Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite

Invitation to General Assembly at the Museum of Modern Art

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 27, 2012, 7:31 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

January 27, 2012

5:00 PM

Please join Occupy Museums this evening as we re-assemble inside the Museum of Modern Art. Two weeks have passed since our January 13th action, in which we stood in solidarity with Teamsters Local 814 Art Handler’s Union in its struggle to end the lockout of the union by the billion-dollar auction-house Sotheby's. In light of the numerous ties between MoMA and Sotheby's, we demanded that the museum call for an end to the lockout by its corporate affiliate.

As part of our action on the 13th, a banner was dropped in the second-floor atrium calling for an end to the lockout. The head of Security at MoMA coercively confiscated this now-historic banner. In a public letter sent to the museum one week ago, we called it a “unilateral acquisition” and stipulated that the museum accede to our conditions of publically calling for an end to the lockout to complete the acquisition. In turn, the museum called for us to retrieve the banner, stating that it was "left" on the premises, as if by accident. We know and they know that this is untrue; a rather disgraceful attempt to ignore an uneven acquisition policy, and the larger issues about concentrations of money and power in the art world we are raising.

The fact that public-money-receiving “non-profit” MoMA shares two board members with Sotheby’s— a speculative, for profit auction house whose business benefits greatly from the approval major museums give artist’s work— could possibly be purely coincidental.

It is not coincidental that Occupy Museums and the Teamsters local choose a Target Free Friday to re-claim their artwork.  As working artists and locked out union members—it is the only day, we can afford to enter the museum.  As it turns out, this free day was initiated not by the mega-retailer, but rather by pressure from a group of artists/activists called the Art Workers Coalition in the 1970’s. Their struggle then, and our shared struggle today is to put culture into the hands of the 99%- the artists, art lovers and workers who are largely invisible to the museum. 

Today we will present MoMA a second chance to stand up for the rights of Sotheby's art handlers- the workers behind the scenes of the glamorous 1% auctions.  We invite the museum directors and staff to join our assembly and respond to the conditions we have made public. This show of solidarity from a major institution will be an invaluable support as the 99% prepare to stand for equality and justice for all workers on May 1st and beyond. Expect Us.

-Occupy Museums

72 Comments

72 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

It is Time for the Movement to Evolve!!!

  1. We need more Economic Power!
  2. We need more Organization and Community!
  3. We need complete Transparency!

Economic Power:

Marching on Museums and parks is great and it gets some attention, but we need to face the fact that people will continually dismiss you for jobless morons banging your drums. It is time to take some real action! I'm not talking about violence. I'm talking about creating a movement that will actually evolve the way corporations do business.

What OWS should be working on right now is developing a new type of corporation. A public corporation whose main objective is not solely to make a profit. The main objective should be to improve the quality of life for its member’s at the most basic level. To improve their members access to food, water, education, clothing, security, housing, and healthcare. It should be to create jobs for its members, create a means to promote creativity and new ideas. And most importantly, it should not just be one organization, but many. The OWS should spawn multiple organizations with these values, ranging from construction, legal, and healthcare, all the way to simple grocery stores like Safeway.

Each of these business should also be focuses on sustainability and a promise not to move jobs overseas, but to keep them in their respective countries. All members of the OWS should agree to make an effort to shop at locations created by the OWS to keep those business alive in the face of competition that does not share the same values.

It is time to turn the money you receive from donations into something that is actionable. Do not just scream and protest for things to change. Make the change happen from the bottom up. Change the face of American business! But you need to do more than that as well. You should start charging your members a monthly fee. Doing this will create an influx of funds that will allow the OWS to continue to open up new business and new corporations all with this new public charter in mind. We will create an assembly of people that promotes equality and ensures that all hard working Americans that are loyal to the cause will receive a fair deal for their efforts.

The OWS needs to expand and grow. From what I've seen thus far the movement is reaching a plateau and it is obvious that something needs to change.

Organization:

Right now all the money being gathered by the OWS is being used merely to sustain a movement relying on large crowds of people to unite their voices at random locations around the world and to maintain this message for days on end. This method is not only wasteful of the people’s money, it is insufficient to creating a real and lasting change. Although it does force people to recognize your existence, it also gives people the justification to disregard you. By closing down places of business, sure you are hurting the 1%, but you are also hurting the 99% and making it harder for them to bring food home to their families. Instead of trying to shut business down for a day or two you should be trying to build new ones up that will last for years, if not centuries. But this cannot be achieved in a mob like fashion. It can only be achieved through sound organization and unity!

At the most basic level, the OWS needs to be broken up into smaller functional groups of likeminded individuals that occasionally come together to protest at strategic locations to make their presence known.

These functional groups should be in the size of 10 to 15 people that meet regularly on a weekly and monthly basis. It should be more than just about OWS. It should be about improving the quality of lives of all OWS members. It should be about creating community with one another, promoting personal health and guidance to help each of us reach our dreams. To teach one another things that give us power the face the challenges we struggle with in our lives. The ultimate goal being that everyone becomes an OWS member, thus improving the quality of life for all.

These groups will have weekly and monthly tasks. Weekly, they should be working on improving their own lives and the lives of their fellow members. They should do things together like sports, discuss current events, even discuss how they would like to see the movement change going forward. They should discuss work, potential jobs, and teach each other things they may need to know. They should really become a community. Help each other out. Try to stay healthy together, exercise, work out, go to the movies. Be a real group.

Monthly they should spend a day or two to try and recruit new members to the cause. Not necessarily by protesting in the streets, but by actively engaging people and showing them the merits of our cause. The more people that sign on with the OWS, the more power for real change we will have. Also on a monthly basis they should be working toward gathering donations from the people. Money that will help to start businesses, create charities, whatever is decided upon by the majority.

Money that is donated from the public to our cause and money that is given in the means of membership into the OWS needs to be split up appropriately. Some of that money needs to go back to the individual groups of the OWS so they can maintain their group and perform team building activities. However, a larger portion of those funds needs to go to their local OWS community to start local businesses. In addition, money will also need to go to the larger OWS body for the purpose of creating larger corporate enterprises.

To ensure that all of these endeavors are performed fairly, justly, and democratically, there needs to be an elected counsel at each level. There should be three leaders for each group of 10 to 15 members; each OWS community should have at least 10 representatives that govern the funds of their community. The entire OWS body should also have an elected counsel that governs the funds of the larger OWS body.

These counsel positions should not be paid positions, but voluntary. The decisions they make are not to be in their best interests, but the best interests of the people. The people should vote on what they want, and the council should seek out the best way to achieve it. For instance, if the people want a grocery store, or a clinic, the community council will work together to establish the appropriate amount of funds to start and maintain the business. They will work to finding the appropriate OWS people to run the business, how much they should get paid based on fair values…etc. The profits from that business should be distributed appropriate from R&D efforts to make the business more efficient, to pay its employees, and to give money back to the OWS to start more business and enterprises.

The same will be done for the larger OWS body, especially when they assign an executive team to the corporations they create. The executive team will be an OWS team similar in nature to the community counsel. Their objective will be to run the corporation, but for the interests of the OWS.

These counsels must be elected positions, and they should in no way be for an indefinite period of time. There should obviously be term limits, and no room for re-election. There must be no political infighting, or fighting period. People need to be elected based on their merits and experience, not because they are a better speaker or look better on TV than their opponent.

Transparency:

For every member of the OWS, for every enterprise or small business, there should be complete and total transparency at every level of the organization. There can be no hidden agendas. Every penny, every dollar, every goal, every business created by the OWS must be made transparent in a way that is simple to access for every member. There must be a complete and open and honest file on every leader of the movement that can be accessed by any member. If someone wants to run for election for a community position or for the larger body, they must submit to complete and total exposure. There must be one place that people can go to learn anything they want about the OWS. One website where they can learn all about OWS efforts and initiatives. Where they can see the balance of every OWS account in existence, who has access to said accounts, when and why those accounts will be accessed, etc.

Transparency breeds trust. We want our competition to be able to see exactly who we are and what we stand for. Let them try to undermine us, we will survive because the OWS is our backbone. It is our strength. The 99% is our greatest strength and through the OWS we stand together. We stand strong.

This is just an idea. But I think it has merit and it can be done if we all work together. We can change the face of business worldwide.

[-] 2 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

So, is what you are saying that I will have to join OWS and financially support its purposes and agendas or be considered in the new national division of the X% and the X%.

I see this as an evolving process where the division will not be the 1% and the 99% but the X% of the OWS membership and the X% of the others.

[-] 1 points by neizuc (52) 2 years ago

Its come down to:

We speak for the 99% even though we are a few thousand people because we know what they ought to want. OWS talks about direct democracy, but the people actually voting are usually in the tens, who feel entitled to represent millions of people because they "get it".

Its the logic of every dictatorship

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Do you think those protesting on the streets represent the millions of 99%. You think because they use a GA, they stand in solidarity with everyone?

I suggested creating an organized system where the people will vote for their cause, they will vote for who represents them, that they will vote! Period!

I suggested that people create a community in which they will vote for community leaders who organize them and get them motivated. At every level, I believe in democracy and democratic values.

People who turn this idea into some notion of a dictatorship are really clueless. You don't get the option to vote in a dictatorship. You don't get the option to select your cause, or select your leaders. You don't get group discussions! All you get are people who tell you how it is, what to think, and what to do!

Anyone can speak for the 99%. Just as anyone can speak for Humanity? That doesn't guarantee the message you will give is a message that everyone will agree with. I do not agree with protesting in the fashion it is being done now. I am a member of the 99%. I want to see a fundamental change in business and government, but my voice alone will never be heard.

I am suggesting that a group of people who believe in a cause, stand together and create something that will last. Create something that will actually make a difference!

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

That's calling the kettle black!

[-] 0 points by squeezy123 (5) 2 years ago

You contradict yourself sir. Simplified: "we are few and speak for a bunch of people because we know what they want, BUT the people in "direct democracy" speak for a bunch of people even though they are few."

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I never said we would speak for every member of the 99%. Only that this group would be established to share in the cause of the 99%. In the end, it will only speak for its members, and its members would decide what message is sent ideally through a democratic process.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Sure you do. We have dreams from now and then.

Even a dictatorship has to have at least one good idea - we the 99% are still waiting for OWS to have its'.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Democratic Process, vote, community - need I say more?

[-] 2 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

I have the opportunity to vote and express myself more than two times per week in the area where I reside. This may be in the form at attendance at City Council Meeting, College Board Meetings, Public School Board Meeting, Planning Commissions, Chamber of Commerce meeting, and I could go on and on.

How much more democracy can we as individuals handle or do we WANT to handle.

I can only assume that you attend each of these democratic type organizations in your area and are seeking more - it that true?? or do you expect that each of these organizations and like organizations should involved from 20,00j0 - 40,000 in their meetings (you may adjust those figures to the area that you live in).

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

You make a great point. Everyone has the opportunity to be a part of the democratic process on so many levels, so why is the turn out so low? Why is that so few people are engaged in their communities to actively take an interest in them? The sense of true community is lost, and I think that is something we need to reclaim. I honestly think that voter turnout will not improve until our communities are more engaged. That is why I think we should keep these groups so small. If you can name every member of your community, you are more likely to stand together with them. You will be more likely to vote, because John and Sally and Karlie and Frank Are your bestbfriends and they are all going to the voting boothes together and they asked you to come too.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

The small group idea is great, however, we no longer live in Hooterville, USA where small groups are practical in representing such a huge population.

In my county alone, that would mean somewhere around 2,500 small groups of 30 each. 5,000 if 15 would be a more practical size.

I just don't see the feasibility of the true, pure, democratic process functioning in such a large setting.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I agree, but it's not like communities are going to get smaller any time soon. A group of people can never represent a greater population, not really. In the end it can only represent itself. But the larger the group gets, the more people feel out of touch. Eventually, the larger group merely represents the interests of a small group of elitist individuals that have become adept at swaying the crowd.

Do you think there is nothing we can do to reclaim our sense of community? Or do you think this is the best we got?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

I think that there could be a lot more, and better, however, it may very well be too late. The forward push today is toward globalization so that the groups simply continue to get larger all the time.

I fear this trend toward globalization for the very reasons that you are expressing - Once we reach the status of one-leader whether it is over the banking system, the policing system, the world - you can kiss all evidences of small groups goodby.

The only thing, in my opinion, that would bring back the necessity and feasibility of the small community group concept would be national or global disaster.

This has always been the experience when disasters strike any area - due to the fact that all of a sudden, that small group is all that there is and it becomes a matter of banding together for the good of the group.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

transparency and simply language

are necessary for the general population to make informed decisions

day to day could still be handled by representatives

the people need a recourse of they don't fill a politician represents them

I suggest public vote via the internet

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

I very much expect that we will both live to see some type of internet voting - if we can get this across to the very groups that would totally destroy this concept due to the fact that some type of idenfication would seem to be required to make it work.

If you cannot get a requirement that a person who shows up at a voting place today be required to verify their identity - how are you going to make internet voting possible.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people verify their identity everyday through card transactions

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

That is something they do in exchange for the privilige of doing business (purchasing, banking, etc). For some reason, we have an aversion to identifying ourselves at the voting booth.

It will get easier all the time. Our business just purchases a small unit that plugs into our cell phone and can not take credit cards anywhere in the store.

To some that is progress - to me I could function without it.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Good point, but isnt it already like that. How does the current 99% currently see the protesters. The fact is, the majority of the 99% do not stand together in solidarity. Whether or not a person is the 99% or not isnt measured by what cause they stand for, its a statistical fact that they are part of it. Creating this program is not like drawing a line in the sand between one percentage group or another. It is clarifying a set of values that a group of people believe in and fight for. These people acknowledge they are part of the 99% and they want to do something positive to change the situation.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Statistical facts are what creates a class society. We have done it for years in our school grading systems, in our average life span figures, and on and on.

Any person in the country, including the 1% may be included in one or more parts of the 99%, but you cannot simply identify a 99% and claim to represent them at the exclusion of someone who does not want to be included.

You were not voted into anything as OWS. You simply rose up and declared that you were going to represent the 99% whether they want you to or not. You will find that your greatest distractors and your greatest enemies will come from within the 99%, NOT the 1%. Get ready for it, whether it comes from the police, the courts, or from the man on the street - you will be the ones pegged as the ENEMY because that is how you act and identify yourselves.

You will live with what you have created in your holier than holy setup.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Again, you also miss the point. Just because a group of people say they represent the 99%, doesn't mean they actually do. What you are talking about is already happening with the protesters. Only the current movement is less gracefull. Its not organized. The tip of the spear is blunt.

Even the 1% can join in this community. Anyone can join, and anyone can leave. It would not be a dictatorship because the community as a whole would vote for everything, from who represents them to what cause they want to stand for, to whatever. True, there would be one centerpoint, that they work together to create business that would strive toward providing services to its members, in the much the same way as a Union I suppose, but I really did not envision a Union, and that still does not make bad.

The beauty about any movement is that anyone can rise up and declare they stand for a greater purpose, a greater people, but that doesn't make them right. Whether or not he/she gains any traction is whether people stand with him. Then, only the fruits of their actions will tell if the man is a true leader, or a megalomaniac.

I do not envision a system that seperate us from others. I envision a system where a group of people stand united for a cause that they believe in. It doesn't matter if others believe in this cause becasue we are making it happen on our own merrits. Within the system, legally and without infringing on other peoples rights. Anyone has the ability to join or leave of their own accord. Everyone has the right to vote for their representatives and agendas. This is not about creating a group that is against the world. It is about creating a community that stands together to build something positive.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Why not spend a little time in the study of how these great ideas were implemented in the past.

OWS has greatly exaggeraged its influence and has in effect turned off the majority of Americans because of its over stated claims of the number of people involved, the great world-wide impact is has, and all of that garbage.

I will see the vision, when a few people get together and share what they stand for and I find that I agree with them. If you are a church attender, you did the same thing. You do not just join a group because if seems to be the largest in the area. You join because you hear, you agree and you join - whether that be with 25 others or 25,000 others.

We have become so distorted in our thinking today due to the great number of people in our community, our city, our nation and our world that we cannot see that we are all a part of a small community that, combined, make up the world.

Stepping out the change the world, is a might big task and may totally overwhelm even those with exceptionally fast computer speeds.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I believe that when a community gets too large, it loses focus. People begin to feel insignificant. We get lost in the crowd. Its like trying to instantly guess the exact number of people in a crowd. After you get passed about 7 or 8 you almost can't do it. You need to start counting. After 20, it soon becomes hopeless. You need them all to stand in a line. If they all intermingle, you lose count and must start again.

If we can keep our communities small, almost the size of a small group, we will be able to establish relationships with one another. Relationships build trust and solidarity. If these small groups are great in number, and work together to form a larger unity group, then you just might have a democracy.

But, if you stick everyone together in a massive pot. There is no order, and everyone will lose sight of... Well...everything but their own vision. The message will get lost and confused. We can't stand together because we are all lost in the crowd. We don't know who we can turn two with trust because we don't have anything invested in anyone. No relationships with them. No trust. Even if you both stand for the same cause, essentially you feel as if you are standing alone.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

I am sure that we have all heard the old adage, divide and conquer. In my opinion, the first mistake that OWS made was to divide. If you think that the division is at the 1% and 99% point, this is your greatest mistake and will be the real downfall of the movement. I am not part of the 1% by any means, but the way it is set up, I am also not a part of the 99% that you claim to represent.

You have to have something definitive to present before you can represent. You lost me on that one.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I don't agree with that division personally either. I would rather bring people together than create divide. I do not envision an US verses THEM kind of system, but any group, any membership, an league of individuals creates that mentality. There are those who believe in the cause, and then there are those that could care less.

You either do not have a defined cause or you simply are waiting for someone who you agree with. That in itself is another division, since you are essentially saying you cannot stand with your fellow man unless they stand for something you can believe in. You don't believe in the 99% vs. the 1%. Cheers, neither do I.

I believe in people working together to bring about positive change in the lives of others! I believe in community, and a place where peoples voices can be heard amongst their peers, not drowned out by the massess. Where people can come together to make a difference in their own lives, and the lives of others. I don't care if one person is rich or another is poor. In the end, I just think everyone should have access to a home, education, food and water, healthcare, clothing, etc. I don't think anyone should have to live in fear of being homeless, starving, or unsuccessfull.

But I also do not believe it is the governments place to provide those services. The people should stand together for the common good. They should each have a say in the course of their own lives.

I believe people should come together, they should vote, they should work together to create businesses that will bring about a positive change. That is both democratic, and capitalistic. Everything America stands for.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

I think that most people would agree with your post. I also believe that noone is looking for a perfect group to join, and this applies to ANY group. However, I also believe that as I weight the intent and means of OWS and similiar groups, I simply cannot agree with their means of conducting themselves much less that their intent. Their means, in my opinion, have totally destroyed any intent that may have based upon real and serious problems. The problems continue to exist and all that OWS has produced to date is division, ill will, and most of all a hatred from the very people that they so proudly claim to present. They have, in everything they do, so blown themselves of as the saviour of the country that most of us easily see through their lack of sincerity and their selfish motives for every action and every comment that comes out of the organization. In the meantime, I also believe, that any well intended actions that were evident in the initial formulation of OWS has been so overtaken by those seeking even greater power and publicity that it might be a good time to shut the entire movement down before it ends in the massacre that it is building up to.

Everyone has great ideas and a lot of people have posted those ideas herein, but for the most part they are selfish, self seeking ideas that would not serve the majority of the people seeking change in today's world.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I agree with everything you just said? Also, i am selfish, and I would have great satisfaction if any individual had the temerity to try my idea. My posting it here is self serving to that affect. Does that make my idea any less credible. It is what it is, better to be judged by its merit than the emotional state of its creator. If it can truly help the people, than it is a useful idea. But if you are right and it will not serve the majority, it is better to be disregarded.

[-] 2 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

very nice, but instead of 'leaders' i would have a small 'leader group' maybe three people who work together and diffuse the power thing.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I was thinking we would need leaders at the group level, to keep the group together and motivated.

We would need leaders and the local community level, to make sure local businesses are created to help create local jobs and stability and ensure those who contribute directly to the program will see a lasting growth in the movement. They could also get the smaller groups together to do big activities like marches, protests, and demonstrations.

Then I figured we would also need leaders at the global scale to help solidify our presence by establishing large corporations. Create global agendas, and work to better to define our goals and ideals based on the wishes of the people.

Ideally, all of these establishments will work together to ensure that every hard working member has access to a good job, house, healthcare, education for their family...you know, the American Dream. They should work to create equality, NOT conformity, and make sure we all have access to at least the basic rights and necessities that all people deserve, while preserving fundamental capitalistic and entrepreneurial values.

I love the idea of the General Assembly, but I still think we need something like this to help bring everyone together in an organized fashion.

If this can be done with a small leadership group more effectively, I'm all for it so long as its democratic. Either way its just an idea. I don't know how to go about implementing it, or even trying to implement it, but it sounds nice on paper.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

yes, it sounds nice and i hope it would work

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

Three people will vie for the power in the group of three. There can be no 'leader group'. That's Magic Unicorn bullshit. Wake up Sparkles, it's not 1968 and none of us are eating magic mushrooms.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

switzerland has a 5 person presidency and they seem to be doing a bit better than the good ol' u.s. of a. (sparkles, i like that one, thanks!)

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

It was just a thought. I wasn't even alive in the 60s so the reference is lost on me, though the unicorn statement is humorous. If you have a better idea, what would you suggest. I was thinking each individual leader would be responsible for something different. One for keeping everyone together active and doing things in the community. Another for keeping up with the greater movement and greater community, and the third to lead group discussion. I suppose one person would be just as good at all three. I also thought the leadership should rotate, so everyone would get a chance to lead the group. But honestly, this is just an idea. Im not saying I know the best system. Obviously you think this idea is nothing but fairies and lollipops. If you have a suggestion, please share it. Oh, and the group size was supposed be 10-15, not 3.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Even a "leader group" will have a leader. Maybe you need to get around a little more, join a few groups and see what human nature is all about.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

yes, but a group can often balance out one person's dominance. switzerland has a 5 person presidency and they seem to be doing a bit better than the good ol' u.s. of a.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

Do they all operate under the same position description - or do they have various areas of responsbility within the presidency.

The answer to this question would tell you whether they have five overall leaders or not.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

there is a rotating 'frontman' position for greeting foreign dignitaries, i'm not sure how long that is though

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I don't disagree with you, but that leader should be an elected leader. I don't have anything against their being a leader, so long as it is a democratic one, with term limits and such. I don't believe there should be a revolving leadership. I believe in the vote. I also believe all leadership positions should be volunrary and without pay. But thats just me.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

You should study up on a citizen's legislature such as exists in the State of New Mexico. There may be other similiar governing bodies across the country. These are not voluntary - as membership has to be limited but basically it is without pay.

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I will look into this. Thanks for discussing this with me. I don't believe anything like what i suggested will ever happen in this movement, but I'm glad to have had the discussion.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Here's my solution: github.org/theProphet/Social-Garden. A parallel economy for the creative class.

[-] 1 points by neizuc (52) 2 years ago

You mean a 501(c)? They already exist and their records are required to be open.

Do you all even know what the laws you are protesting are?

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't. But since you pointed that out I will definitely look it up.

[-] 1 points by ForwardWeGo (99) 2 years ago

Although posting here does bring a readership, however scant, IMO - you should get directly involved with the work groups to bring your ideas to the people at large. You have my support. Solidarity

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

I would, but my vision is rather limited. Even what I wrote here can easily be misconstrued into something I never intended. I just hope it sparks an idea in someones head who has the knowhow to make something like this a reality. I would have no clue where to begin. I'm a dreamer, not a doer.

[-] 2 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Dreamers are just as important as doers.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I like this idea. I second that suggestion to take it to a GA. Put the proposal out there!

[-] 2 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

A couple of points I'd like to bring up:

The Museum of Modern Art as an organization has helped transform many art objects into items sold at Sotheby's for fortunes. A case could be made that turning nothing into $omething is an art form.

Like Apple, Sotheby's low wages paid to it's "drone" workers, do not reflect their profit margin, but rather their low costs are lumped together with other overhead costs, that are the responsibility of the management, which is lacking. The power over workers everywhere has historically been exploited beyond justice.

The overhead of management, seems to be at the heart of the world's economic woes, and will continue to focus on short term payoffs, and fail to address the long term results. The complexity of a global market of goods and politics are staggering, but not without solutions.

Art, like the housing crisis, seems to share New York City as the place to create and liquidate. The OWS has it's short term successes there, and perhaps its long term solutions will be brought to the table there.

[-] 2 points by papi (1) 2 years ago

these messages are going out way to late. It's making your cause weaker. It's obvious that the media has chosen purposely not to cover ows anymore. I used to see it every day on ny1 until bloomberg kicked u out. this could be so much stronger and bigger. in egypt they were able to get 1 million together. we can do it if it's done right. The posts need to be more organized. You need 1 site - people google ows. there are too many sites- occupy together, etc. its too complicated. we need to figure this out better.

[-] 2 points by TheIllusionCalledMoney (56) 2 years ago

I am certain things will evolve in the coming months. But great point about to much information/too many websites. I would love to see all Occupy movements worldwide under one umbrella site which EVERYONE would first go to, to get any information on Occupy. I think this would be extremely powerful. To this end, some months ago I googled "Occupy Earth", and noticed the domain name was registered,and for sale. I emailed the person who owns the domain and kindly suggested they donate the site to Occupy. I never received a response. It's still apparently for sale. I personally wouldn't pay $1 for the domain name, it's the principle of the whole thing, which runs against the community/sharing principle of Occupy. See: http://occupyearth.org/

[-] 1 points by ogrdanny (73) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I wouldn't necessarily say one site, but certainly a clear and defined network might help. This can avoid potentially harmful centralization by defining relationships between Occupy sites. Have a guide on each showing where to go for certain information, etc. It could get more complicated than that, but that's just the basic version.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

What's the problem, you're the "99%", right? LOL.

[-] 1 points by jonygee (11) 2 years ago

don't be rebels in the palace.

[-] 1 points by rayoden33 (1) 2 years ago

Brand new interview from Immortal Technique in regards to the Occupy Movement. Definitely worth watching!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvHTCwApk2E

[-] 1 points by DieNachthexen (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You do realize that most of the 99% have no clue what Sotheby's is or does?

I've been following OWS since before Sept 17 and it just seems strangely detached from the general public-most people agree with the message of OWS but also believe it is isn't much more than political theater.

In other words, no one takes OWS seriously. That's a problem.

[-] 1 points by ogrdanny (73) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

Part of being taken seriously is taking action on immediate problems when opportunity presents itself. Sotheby's is an example of such opportunity. Taking action on this shows that we are prepared to act in solidarity (which if you mean it is much more than issuing an empty statement) and take direct action to combat the problems caused by the powerful. That said, this article should have linked to further information for those who've been unaware of the attacks on these workers.

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 2 years ago

Part of being taken seriously is understanding why there's a lockout, why the union repeatedly threatened to strike w/o warning if it didn't want to provoke a lockout, what issues at the bargaining table are precluding the parties from reaching a voluntary agreement, etc.

I suspect OWS has no idea what the issues are but swallows hook, line and sinker the Teamsters press releases. "Solidarity" to OWS means knee-jerk support of union demands. Not exactly a thoughtful position. That's why no one takes OWS seriously.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 2 years ago

It is a problem, I had always thought that Sotheby's stood for a lot of earned respect and knowledge in the world of art. I will just not have anything to do with them anymore because they are, they are,

Exactly what did they do that was so evil..........??

[-] 2 points by hiddenwheel (83) from Newton, MA 2 years ago

Sotheby's artificially inflates the value of established artwork at the expense of relevant contemporary art and artists. Collectors who buy work at Sotheby's are the super rich. They are sheep! Curators, gallerists, art historians, critics and auctioneers tell them what to think and they listen. It is a huge business that favors the establishment. Ironically the work is often presented as subversive. It's a way for rich folk to buy a piece of "cool" without getting their hands dirty.

[-] 0 points by squeezy123 (5) 2 years ago

Why do you occupiers always trash the places you have been "occupying"? Seems to me you should leave them in a better condition than they were when you started occupying them; that would be more in line with your ethos I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.

[-] 0 points by neizuc (52) 2 years ago

"now-historic banner"?

the defining quality of this movement is narcissism. Someone's mommy thought they were very very special.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Obummer (-16) 2 years ago

Standing solidarity with the unions??? no way, they are the disease of the Country

[-] 1 points by orias12 (24) 2 years ago

Yeah, I can see the similarities with a union that you are referring too. Personally I wouldnt want it to be at all like a union. I suppose it would need people like you who see the failures of unions to make sure it doesnt fall down a similar path. That is of course only if this option is even taken seriously.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

Occupy museums, now? That is fucking hilarious. Coming soon, Occupy delis. LOL.

[-] 1 points by ogrdanny (73) from Grand Rapids Charter Township, MI 2 years ago

I encourage you to read the article before spewing.

[-] -1 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 2 years ago

I did. See you at the deli. Down with lunch meat! It's just another banker plot!

[-] -1 points by CephaIus (34) 2 years ago

Artists and art lovers are invisible in the museum? Do you mean that the museum does not showcase art? If so, what does it showcase?

[-] -2 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

bunch of loonyz =) but i got 5$ on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJEcoTRhSjU