I cannot believe that they would dare to stoop this low. While this is a video, I feel it contributes as a current even so if you could keep it up, I would appreciate it. For those of you who know nothing about May 1st or May Day, I encourage you to read up and try to understand why this is a disgusting tactic that should make you lose any respect you had for anyone who even so much as likes Fox News, let alone the organization itself. Fox Introduces Segment on May Day Occupy Protests with Footage of Soviet Military Parades For those of you who have never heard of it, I strongly suggest reading into the Haymarket affair. Maybe I was expecting too much from them, but this is the most blatant and pathetic attempt at propagandizing the news I have seen since the RIAA claimed that downloading MP3s was downloading communism.
sorry but do you even know what was behind the soviet military parades? propaganda. you know what OWS is representing? their own propaganda.
Okay, wait—you are comparing two completely different movements and ignoring the origins of May Day because they both used propaganda? Let me make my position a bit more clear: this propaganda is out of left field and has no relevance. Propagating a thought is not a bad thing in itself; it is needed for any movement. When Martin Luther King, Jr. marched for black equality, that was the same kind of propaganda. However, trying to propagate something that could be proven false by a simple Google search is pathetic. I used the word pathetic for a reason. So, the Soviets used propaganda, and the Occupy movements are using propaganda. Then what would you say Fox News is doing by claiming that the May Day association with workers unions is a Soviet idea? You could pull up any number of statistics and show economic trends and market incentives that would justify the complaints of the Occupy protesters and you could also pull out good reasons for the Soviet marches. What you could not do is pull out a good reason to judge either group for being upset. Rather, you could blame them for the end results they may create and have created, respectively. This is a very roundabout way of criticizing the protests, and it is worse than being under-handed, it is being immature as well. What the Occupy protesters have not done, to my knowledge, is try to compare their opposition to a hated group and make them look ridiculous. The Occupy protesters that I have met have been able to point to reasons for protesting without trying to demonize the other side outside of the statistics or make them out to be extremist lunatics. Propaganda is used to mean a biased, exaggerated, or false portrayal of an idea to the public. Normal people do not march or protest if they are not serious about it, and they are using the propaganda of the deed rather than spreading false information. If you mean simply "spreading an idea" then please do not use the word in such a negative way, because by that token every piece of literature is propaganda on some level.
okay first of all propaganda is propaganda. you and i know the definition (though with you, you might botch it in some way in order for it to appeal to your point), but regardless i will use the word as it is intended to be used. and yeah, actually a lot of stuff is propaganda that's why you shouldn't just point to news organizations that don't agree with you, etc. etc. because i'm pretty sure every single news organization hold bias. it's up to the person to do historical research. fyi those soviet "marches" had no good reasons. my dad was forced to go to those parades just like the rest of the soviet citizens just like you see n. korean women "mourning" the death of kim jong il. people's cheering, etc. for their country, looks like it doesn't it? well nope, wrong again. also, it is very much related. the soviets were all using the propaganda of workers and labor unions in order to get their point across. if you were able to read russian and look at some of the posters (which i own in a book), you will see that they are protesting the same thing....well, what they perceive to be the same thing. the thing about OWS is that they believe that the soviet system actually did justice and helped people out, when in reality it did the exact opposite and caused misery. Spoiler this poster says: 1st of May in the year 1920: Через обломки капитализма к всемирному братству трудящихся! - "Through the wreckage of capitalism, toward the worldwide brotherhood of workers!" now, seeing as how you are always going on about how the capitalist system is flawed, i don't expect you to take any issue with what this poster is saying. but the only difference is that with the soviets, the government was feeding this propaganda to the citizens, the majority of people rejected this outlook but had no choice but to follow it for the sake of their lives being at stake. with OWS it's people with an idea that the soviet system that was in place would work for this system. i've watched many OWS interviews and they all end up along the same same lines of "SUBSIDIZE ERRYTHANG". when you have a culture of people who believe things should be free, then nothing will ever get done. who will provide the things people need when no one wants to strive for it. i understand it is hard to get jobs but honestly it's not impossible. you might be doing something you don't like for a while, but you have to just roll with it. the fact of the matter is the majority of americans don't necessarily agree with the violence of the OWS movement so it's just super unorganized. so basically, your point that they are two completely different unrelated subjects, is incorrect.
Ah, you mistake me. I do not see pure capitalism as wrong, and I am against labour unions. I am against monopolies of all kinds. I said, "you could blame them for the end results they may create and have created, respectively," for a reason. I see why both are and were upset. I see why they are and were flocking to any kind of movement because they feel that the problem is at their doorstep. But I disagree vehemently with both the methods used and the conclusions they are reaching and have reached. Neither corporatism nor state socialism are acceptable. If this movement succeeds in causing a change due to the amount of support it gets, it will be because others refused to take their lives into their own hands until they had no choice but to make those they appointed to rule them do a better job. It was relying on others for their well beings that brought them to the point of collapse, and they plan to demand for others to take care better of them now that their lives are collapsing. While the state of their particular lives changes, a wish to be well taken care of by others is the consistent problem throughout the whole process. The majority of these people would not be changing their stance regarding personal responsibility whether the situation came to a point where they had to occupy or got better than it was before. State socialists and corporatists are made of the same kind of people, just in different circumstances. That said, I have yet to meet a single person who would claim that the Soviet system worked. And I know a lot of people who are protesting today. Anarchists have always been at the heart of this revolution, and we have opposed any attempt to take it over for centralization of any kind, including unions, since 1886 and before. Do not mistake me for a state socialist.
don't worry, I'm not calling you a socialist; socialists and communists are much worse. however, i was just saying that i have come across many people who have adapted socialist ideas of entitlement. remember though, that the soviet union was striving towards communism but collapsed before it reached that point due to a lack of funds and morale amongst it's citizens who did not believe in it's socialist methods. but like you said, anarchists are at the heart of the revolution, and a majority of americans don't believe in anarchism as a way to solve our problems. it just doesn't look good.
The best we (anarchists) can do at this point is try to operate below the state radar and create a counter bunch of local economies so that when everything goes to hell we have businesses running as usual. You cannot expect to build anarchy out of the rubble of a society; instead you have to have a working community that does not need a state so that people have something to work with instead of demanding more answers from on high. Communes are worthless without the morale of the people. I say to let them form on their own, but as soon as they try to assimilate unconsenting individuals, I am against it.
