Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A general answer to "Why Occupy?"

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 8:44 p.m. EST by winstonfliggurd (17)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why Occupy?

While the Occupy movement is made up of a very diverse swath of the American public, with a wide range of grievances, one universally voiced objection binds the protesters together: corporations, and moneyed interests in general, possess an unacceptable level of power over the United States government. The root of this disfunction seems to be the amount of influence money has over elections; the candidate who wins is often the candidate who is able to fundraise the most money, and generally only the wealthy are able to donate in any meaningful way. A circularity of influence in American economics results from this situation (such that government regulates business, yet business has the loudest voice in who is able to govern, and in which direction they should govern if they hope to stay in office), leading to the concerns of the wealthy being inordinately favored over the concerns of the so-called 99%. In recent history, the corporate pressure in Washington has orchestrated the deliberate deregulation of financial markets, resulting not only in the current economic depression, but in the preservation of the very system which caused the decline of the worldwide economy. The reality of this corporate influence is hidden from the public by an increasingly thin veil, made up of dogmatic, simplistic pro-capitalism rhetoric, praising the free-market as our highest ideal, centering around the convenient precept that if we leave our competitive economy alone, the outcome will be the best for everyone (an idea we are expected to take for granted). More and more, this argument resounds with the sense that the banking and business executives in charge are saying, “Do not pay attention to the changes we make nor the loopholes we exploit in the system; anything which happens within the context of the “free market” is for the highest good-- didn't you hear about the invisible hand? Simply leave this complicated business to us; the “free market system” we operate can do no wrong. Here are some products to keep you entertained- do your part for the common good, citizen, and support us. Trust us, your society is in the very best of hands. Why shouldn't you just trust us?” The doctrine of the infallibility of the free market is simply not historically supported by evidence; unchecked, the “free-market” leads to cyclic patterns of economic collapse and repair, with each new recovery coinciding with the appearance of new loopholes designed for manipulation by those doing the rebuilding. A recurrent trend is the decline of wages for the majority, the increasingly powerless bulk of the workforce, in favor of increasing each company's competitiveness and profits. Furthermore, deregulation inevitably tends to enable the rise of monopolies, at the expense of general economic growth.

The policy of corporate personhood, officially sanctioned by the recent Citizens United supreme court decision, is entirely unacceptable. “...for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us... that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln's conclusion to the Gettysburg Adress reverberates with the immense weight of its content; is this not the one greatest virtue of United States, that the government's power should respond to the will of the people first and foremost? Yet, in an era where corporations are actually considered people, what value can this foundational principle possibly retain? In our current political system, corporations possess far greater power than any individual person can-- have these institutions really superseded the populace as the basis of our government? If we are to take any evidence from such decisions as that following the Citizens United case, it becomes apparent that democracy by the people and for the people, the real people, is in dire peril. Following that case, Justice Stevens explained his dissenting vote thusly: "At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics." We in the Occupy movement expect a reversal of the Citizens United decision to be a crucial point in future congressional elections.

We recognize that this situation is profoundly dangerous to society as a whole. We are united in our resolve to repair our broken system so that it works fairly for all citizens; the advantage which the wealthy have woven into our financial system is totally unacceptable, and the financial elite have shown repeatedly that they are not able to responsibly handle the inordinate societal power they wield.

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MadMavenNYC (26) 13 years ago

You nailed it when you said "corporations, and moneyed interests in general, possess an unacceptable level of power over the United States government" Let's just say that the Federal Reserve a non-governmental agency that is controlled by the major banks, controls our government. This is something that we can all probably agree with.

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

Agreed, and what an ominous fact this is. On account of this, do you support Ron Paul, the anti-fed candidate? I'm not sure where I stand concerning his platform.

[-] 1 points by MadMavenNYC (26) 13 years ago

I am not so sure about Ron Paul... We need someone outside the DC crowd with mass appeal to step up and lead I think?

[-] 1 points by sicandtired (2) from McClave, CO 13 years ago

I would have to say that MONEY is the disease. Everything else is a symptom of the disease. Corruption is in all aspects of our monetary system. Governments, Corporations, Judicail System, Military, Healthcare, Education. Why would Big Pharma. try to find a cure for a disease? That would cause them to lose money on drugs that treat symptoms of that disease. Why find new forms of energy? That would put the gas and oil industry out of business. I think this protest comes down to the coruption of humanity and it's NEED to have money to SURVIVE. When everything has a monetary value there will eventually be chaos in order to aquire it.

[-] 1 points by sicandtired (2) from McClave, CO 13 years ago

I would have to say that MONEY is the disease. Everything else is a symptom of the disease. Corruption is in all aspects of our monetary system. Governments, Corporations, Judicail System, Military, Healthcare, Education. Why would Big Pharma. try to find a cure for a disease? That would cause them to lose money on drugs that treat symptoms of that disease. Why find new forms of energy? That would put the gas and oil industry out of business. I think this protest comes down to the coruption of humanity and it's NEED to have money to SURVIVE. When everything has a monetary value there will eventually be chaos in order to aquire it.

[-] 1 points by oclisa (74) 13 years ago

Well stated and I wish OWS would focus on the message you put forth. However, I would have to disagree with one point you make. While I do not think markets should be deregulated anymore than I think our streets should be un-policed, I would argue that our current situation is not so much a product of deregulation as it is a product of selective deregulation, i.e., deregulation purposely designed to benefit those interests that contribute the vast majority of money to the political coffers of both parties (while small business is being suffocated by regulations). To that point, the beast cannot be killed until money is removed from politics. Impossible, perhaps...but we have no better option than to try. There is a movement recently initiated by Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC (and formerly an anchor on CNBC) to get money out of politics. It can't hurt to sign the petition: www.getmoneyout.com

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

After reading that petition, I cannot sign. In it I see the seeds of a weakened 1st amendment; it is highly unlikely that an amendment which seeks to redefine free speech will be passed. I support limiting or eliminating corporate expenditure on elections, but not eliminating all donations from actual people.

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

Nice, thanks for the link. I agree with you that the issue is selective deregulation; and perhaps I should make it more clear that that is what I am referring to.

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

@atki4564-- I read the proposal you linked to; I would say that 65,000 people donating 500$ each to startup banks is rather unrealistic in the short term. Actually founding a bank is tremendously risky, especially since trust is such a central issue to where people choose to keep their money. Your proposal reads almost exactly like any number of get rich quick schemes-- "We just need an enormous number of people to donate a little bit of money, it's so simple." I disagree with your fundamental premise that this battle must be fought on their terms.

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

Good point, unfleecedbysheep. Perhaps I'll take that under more careful consideration and expand the column I wrote above. On the other hand, it might be desirable to dial down the justice side of the message, in favor of future positive change; it is true, though, that the only road to future change might be holding the responsible accountable... It's very difficult to see exactly how that could occur, at least in the short run. The complexities of the financial collapse may have put up to great of a smokescreen for any real justice to be done. Backing a witch hunt of corrupt executives might be harder for the majority of the 99% to stomach than positive reform in the form of greater transparacy and streamlined bureacracy.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 13 years ago

Wow, extremely well said, but we also need is a comprehensive strategy, and related candidate, that implements all our demands at the same time, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – such as myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

Thanks, atki, I will read your plan now.

[-] 1 points by unfleecedbysheep (153) 13 years ago

Hold those in power responsible for the "financial crisis" "housing crisis""job crisis" etc.? Or just ask them to be responsible from now on? It is not just money in politics, corporations can do plenty of harm left freely to their devices.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) 13 years ago

Like Like Like

[-] 1 points by Haroldm (7) 13 years ago

Very nicely put!

[-] 1 points by winstonfliggurd (17) 13 years ago

Eep the formatting on this is rather ugly, may repost.