Forum Post: All I see is objections here. Is there any consistent and common political view about how US / World needs to change?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 2:50 a.m. EST by mehmet
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I was following news about this occupy movement and I also found this site and read details about this movement. But just like many movements in the last decades, all I see here is objections to the present. I didn't see a consistent political view common in this movement, about how things must change and how things must be. Without this, does anybody think that this movement will result in a significant change?
These forums are the only ones that show up on the first page of google, and are very lightly moderated, only people trying to shill for another cause or who get completely out of hand get filtered, So some here are a wide variety of supporters who agree on a number of the problems but do not necessarily agree on solutions. Others are just here to learn more and get sucked into the fun, they're undecided to varying degrees. MANY are from the hostile opposition, usually from the far right, they can be found spewing the worst hate, calling names, and looping the same old right wing talking points, plus repeating you are losing,you will lose, go home. They may or may not be getting paid, it's the only thing to explain their individual perseverance aside from desperation. There are also hostile opposition trying to pretend to be supporters and saying controversial things so they can make us look bad (They are the ones that post as mindless kids, commie robots, burn the world anarchists-- not that we don't have kids, socialist, and anarchists supporting, to tell the difference, if it looks like a stereotype and not a person making the post or comment, then it's the opposition trolling.)
Finally we have honest people who don't support us but are here to talk civilly. You can tell them by the fact that they are polite and don't act nearly as perpetually angry as the hostile opposition.
As a grassroots movement there are more than one group providing news, organizing, and online community, like I said, this one is 1st page google, so it gets all the newbies (Yay) and trolls (Sigh) -- here are two other places to get to know OWS:
http://www.occupyr.com/
http://www.themultitude.org/forum/
Damn, Panda, I couldn't have said that better myself. Can I cut and paste that? Just kidding. (I'm not trolling) I've tried to explain to quite a few people over the last few days that have asked that very thing and I wind up sort of tripping over my words. I'm not sure I've made it clear enough to them, although I hope I did an adequate job. We need as many converts as we can get. Build up the numbers, you know? Peace.
Cut it, save it, paste it anytime you see a troll post that needs explaining or a confused newbie... anyone else that wants to can do the same, I release into the public domain. :) We need to counter their lies here, if that helps,go for it!!!
The most common and radical though not-too-radical view I have come across is that we must separate big money from politics. In other words, corporations should not be allowed to contribute to every political candidates' coffers and therefore guarantee their influence regardless of who may win or lose. Many more ideas are being generated although I see that there is a consensus regarding this issue.
someone needs to make it known so that there is some focus to this movement. without direction, people are rallying everywhere for no reason other than to rally.. and that is just a waste of time
I went out to an Occupy meeting in my small city earlier tonight and they are grappling with the same issue. I believe this is why we must begin disseminating materials in print. There are many reasons for this: security, contingency (shall the plug be pulled), posterity, etc. Also, many people still lack Internet access and we mos def want to get them on board.
without a 'leader' who knows who is actually speaking for the 99%
this leaderless movement seems to have shot itself in the foot.. those who feel the message should be something else will just say whoever is co opting 'their' movement
No, it should not necessarily be "leaderless." I do believe that the brains (leadership?) should remain unknown among the public at large. Can't have highly-visible leadership. It's suicide. Too easy to take out a charismatic figure who has lulled his followers into some sort of slavish dependence. Everyone are actors, the people calling the shots (Karl Rove comes to mind :)) should not go public.
I definitely agree. Leadership is just a tool that crowds have to use if they have a common aim, no need to afraid of it.
I think there is common ground around the notion of getting money, special interests and corruption out of politics and legislation.
I think that this movement is just one of many factors that will shape our future in one way or another. How much is still and open question.
The real cause of the problems is the fractional reserve banking system that allows private banks to create all new money in the world (except a handful of countries) out of thin air as debt (i.e. loans, mortgages, credit) which is why we are all so in debt and can't spend to boost the economy.
It also means that the private banks decide what new money gets spent on (they choose who they loan out to or invest in) so they are in charge of the direction of the economy and in some case society as a whole.
As they choose what to loan to they can create bubbles (housing, mortgage backed securities, etc) which inevitably burst leaving us to pick up the cost.
Also, staff at banks are incentivised to lend (bonuses, etc) and have no incentives to not lend so they lend. However, the amount of money in the economy directly affects inflation. Too much money and there is inflation, too little and we have recession. We have high inflation now because the world has been flooded with all this money.
This system also allows the banks to only hold a fraction of the money they loan or invest (sometimes in toxic sub-prime mortgages) in reserve so they can never fully cover their debts if there is a run on the bank or their investments fail.
Finally, as I said above most countries provide deposit insurance to the banks which means that if they do mess up (and they often do) the taxpayer is legally obligated to bail them out. But if we didn't bail them out we could never create new money (which the economy needs to grow) as the only way to create new money is take on debt from private banks.
The problems of unethical banking, economic crisis’s, high unemployment, collapse of the housing market, etc are all systems of the disease and the disease is fractional reserve banking. Unless this changes, no other meaningful change will occur.
The solution is a full reserve banking system. See www.positivemoney.org.uk for more information. Some of the info is UK specific but the thinking behind the system can work anywhere fractional reserve banking is used (which is just about everywhere).
This means bank can still invest and loan but only with actual money (not new money created as debt) and only the money we say they can - i.e. we would have one account to make payments with and receive our salary which they couldn't touch and would be safe even if the bank collapsed and another type of account for savings and investments which they could use to try and make us and them money. However, if the investments failed the burden would be taken by the bank and the investor not the taxpayer.
However, the main change would be that the private banks could not create money out of nothing and the central bank (Federal Reserve, Bank of England, etc) would create all new money which would enter the economy through Government spending. The central bank would be independent of government but not of parliament/congress/the nation so that governments couldn't just spend money on services to win elections. In the US this would mean nationalising the Federal Reserve to start with as it is just a private bank.
The only way to fix the system is to remove it and start over. Tell everyone.
This looks an other clear point. Why not gathering all these clear ideas together into a common unit movement?
Ideas such as applyying "Article V Convention", bringing back "Glass-Steagall Act", etc. need to be focused on and made common. And also some leadership is needed. As fas as I can see from here.
If you look at the latest graph in income disparity over the last 30 years you will notice that the one percents wealth increased 275 percent while the rest of us increased 18 to 65 percent. Continue on this path for 30 more years and their won't be anything left for the vast majority of our citizens.. At that point it will be a civil war, No other way to go. So my point being is... Maybe you can figure out what this movement should be about before it's TOO LATE!
What ever happened to “we the people”? Im coming to find out, just today oct the 27th how fucked up the situation is on the U.S, with the occupation of wall street and all. I use to think that the U.S was ruled by a president elected by the people, i used to be certain that the congress was also filled by people elected by the regular, hard-working citizen. I was convinced that democracy was the way to go in the U.S It`s hard to believe how wrong i was over the years. The goverment, the public servers that u, the average U.S citizen voted to represent ur interests, the very people u trusted the political decissions always sure that the will putt he people best interests first are now witnessing a protest like no protest ever seen in the last couple dozens of years. A protest against THEM, against the way THEY simply choose to overlook the needs of the citizens and opted to work for the big companies. So… who is really in charge here? “we the people” or “we the influential, the powerful, the resourceful… we the suits”? In my understanding the protesters are trying to get the goverment make laws against the advantages of the big companies. That jeopardizes the system in wich the goverment Works nowadays… true change can only be achieved by true action. That is one thing history has always made very clear. If my math is o.k 99 is bigger tan 1. the 99% could easily crush the 1%. To achieve change, revolution is required. To achieve revolution, action is required. To achieve action, courage is required. Courage u already have people, use it. dajockster@hotmail.com
plz. read the thread entitled.....did you know you can issue a U.S. Savings Bond to a business entity (User Submitted)
sure. corporate oligarchy is evil, direct democracy is the evolutionary direction, we need an article 5 convention and a new third political party. http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
yes! www.the99declaration.org
Good observation. "about how things must change" and not seeing consistency.--
When a person says." things must change", the next logical step is how. In this nation to make change authority is needed. So, consistency with wanting change and asking for it, is knowing something about HOW things can change.--
Most of the issues of OWS require HUGE authority. But no one discusses anything bringing any authority whatsoever. Curiously, whe nthe ultimate authority of democratic change in American, Article 5 of the constitution comes up, no one knows anything so is quiet.
To see the ultimate form of democracy, we need to use our first constitutional right, article 5 of the constitution. This is the only way any demand will be met.--
Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 because congress has no control IF 3/4 of the states are ratifying Meaning, we need to stay in our states and make the demand for an article 5. We only need 2 more states then congress is in OBVIOUS violation of the constitution and the military, YES, the military will have to defnd the constitution. -
If the state won't, apply, you are looking at a state controlled at key points by the nwo- jack up the pressure! talk about "lawful government" a lot and cite violations of laws on a federal level that impair the states constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."
Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------
http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html
Keep pushing this Chris. I checked that link earlier today, bookmarked it actually, to give it a more thorough read tomorrow with a clearer head. I don't know much about the Constitution any more (many, many years since high school) but plan on brushing up. Article V sounds like it should definitely be at the top of the short list of ideas. If OWS doesn't get on board this, one would have to seriously wonder where they plan on heading.
This is very interesting, Christopher. It is the first time I hear this. I am from Turkey and I wished we had something similar to this article V here. This looks to be a good starting point to make common in the movement.
This is a good clip which actually summarizes some good objectives for the movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI&feature=player_embedded
Thanks for replies. My concern is as I observed in previous movements in the last decades, without a clear political aim, all this energy might be wasted and result in lower self-confidence in public. Things like "tax the rich", or "ebolish FED" look like just objections since they do not say anything about future. But I see that there are also some clear ideas like bringing back the "Glass-Steagall Act", etc. It might be good to make such points common. Leadership is useful in doing such things and without "leadership tool" many things are difficult.
We want people to be informed. Get informed, understand the power of the FED, who is behind the FED.... The moment people start understanding how the world is organised now, we can ask for changes (mostly just by using commun sense)
i think the more intelligent OWS want to accomplish something (most useful i've heard is removing private $$$ ie corporate, union, etc from the political process).
on the other hand there are alot of (retards?) calling for the dissolution of banks, elimination of wall street and nationalizing their money so that everyone may get free housing and free college educations because they are AMERICANS and are entitled to it.
the problem is that no one has decided who has more say, so instead of debating issues that matter, they are stuck negotiating how many hours drummers may drum per day in zucotti park
See the part about trolls posing as supporters in my comment in this thread. Beware. If the post looks like a stereotype writing it instead of a person, assume it's a troll. Not like there aren't people here with radical ideas, but even if you don't agree with the logic, they usually will include some argument to back their ideas, and appear like complicated, thinking, people. Most of the yeah free housing, comrades lets redistribute and live on hugs not currency-- those are troll posts
Yeah, we want more free stuff. Tax the rich!
Case in point.
Are you new here? I will tell you first, there isn't a common view. But there are some that come up frequently such as abolish the Fed, abolish fractional lending, bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, get maney out of politics, etc. These are significant changes and it's a shame that many people have no idea what the movement is fighting for. The movement is unorganized, but a lot of good ideas are coming out without the need for a leader.
Complexity in a system gone bad
On a macro scale some of the issues are: 1) the pros and cons of globalization 2) GDP growth- pros and cons 3) Profits and ethics/human rights/democracy 4) Profits and debt (pay a worker a low wage, he takes out a loan to pay for the product etc) 5) Role of Government,its funding, foreign affairs, military etc. 6) Civil rights and voting power
Most of the changes called for come under one of these macro issues. There are of course interlinkages. A nice activity for an afternoon would be to create a mind map of it all- which bank has the longest wall (just joking!) Working groups on each of these macro issues could be formed as a first step.
I am going to exclude 2) It is arbitrary and is only based on the other points.
1) Tariffs have shown throughout history to be counter-productive and intrusive. The benefits of a minimal increase in income are much less than the increased cost of guarding borders, corruption at the borders and waste through government. For these reasons I am pro-globalization and in no way so far support an establishment to regulate it. 3) Too ambiguous for a debate here. My instict says there is no price for personal well-being, the world tells me otherwise.
5) Goverment should be there to facilitate commerce. They should not intervene in the market to change prices or demand. Just as importantly, while I am somewhat fiscally conservative, the corporation shouldn't have more influence than the government. I know this is vague, but there are too many issues that arise to address in a small post.
4) I have researched alot about the financial issues the world faces and have concluded that it has nothing to do with greed in the system. To address the wage issue, a land tax needs to be in place.
The theory of economic rent has been around for some time, but land taxation has seldom been implemented throughout history. It is well known that the factors of production are composed of land, labor and capital. Land, in the economic sense, can be explained as anything with a productive capacity that has not been created by men or women, but has value created by the community. Labor is any human energy spent , whether by the mind or through brute force, that contributes to a means of production. Capital is mainly what is spent from savings for future production. Under the current system, mainly labor and capital are taxed, while the landed elite make out like bandits with the rents that are created by the community! It is no surprise that civilizations have suffered from vast inequalities since the founding of the first governments.
What we need to fight for is a redistribution of these economic rents for the sake of the people, while at the same time reducing the tax rates on labor and capital. These rents from land are the source of all wealth and are presently held by a small number of wealthy people who will speculate and slow there productive capacity in order to increase profits.
This demand goes out to the people of OWS! If there is one thing we need to change in order to promote equality, environmental protection and job creation through increased productive capacity, this is the solution we need. Please read about economic rent and land taxation in order to fully grasp the concept.
This is something proven in theory and not based on anyone's personal opinion or ideology. While we are divided on many things, it's time to come together with some real demands to benefit the majority of unrepresented individuals of the world. Lets show the top 1% that we know where their unearned wealth is coming from and that we know exactly what is needed in order to bring them back to the real world!