funnelled to Sup Forums today

ITT: You're a leftist if you oppose commercial bank bailouts.

Christ almighty

It's funny so many /leftypol/ fags like you protested the wallstreet bailouts. It's gibs to wallstreet! More gibs!

>HURR Occupy Wallstreet was a centrist movement!
>DURR why you call them leftist just because they overtly and explicitly described themselves as communists and anarchists?

The capitalist class does oppress and exploit the working class. However, that does not mean communism/Marxism would be any better, as history has shown.

>The capitalist class does oppress and exploit the working class

No, they don't. Some capitalists might oppress some workers, but the idea that "classes" act in this way is pure Marxist bunk. People are people, some are good, some are lazy, some are bad.

>Some capitalists might oppress some workers,
When I say that the capitalist class oppresses the working class, I mean on average. Of course I don't mean that literally every capitalist oppresses every worker or that capitalists don't bring benefits to the workers. You keep making the most Marxist assumptions about what I mean.

I mean do you think anybody but socialist and leftys would go around destroying random property and removing all merit from a protest?

Kind of a point of the free market. They quite literally are being willing "oppressed" by an employer.
They could find a new one. It's not like the government is going to send them to prison for not working.

>When I say that the capitalist class oppresses the working class, I mean on average.

Then you might as well say "the capitalist class gives the workers everything they need to live",. because without those wages they'd be bums on the street. It's a partnership, a symbiosis, and just like everything in human culture, its too complex to reduce to simplistic slogans.

>You keep making the most Marxist assumptions about what I mean.

That's because you keep saying Marxist things!

What does that have to do with anything you fucktarded nigger? Right wingers can and have destroyed property, therefore Occupy Wallstreet was right wing? Go fuck yourself, dimwit.

You can certainly see it as oppression, you can also see it as the opposite, the point is that the reality of the situation is extremely complex and reducing it to a simplistic slogan is foolish and makes you a sucker for any asshole populist who wants to control you.

Employers and capitalists are different (though overlapping) things. The oppressive aspects of capitalism are present not so much in the job market as in the fact that there are large clusters of unearned (inherited, obtained through sleaze, etc.) wealth that generate their owners additional wealth.

...

I completely agree that it's too complex to reduce to simplistic slogans. However, when I talk about things like the proletariat and capitalist oppression, I assume that my audience won't automatically read Marxism into what I'm saying. You're the one who's failing to apprehend my words with a sense of nuance.

>The oppressive aspects of capitalism are present not so much in the job market as in the fact that there are large clusters of unearned (inherited, obtained through sleaze, etc.) wealth that generate their owners additional wealth

There's nothing inherently oppressive about this. You may as well complain that some people pass on better genes to their kids, and that's oppressive to people born stupid.

>first post once it hits Sup Forums

hahaha

Nothing, it went exactly as predicted.

Nah it was pretty obvious occupy wallstreet was lefty. Silly fucking red. Also, there aren't really any relavent active right wing terrorist groups that are acting the same way as antifa.
You could say NAF and a few other groups. But they aren't centrally funded by (((them))).

>However, when I talk about things like the proletariat and capitalist oppression, I assume that my audience won't automatically read Marxism into what I'm saying.

Why are you assuming this? Do you imagine people can read your mind? Do you imagine you're such a fascinating person that people take the time to read up on all your musings and understand that when YOU use a word, it means what YOU want it to mean, and not what literally everyone else on Earth means by it?

>You're the one who's failing to apprehend my words with a sense of nuance.

Because, once again, you are an irrelevant dope on the internet. I don't have time or interest in clarifying with you what you mean when you use a common term, and neither does anyone else. If you don't like people assuming you're a Marxist, then DON'T TALK LIKE A MARXIST. It's not rocket science.

If I start talking about the "Herrenrasse", are you going to think "hmm, this guy is probably a nazi" or are you going to think "hmm, this guy clearly isn't a nazi, he must be using that nazi jargon as a term of art"?

>Also, there aren't really any relavent active right wing terrorist groups that are acting the same way as antifa.

Ever hear of something called "the Nazi Party"? They had this thing called "the brownshirts" who caused riots and burned down private property. I guess that proves they were commies, right?

I don't see it as that complex. Really what makes it complicated it is chroni capitalist, moderate socialist in government and a bloated fed.

Inherently oppressive? No. Oppressive in many real-life cases? Yes.
It's the difference between a man who earned his fortune giving it to his son, on the one hand, and a Russian oligarch, on the other.
>If I start talking about the "Herrenrasse", are you going to think "hmm, this guy is probably a nazi" or are you going to think "hmm, this guy clearly isn't a nazi, he must be using that nazi jargon as a term of art"?
It depends on whether the overall gist of what you're saying seems to be in favor of Nazism or not.

>what makes it complex is all the complexities involved

Idiot.

Soros is a bad example. He funds BOTH Antifa and Ukrainian Nazis, which is just a Divide and Conquer strategy. Tell me, why would a billionaire who lives off of neoliberalism would uphold a regime perpetrated by people who want to kill him?