I’ll take one for $2 if I can also use it to open beers.
Not sure I understand this point of yours, could you elaborate on this? Are you saying that in the US we cannot deeply question our “masters”? If OWS does not represent such a questioning, what, in your view, would such a questioning look like? Further I would argue that the Egyptian protests were certainly more “globally pertinent” than OWS, at least thus far, since those movements led to regime change and social reforms whereas OWS, while inspiring much perhaps useful talk and debate, is not leading to any political or social change whatsoever.
I do think that individual US thinkers can question their masters and even the concept of having masters. I’m willing to bet that you have. But I don’t think it’s even a little bit possible for any social movement to develop that can do this, the only US thinkers that can do it are individualistic in nature. Why was Kropotkin largely ignored by any but individual thinkers? Same reason. Only in Spain’s communist movement was Anarchism able to surge, because it was like the Russian one but in a more sophisticated culture.
I would argue, btw, that the “Occupy Movement” is as, or nearly as globaly relevant as the Egyptian protests for the simple reason that it is happening in the world’s (still) strongest empire.
LOL dude they give millions upon millions to charities they have to for tax breaks but more to impress people.I agree they would not help one person they would look down their nose at that kid. Then again they can afford to because, they give far more to charities than you I and everyone on this forum could ever ever afford to give. They may not do it for altruistic reasons but so what, they do it. You cannot change things unless you stop funding the 1% with your spending. Do you even know who they are? what corporations have control? Go to .gov and .org look for them they will be listed in one way or another. Our government has to list the businessess and the people who fund their campaigns and donate. Also who has the primary Lobbiests. If you point a gun make sure its loaded otherwise you are just going to end up on the wrong side of the grave. These protesters are waving an unloaded gun around at shadows.
Really I believe there is no way to tell before the fact whether or not a social movement can arise out of the actions of individual questionings. Many individuals gathering together to question together, this creates a unified “front”, a sphere of common interest that might or might not gain certain momentum/s, or might or might not lead to certain influence/s. As apparently said to this effect by Lenin, we cannot know, before the fact, whether truly revolutionary political singularities may or may not arise from given social-political situations. Badiou elaborated on this regarding the “truth process” of politics and with regard to events: “true” events, breaking with the otherwise inertial stasis of present conditionality, may emerge with little or no warning, and in fact must be seen as possible ONLY in the sense that they have occurred. In other words, an political (revolutionary) event’s possibility cannot be judged before hand, simply because to so judge in this regard requires a certain prespective which would already assume or spring at least in part from some of the very situational rupturings which are literally CREATED by the event itself. Not only is it wrong to say “the event CANNOT happen” but even more so to state or imply that the event “may not happen, or probably will not happen.” We just cannot know - quite like, as Zizek is fond of saying, with regard to the post-Hegelian break, the logic of which refutes Hegelianism itself, yet testified directly to its legitimacy and truth.
So will OWS lead to global influence or lasting real change? Only time will tell. But as I have already stated, to prescriptively dismiss or relegate these possibilities unfairly and before the fact of their actual event-ual outcomes and effects contributes nothing and rather takes away much.
Yout standard for global relevancy is only or mostly only regarding the context in which the event occurs? I think it is grossly unfair and simplistic to grant OWS such legitimacy merely because it is happening in the US. Much happens in the US which leads nowhere, has no relevancy for anything global, or even national. Rather I would strongly argue that an event’s global relevancy ought be judged based on the EFFECTS which lead out from it and go on to have global influences of some sort.
If the Egyptian protest movement leads to regime change, for example, this is certainly globally relevant. If OWS fails to lead to any significant or measurable change in US or global political-social relations and outcomes, then I fail to see how OWS might be said to have global relevancy merely because it “took place in the world’s strongest empire”.
You are right. Maybe I am just looking for an excuse to even be giving the moevement my time when I have nothing to do with the US (other than living in onw of its client states).
In this we can never be 100% sure until it happens. If you are a gambling man, I will bet you that it doesn’t. $20 for every year that it doesn’t, $1000 if it ever does 
(please only take seriously if you are a gambler, I’m not making a point with this… Well I am, but still).
In my view we have enough invested that we need not gamble with such possibilities, rather we must work diligently to understand these movements and events as best as possible, and we must maintain an open and active fidelity to these such that, at least for our part, we do nothing to detract from the possibility of their coming into a real, lasting influence.
I will continue to make purchases from Wal-Mart until enough US citizens convince me that they are taking this up as a truly serious cause
$10,000
Duality, unfortunately that is what most people are doing. so nothing will change. You can’t rely on others you can rely on yourself and look in the mirror with a clear concience. and look with pride. Or you can look in that mirror and see a sheep.
My conscience? Sorry but I didn’t create this system. Im 22 y/o. What have people been doing for the past 60+ years or so?
Now people expect me to sacrifice myself for what they should’ve done during their generations? Sorry but it wont happen until they give me more than what Ive seen so far.
You don’t get it do you ? look at what you are doing, you are no different than any that came before you. Your words as as old as humanity. the world rings with that attitude. And then folks wonder why there is no change. It starts somewhere someone has to quit passing the buck. So if you are quite willing to pass the buck, why would you ever complain? You are doing the same thing others do. So why? why care why worry why give a rats ass in hell since you pass the buck so quickly?
Out of curiosity, and not being coy, how many would be enough?
Well… Complaining is free. I do agree that high horses and chairs are, perhaps, self-parodying when that complaining is not accompanied by action.
The action responsibility of the common citizen is to complain and praise, and vote for and vote against.
The action responsibility of legislative change is upon the representative citizens.
If action is failed, then it is by no fault of the complaining or praising citizenship.
The responsibility of leadership, in times of turmoil, is to discern the root of civil unrest, address the issues therein found, and to do so responsibly with respect of the rights of liberty, earnings of trust, and value of humanity.
The responsibility of the common citizen, in times of turmoil, is to respond in conscience, thought, and emotion to the fullest of their individual capacity - whatever that may be.
Here we disagree, because you see action, real action, as being the responsibility of legislative actors. I, like the ideal protester, see it as a responsibility of any human being. This is an anarchist way of thinking, as opposed to your statist way of thinking. But I think we do agree on what action itself essencialy means.
I wasn’t aware that you had any access to the legislative office and knew how to readdress the United States Code in session.
Case in point.
Case in point to what?
If you are referring to a system of government simply existing at all, well that’s not going to change.
I’m just saying that you view government as a part of life, and I don’t. Whatever. We can still agree on the definitions of words, we just have different perspectives. I managed to get you on the defensive somehow, and I’m sorry. Listen, if you like government, fine. I don’t. Please respect that. I haven’t attacked you or your beliefs, I have just pointed out a difference between them and mine.