Defend Occupy Sydney

To Sydney Council

I was disgusted to learn of the recent decision to attempt to remove Occupy Sydney.

Say what you like about Occupy, the facts remain these; Occupy Sydney was, and still is, an experiment in democracy. It has served as a nexus for self-education and for mutual support and aid. For months Occupy maintained a free school, which I was privileged to benefit from. Recently it has begun to organise food for the homeless. It has no plans to wind up.

I’m confident that Occupy will continue. Unlike the glittering city of façades you want for Sydney, Occupy is a community. It’s built on principles that have a future; equality, direct democracy and solidarity, it will not fold. Further, it’s presumptuous of you to imagine that your petty little rulings can have any long term effect on Occupy, a global movement that seeks the abolition of the present state of the world, including the fiefdom in which you pull cogs.

Shame on all council members who supported this proposal. May you live to see yourselves become irrelevant.

Advertisements

About timothyscriven

I study philosophy at Sydney University. In the grand scheme, I'm not very important.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Defend Occupy Sydney

  1. Nobody says:

    A timely reflection.

    • Now I’ve only watched the first forty two seconds, because all this trash deserves. Nonetheless I found it illuminating enough to bother spending four minutes on a reply. What becomes quite clear I think in those rather disheartening forty two seconds is that this fellow was one of those Harry Frankfurt had in mind when he wrote “on bullshit”, an individual who produces statements without respect to the truth or falsity of their content, but attentive instead to other factors. If he had have given it a moment’s thought for example, he would have recognised that the protesters are not opposed to Ipads per se, but to the corporations which currently assemble them, and that at least the political advanced elements among them would like to see that process socialised, and not ended. Further he would have been able to see that even if the protesters were opposed to these products in toto, the view that one must use what exists at present, in order to destroy what exists, is perfectly coherent. After all, no one would think it’s terribly compelling to say protesters must stop eating corporate produced food (almost all the food in the world). It would be awfully convenient for the capitalists if using the infrastructure of capitalism implied consent, because then consent would become a trivial matter.

      But these thoughts are long, and his thought is short and sounds witty. It serves the function of making his viewers feel smart. As such he does not care for it’s truth, but for it’s contextual plausibility. His is the contemptible attitude of a wannabe intellectual turned infotainer.

      • Nobody says:

        I’ve never been all that favourably disposed to the whole ‘iPads’ argument myself though I would note that many of these people are enthusiastic participants in consumer culture. Trust me though, the video gets better!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s