Forum Post: am on the fence ... convince me why i should support OWS
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 22, 2011, 11:15 p.m. EST by NeilDiamond
(52)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
29yo, college educated, single, no kids, make about $140k/year, grew up in philly. was in and out of poverty the whole time. parents worked hard but were at the bottom, so i got no help. self made. politically, tend to be socially moderate/liberal (am pro choice, pro affirmative action etc.) and fiscally conservative (for balanced budget, more disciplined entitlement spending, etc.)
have been awaiting some kind of public uprising here at home since the austerity protests in europe have started. have been pissed since the sub-prime lending induced meltdown in 2008. at how the bush and obama justice departments have basically let the men and women responsible for the near meltdown walk, how poeple like dick fuld and angelo mozilo are not in jail for their roles. furious at the complete lack of political civility and pragmatism on both sides since obama's election.
was encouraged by OWS forming and spreading to so many other cities, but i am completely frustrated at the
- lack of clear, cohesive leadership. there's no one group to "negotiate" or communicate with regarding what OWS as a whole specifically wants
- lack of a clearly defined agenda with clear, attainable targets and goals with well defined and realistic plans of action.
i like marches and stunts for attentions and all, but it just seems like its a bunch of unorganized kids not really knowing wtf they're doing, just that they're pissed they owe money and can't get a job. which are great reasons to protest because they are the end result of shameful unemployment and the scam of making everyone go to college, but not so great if you don't have a plan and want staying power.
you know what i mean? help me understand. or am i right about this being a bunch of hippies with no plan.
I think some of the major goals of OWS are:
Get money out of politics. Re-instate Glass-Steagall. Restructure taxes so they are more fair.
i can get behind clearly defined objectives like this. problem is, most folks in "the movement" that i've talked to have no idea what any of that shit means.
Go to the 99 Percent Declaration site. This is an outline of possible demands that this group is working on for OWS. It hasn't been officially approved yet, but it looks pretty good.
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
That's not the official declaration. Everyone's got their own version of the "official demands" and, though with good intent, often include demands such as "force the aliens to let Elvis come home" and the like. Stick to the real deal.
This is the ONLY official working declaration:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/
a lot of positions on there that i do not support. like forgiveness of student loans, foreclosure freeze and political influence on the federal reserve.
Yes, some people get caught up in the symptoms of the problems. We need to get to the root of the problems by getting money out of politics and re-instating Glass Steagall. You can post a comment to that working group. I told them something similar. I think everyone's opinion is helpful.
beautfulworld stated the most universally accepted core values of OWS it appears. Those are all things the 99% can agree with. There are plenty of other people with plenty of other ideas (personally I would want term limits for the congress) but the core is what everyone can agree on.
So would you consider the 1% to be more along the lines of politicians, being as they produce nothing yet live off the labor of the masses?
What kind of structure would fair taxes have?
I don't think they are politicians, although they certainly have more political influence than the 99%. I also don't think they produce nothing, but I do think they, because they are the capitalists who control the wealth (the profits), benefit unfairly and pay themselves unjust amounts of the profits while throwing crumbs to the workers. (Now, this is not true of all of the 1%, of course, it is a generalization and OWS mostly focuses on the big corporations.) The average CEO now earns (pays himself/herself) 343 times the average worker's wage. Twenty/thirty years ago this was about 40 times.
For me, fair taxes would be that the wealthy at least at the same rate as the middle class. More important, to me are profits and how they are distributed to workers.
Four Walton's, the founders of Wal-Mart are in the top 11 of the Forbes List of Richest people in America, yet Wal-Mart just announced that it is ending benefits for part-timers and increasing the premium for healthcare for everyone else. I just don't understand that kind of greed.
I can see your point.
no, this obsession with war with the 1% is completely misguided, i think. it reeks of class warfare and of jealousy. this is america, everyone's dream from the day they got here is that if they work hard, they'll be successful and maybe one day be at the top.
instead, we need to look at the root causes of our conundrum = the influence of money on our government, not just by corporations but any group with money and influence, unions and trade associations included, and the piss poor regulation that result from it. Glass-Steagall, etc. our mixed economy has transformed into a dangerous form of corporate capitalism.
the one thing i would not want in any revamping of the tax code is any sort of national sales tax, which is a regressive tax on consumption. because poorer people spend a high proportion of their income on consumption, they have little to no savings. i find it amusing that so many fair tax proponents champion such national sales tax proposals, there's nothing "fair" about it.
the recovery and GDP growth and hiring havent happened because the demand from american consumers simply has not returned. to stifle consumption even further from the poorest is moronic.
I'm not a fan of outright class warfare either but I think income inequality is a problem (and not just because the poor aren't getting richer). The realities of politics make it such that income inequality translates into political inequality and leads to bad, inequitable regulations and policies. And don't be so harsh on consumption taxes. There are ways to do consumption taxes in a more progressive manner (see Cornell University professor Robert Frank's writings)
i dont dislike consumption taxes as a practice but i dislike them in our current environment of snail-pace growth. we've turned into 1990's japan. that is pathetic.
If you by any chance saw Morning Joe this morning, Professor Frank actually noted this fact. That instituting a consumption tax right now would be awful, but if it was stated that a consumption tax were placed sometime in the future (say only after unemployment fell below 6.5%), it would induce spending now. And I'm with you, we're in the midst of a lost decade (we're actually doing worse than the Japanese did)
doing worse, correct. and we aren't the saving culture that they are to boot. lol.
I'm not sure about that...the state of Japanese culture is fucking depressing. OWS and the vibrant independent culture gives me hope for this country
"saving" as in everyone hoarding cash in safes in your house. we're a bit off from that.
well their "saving" culture has not been a blessing. they are savers because they are incredibly risk averse. They can't imagine life without a current account surplus. They would rather subsidize the status quo and be economically worse off, than allow certain structural reforms to take place and economically benefit
true. i'm merely implying that such ingrained saving (to a lesser degree) in our culture wouldnt be so bad
fully agree (perhaps a progressive consumption tax, instituted with a lag, wouldn't be such a bad idea?)...in any case, I hope I've given you some hope that OWS comprises more than just those who are trying to leach off of OWS to promote their fringe cause
end war
I encourage you to go to a meeting of your local group to check your perceptions. It may vary from city to city.
I would say that their concerns of the folks in my local are far beyond their own jobs and student loans. For the most part, they seem to be a very sincere bunch of young people who genuinely care about what is happening, particularly to the poorest among us. They also seem to be really unorganized, and so focused on their own pet issues, that they lack much awareness of the possibilities for bringing all sorts of people from the community together and in doing something besides protest marches and camping out.
Maybe you should join because they really need someone like you.
i have met my local group, actually. was very disappointed. i walked around and tried to talk to everyone and i'd say less than 25% of the people i talked to had anything of substance to rally against, the rest were just kids who liked the attention and had a hard on for confrontation with the cops. most of the grown ups were either hippies and/or socialists who passed out pamplets against the concept of money or authority. everything went to a "general assembly" vote and everyone had their own fruity ideas on what to do, what to protest, so consensus was rare. it was such an amusingly futile exercise.
the only nice thing that i liked was how they helped feed and look after some of the homeless and mentally ill on that side of town.
Sorry to hear that. It may be that Occupy Wall street will simply be a spark which will begin to bring the radical center together in other groups, for specific projects.
I sense there are so many people who want to do something to make change, and alas, too many Occupy groups seem likely an unpromising avenue.
Maybe the 'ReOccupy your Government' movement will spring up. We could even meet indoors, in a place with a PA system, and go home to sleep at night.
yeah. i wish another group of young 25-40yo professionals with money and influence would get together. there just arent enough of us, sadly.
I'd like to expand a bit on the apparent "leadership vacuum."
First, the movement is young. Leadership is emerging, but remains rather inexperienced and poorly-connected in any greater sense. It also has yet to be seen whether the General Assembly model will "scale" as the movement grows. We will likely see multiple organizational upheavals in the coming months, as OWS transitions from site-based leadership to an ever-broader and more networked organization. Right now, many Occupations are operating almost entirely independently -- many smaller groups are almost entirely dominated by Paulites, Greens, unions, or other existing groups that want a piece of the action.
On that note, most Occupiers strongly oppose co-option. This has meant that in many cases, and especially in the major Occupations, existing skilled and influential leaders have been discouraged from taking dominant roles. This has kept the movement relatively independent, but it also means that many interested, competent organizers have thus far served advisory, rather than executive roles. Nevertheless, this short-term deficiency also serves to educate future leaders. The major GAs represent intense, immersive training for those involved. Today's GA participants will either burn out and step aside, or emerge as veterans with significant leadership experience.
Unfortunately, right now smaller Occupations are often the product of interested local partisans of one stripe or another, and their missions will quite often reflect those partisans' personal dispositions. If a women's rights advocate happens to spearhead Occupy Podunk, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Podunk's movement cycles through a disproportionate amount of anti-patriarchy rhetoric. Same applies if a group gets headed by some greybearded anti-nuke, whale-saving, tree-hugging Woodstock attendee, or a social worker in a region with a large immigrant population. There's no Fox News or AM radio to keep everyone on-message; it's up to the Occupiers to wrangle these people into some sort of coherent force.
Nobody knows what OWS will look like in a year. It could vanish over the winter. It could, despite our best efforts, become a hyper-partisan "Democrat Tea Party." It could become something else altogether. OWS could well field its own political candidates some day, especially on the local level. I'm of the opinion that between that day and now, the movement must retain an independent kernel that does not look to the Democrats or to Unions or to Socialists for guidance, that does not patronize the traditional paths to social influence. Monied interests have far too much experience in managing, corrupting, and marginalizing idealists and reformers within the old system.
If the Occupation is to have leaders, its best hope lies in the home-grown variety, those who owe little to existing power-brokers, those whose influence has grown through substantive, meritorious action. I regretfully feel that OWS cannot entertain conditional offers of support from existing leaders -- it does not yet have the social capital to wager on long-shot campaign pledges, nor the resilience to withstand an internal coup backed by someone with strong external ties. If that makes the GAs out to be walled gardens, so be it. We cannot grow robust in the shadow of already-mighty trees.
but what about likeminded monied interests out there that would formally support and fund OWS if the leadership vacuum and lack of cohesive agenda were addressed? i understand the desire to not have your movement hijacked and to maintain independence free of any dominant political ideology, but i dont understand the unwillingness to play the game of traditional social influence. where is the line of total independence drawn? are iphones, twitter and facebook exempt?
Unfortunately, American politics is already dominated by monied interests and the old circles of social influence. You're right to call it a game, but it's a wretchedly unfair one. This influence is a core complaint of OWS -- money speaks far more loudly than do citizens, and the nation's money is rapidly vanishing into corporate ledgers and the personal accounts of the wealthy.
Part of the paranoia is due to the Tea Party's near-instant co-option by existing Republican, Fundamentalist, and corporate interests. Within months, the entire TEA movement had been expertly crafted into a campaign machine for the same old Moral Majority and John Birch folks, and its populist undertones (less taxes on the little guy!) were largely forgotten or grossly misrepresented, a la the "9-9-9" plan. A big part of that was because early Tea Partiers welcomed media involvement and funds from existing interest groups. In this way, they abandoned their message control for a bit of power. That could easily happen to OWS, if some particular outlet were to begin acting more sympathetic to the OWS message, or if someone were to step up as a "chief sponsor" of OWS.
The support you're talking about is always conditional. Regardless of how "likeminded" the support, it always takes the form, "If you will do this, then I/we will do that." Right now, OWS is so fragile that if the co-option taboo we're talking about didn't exist, anyone with a few million to spare could own the movement in short order. They still might do so. Money is powerful, and modern American society has proven itself quite poor at handling its influences. Even beyond outright abuse of influence, money usually comes with party affiliations, corporate entanglements, and a demand for the usual army of accountants, managers, and lawyers to maintain the money. All of this increases OWS's vulnerable "surface area," adding new ways for existing groups and rich folk to leverage, manipulate, and misrepresent the movement. OWS is a curious sort of entity, one capable of perishing from an overabundance of money as well as a deficit.
Eventually, OWS will almost certainly have to get into the deal-making business. Not right now. Today, OWS is a very brightly-colored, very tiny fish swimming an ocean full of sharks and whales. Some would consume OWS for their own interests; others would reshape it in their own likeness. The Occupation must develop an independent identity before it can entertain such conditional offers of support. All of that being said, if people are willing to persevere through these obnoxious early days and months, to offer advice without demanding its acceptance, to give aid without an expectation of direct repayment, they're welcome, however rich and well-connected they are.
a disappointingly paranoid and warped fear of any monied interest support, you have.
the support is not always conditional. believe it or not, many well off people regularly give large sums of money away (above and beyond the obvious income tax benefits) to causes out of pure benevolence and expect nothing in terms of direct, personal benefit in return. they do it out of love/concern/fear/whatever for their communities.
money is power and influence. that is the allure of money for me, it isnt the material goods i can trade it for.
for example, i gave away 25k to endow a scholarship at my alma mater last year. that is an absurdly high amount of money, as far as i'm concerned, and i had every right to analyze the structure, transparency, decision making and management of the foundation i gave it to. outside of that, i demand and expect nothing in return other than my own self-satisfaction of helping someone else. why cant i ask for the same from OWS? is what i'm asking for that unreasonable to where it makes the movement vunerable to your concerns, some leadership and a clear, explicit vision? of course not.
i would gladly cut my local occupy group a $5k check if i knew it would result in funding for billboards, bigger signs, radio ads, whatever. and there are plenty of people like me with the same concerns who would do so as well.
this is a grass roots movement, why OWS hasnt capitalized on it in terms of fundraising is flabbergasting.
Though you believe that your donation would be unconditional, you have stated that you would give the money IF you knew how it would be spent (billboards, radio ads, etc.). Though this sort of conditionality is well intentioned and perhaps harmless, you would have expectations of the group that may not align with what the group themselves thinks they need in order to successfully build a movement. The overall occupation is based on the autonomy and sovereignty of the 99% to make our own decisions over the development of our movement, which is representative of our desire to have freedom and autonomy over our own lives outside of the usual work-sleep-work and stress-loan-debt wage labor cycles our society currently exists within. Our strength must continue to come from the relationships we build within the movement, not financial contributions from outside.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate something that was stated above- we are a movement that is fighting against the power of money in politics. Would it not, then, contradict with our overall sentiment to rely upon the same old model of building a well financed campaign in order to gain political recognition? We are attempting to create a new system, not play by the rules of the old game.
I think any occupier would agree with me when I say that if you sympathize with the 99%, donate your money to a single mother you know who does not have health care for herself or her children. Donate that money to your neighbor who was recently foreclosed upon. Donate that money to build a community garden in a neighborhood in need in order to increase green space, food security, and nutritional health within an impoverished community. There are plenty of other ways to contribute to the movement (financially and otherwise) aside from attempting to fund the political/protesting arm of the movement.
Interesting point you make about "if you sympathize with the 99%, donate your money to a single mother you know who does not have health care…to a neighbor….community garden." I have been thinking along these same lines, but in terms of OWS itself. I would love to see the Wall Street Occupiers reorganize into active agents of the changes they want to see. Have them pick a few tasks every day and better the community -- imagine what those hundreds of Occupiers could do each day! Offer to watch kids for someone who has a job interview, send 35 people to an empty lot behind a city school and turn it into a vegetable garden, go to businesses who don't have funds to get their places up to code and paint/scrape/repair things. You could do this community activism 3-4 times a week and still have time to march up and down the streets. ;-)
You're not distinguishing between corporate financing and financing by citizens. Furthermore, what's wrong with capped donations (ie. maximum donation of x dollars) ?
then the movement will fail and i will not support it. thank you for your insightful posts.
Huh good points
Your failure to recognize the risk inherent in a fiscally miniscule, young, and politically ambitious organization -- one that's specifically attempting to influence American fiscal policy -- taking on conditional offers of support is stunning, especially in the wake of the Tea Party's experience.
It seems that in your eyes, the Tea Party has succeeded, because it managed to garner political support, money, and clout. In my estimation, it failed. I say this, because many of its original interests, those that would assist its base (tax relief for the working class, social libertarian ideals, small business relief) have either been forgotten (social libertarianism) or so grossly misrepresented as to be unrecognizable (i.e. the 9-9-9 plan). Whatever was new in the movement in 2008 has been supplanted by the old, the rhetoric of the Moral Majority and leftover rubbish from the John Birch era.
OWS is in a position where it might follow the Tea Party's example. For instance, let's say OWS opened up to DNC monies and influence. In one blow, its financial future would be more-or-less set. It would enjoy a brief heyday. Then, it would simply become the "progressive" wing of the Democrat party. It would just about be reduced to parroting Democratic talking points, and to stumping for Democratic candidates; in short order, it would be unable to advocate non-Democrat policy.
It would happen in two ways. First, direct co-opt. They'd want representation commensurate with their fiscal contribution, and they wouldn't want to play parliament to get there. They'd demand full access to finances, and they'd probably want veto powers. They'd want OWS to speak on their behalf and to support their candidates, and they, in turn, would push their own "OWS" message using their party mechanisms. They'd also push party veterans into the OWS administration, people with plenty of pre-existing commitments. The current crop of organizational novices would be nearly powerless to stop them once this incursion reached a certain mass, and they'd be absolutely powerless to resist a media-driven messaging shift.
Second, and more importantly, they'd foment influence. They'd offer free seminars, publications, advice, and various other support. Trouble is, all of it would be DNC-sympathetic, and would not contain criticism of sitting Democrats (save a few Blue Dogs and lame ducks). They'd steer true-blue Obamaites en-masse to the Occupations, in numbers great enough to drown out the current OWS. They'd carefully trumpet Democrat causes (including perennial policy ephemera, and imbecilic holy wars like abortion), and drown out things that threaten Democrats (say, electoral system reform). It's what parties do; it is precisely what happened to the Tea Party.
And yet...if co-option is meaningless to you, look at OWS as a business venture. How many garage-based dot-coms died almost instantly on receipt of venture capital? Why aren't penny stocks generally a sound investment? If you can't see that there's value in an enterprise building a strong core -- people, ideas, contacts, a mission statement -- before "going public," if you see no conceivable reason for an exploratory venture to spend time developing its own organizational methods and culture before "calling in the consultants," then I'm afraid that you and I are irretrievably on different pages. OWS really needs to operate for the long haul -- even if OWS founders, it needs to plant seeds for the future, inspire young people who will still have some hope of helping the system in the future.
Let me be clear: I, ribis, am not OWS. I support OWS, I go to a local GA, I do what I can, but I've not been to NYC in five years. If you actually care, and you're actually in a giving mood, make contact at the NYCGA, and ask them about their policies. Maybe I'm flat-wrong; maybe they're a lot more interested in soliciting contributions than I've argued, and maybe they'll point me out as a corn flake. Maybe you've got an expertise or a set of contacts they're desperate to acquire. If you want the truth, go to the source.
I do ask this: if you aren't interested in helping now, what conditions would motivate you to act? How bad does it have to get before you're willing to ignore the fat, unshaven hippies with the bongo drums, and the malinformed Ron Paul gold-bugs, and even the overly-verbose idealists like myself, and shout to be heard? The old parties aren't listening; their narrative is ever more supportive of corporate interests. Beyond all else, OWS does have one message: "Stop American Plutocracy." Maybe it's doomed to fail; in fact, it's certain, so long as those people who see a threat keep finding excuses to do nothing.
I'm pretty sure the "money and influence to get things done" part is what people are pissed off about. How much you make a year should have no part in how much influence you have. You have 1 vote. I have 1 vote. Even if I don't drive an Infinity.
Although I share your sentiments about being on the fence when it comes to this "movement". Movements that have actually gotten something done have had one thing in common. A plan. A goal. Not 100 different Quasi-European Socialist, perfect world pipe dream nonsense demands.
Real movements are rare, the rest are just kids crying that they don't have it easier and earlier and faster and cheaper than their parents did. They refuse to actually pick themselves up and do something with what they have, and instead they focus on what they don't and how to get it from someone who does.
This fence is hurting my ass.
disagree, i don't think its the concept of money=power that's really pissing people off, its that they dont have any money, that they are left out of the equation. therefore no influence or opportunity. that's the core grip in terms of the growing wealth gap. which i have a huge problem with, both in terms of justice and in terms of self-preservation.
if unemployment was less than 7% right now, if housing has bottomed and mortgage interest rates were climbing, there wouldn't even be a OWS. because ppl would be happy (relatively, of course)
Really? You don't see the "money=power" sentiments on this forum? Do you read English? What is this "movement" all about? The 1%. What does the 1% have that you or I don't? Money and Power. They use that money to influence (bribe) Congress and the Fed and the Treasury to do what suits them. On the other end, Congress gets Billions in campaign contributions and the Fed and Treasury make 6% on every dollar they print.
In my opinion the growing wealth gap is due to a few things. One, the growing number of adolescents going into the workforce and seeing that there really are winners and losers. That they really aren't just as special as everyone else. That their teachers lied to them when they coddled them and graded their papers in a purple pen, because red is "too negative" and might make the children feel like failures. I dunno about you but an F in red or purple or black or disappearing ink means FAILURE.
Two, the growing number of incentives given by the Govt. to sit around and do nothing. 99 weeks of unemployment? You've got to be kidding me. The ACLU suing the state of Florida because it wants to make sure people on welfare aren't on drugs? Again, are you kidding me? Anyone on the Govt. dole should be taking drug tests. If you're getting other peoples' money for doing nothing, you at least owe it to the people footing the bill to not be spending the money on drugs. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. Probably not, I'm 32.
Three, Idiocracy. If you don't know what I mean, rent it and watch it. With people in the lower income brackets having substantially more children than people in the higher income brackets, it's only common sense to think that a higher percentage of kids are going to have a harder time going to college due to lack of financial help from their parents. Yes I know you can get student loans and grants (FROM THE GOVERNMENT) but to be frank, most kids that see their parents smoking weed and playing World of Warcraft are inclined to do the same. I know some of these people personally and they're all the same.
disagree, you give OWSers too much credit. money=power isnt the real issue. rather, people are upset they dont have any money or opportunity, hence no power to stop those evildoers who do. hence it feeling like a war against the rich. a war i dont really have a problem with, for reason stated earlier. if all these kids had jobs awaiting them out of school, if they were steadily paying down their debt, if they were able to buy homes and start families and save for retirement, they'd be perfectly happy living in the equation and status quo and none of this would be happening. to say otherwise is absurd.
i found particular humor inso many OWSers openly voice their sadness at the death of steve jobs. a man who hasn't pledged his vast fortune to charity unlike warren buffett or bill gates. a man who made it his mission in life to destroy his competitors, who was sued over and over again by employees that he unapologetically ran into the ground. make a shiny, asthetically pleasing and functional phone/computer/tablet and all of a sudden you aren't so evil anymore? bullshit.
the growing wealth gap isn't a matter of opinion, its a phenomenon that is rooted in fact. rooted in the fact that elevated unemployment is eroding the middle class, pushing more and more people into poverty. rooted in the fact that certain race and social group are born into situations where they are not given the same opportunities as others in terms of education, access, healthcare etc.
I agree with you up until the unemployment part. There are jobs out there. I deliver parts for a small bearing distributor in SLC. I drive most of the day. Today alone, I saw 7 help wanted signs, and not 2 blocks away from 2 of them, I saw 2 people pan handling on an interstate off ramp. People don't want jobs, or don't want jobs that aren't 100k a year with a company car and pension. No one wants to work for anything anymore. And in this day and age, you can't really play the "blacks are held back from college and jobs" because there are more grants and subsidies for them than there are for me. (white) People are lazy, and they're sinking to the bottom. That's what we're seeing here.
two thoughts
first, you can definitely play the blacks are held back card. in order to even get grants and subsidies for college, you need to fucking finish high school. you have disproportionately high dropout rates and disproportionately high unemployment among young black males, comparing them to white kids as a class is ridiculous and you know it.
second, agree about americans not doing certain jobs. good luck finding anyone non-hispanic to scrub toilets and scrape bird shit off sidewalks.
Who makes the black kids drop out of high school? Do all black kids drop out of high school? If it's only some, wouldn't that lead you to believe that it's not a "the man is holding me down" thing, and more of an "I'm holding me down" thing? If a kid falls into the trap of his surroundings and goes the drop out of school, sell drugs, join a gang route, then that's his choice. Anymore, you just can't play that card.
If black kids want jobs, they need to pull their pants up, stop talking like a fuckin gangsta, and apply themselves. I personally wouldn't hire a black guy if he dresses like 1/2 of them dress with their pants down around their knees, limping like he's got a bad knee, talking in a way that would drive my customers away... not when there are other people who aren't like that.
disagree. some people are doomed to failure based simply on being born into impossible situations. to expect the same results and hold them to the same standards is simply unrealistic
The plan is to bring people together to fight against corporate power and greed. It's not against wealth it's not for hand outs. It is to bring people together to take corporate control out of our govt.
For example...We have a wall street who is knee deep in a derivatives market that only a few thousand people truly understand. It's a market that, when asked, catches our politicians off guard.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bank-america-forces-depositors-backstop-its-53-trillion-derivative-book-prevent-few-clients-dep
The derivatives is (from my limited knowledge) a 600 trillion dollar global betting market that has potential to destroy entire economies. We are the 99% because... WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A FUCKING CREDIT DEFAULT SWAP IS... and we should not be on the hook for something we don't even understand.
then why arent you mad at the people who created the current derivatives market in the first place? alan greenspan (previous fed chief), phil gramm (fmr. senate banking committee head) and chris cox (fmr. SEC head)? greenspan for his easy money policies that resulted in cheap money financing a flood of home purchases and inflating values, congress for their role in deregulating derivatives markets and the SEC and other executive agencies for not doing their job and making sure adequate risk controls were in place?
it makes no sense to me to get mad at the banks when the direct cause of the derivatives mess is the federal government.
This is a big issue too
This is a concept that had been lobbied heavy... I think it is silly to suggest that the government forced a unregulated derivative market down wall street's throat.
just as silly to not expect our leaders to know that that financial institutions would exploit any such deregulation in financial markets to juice profits. if i leave my front gate open, merely hoping my rottweiler doesn't get out, the law says i'm on the hook if he goes out and mauls some kid. why? because the law justifiably acknowledges the propensity of the animal to do that kind of shit, naw mean?
Neil, from what I gather OWS considers all three, Wall Street, Congress and "big business," in collusion, at fault. It's not just about Wall Street. The first phase is all about increasing their numbers but I'm beginning to agree they need to start showing some sort of cohesion, on the street at least. They're starting to chase people away. But in their defense, this is a pretty big project. Changing history takes time, and can't be done with ten-thousand people. When you have ten-million, people start to listen to you. And be careful about some of the things you read on this site. It's largely unmonitored so you'll come across just as many people trying to derail this thing than you will trying to bring it together. Disinfo, you know the drill. Definitely check some of the links you come across (sorry I don't have some here, I change pages too quick, lose my way). It took me a week and a half to start getting the gist of things and I still have questions. Also try themultitude.org and occupyr.com.
No, OWS is ignoring the Government -- otherwise the main messages (as I've seen at Zuccotti Park in person, and in photos) would not be "down with the rich." They wouldn't be marching through the Upper East Side shouting at the homes of tycoons. They'd be going to Washington NOW or at least local congresspeople's offices. They'd be more carrying signs about government corruption. This looks like nothing more than the have nots making a tantrum against the haves.
Personally, though I haven't been to NY (I'm in the Midwest), I think there's more being done online than at the park. Try not to form an opinion based solely on the New York protesters or the signs they carry. A lot of what's going on online has more to do with the government than the rich. People focusing mainly on the "down with the rich" message are not getting the true picture. The major players in the OWS movement are smart enough to know that the changes that need to be made will be made in Washington, not on the streets of New York. You'll see a major shift by next spring.
Not a good idea to divide the remnants of unity like this.-
"Also try themultitude.org and occupyr.com."
Here we can observe our numbers and the trends of them.
Ah, I think I see. Just trying to give potential newbs access to as much info as I can. Not trying to fragment. Trying to help. Pardon my naivete.
Those protestors made sacrifices to make this message board gather so many people together to share views.----
The problem of the .com is division. I remember the usenet, a global message board. It was AWESOME! We need it back. This commercial crap suxs.
excuses, those are. the key is the message, regardless of what stage of the movement is in or what the current numbers or desired numbers are. if your message is muddled, you're already fucked. and the message so far confuses the crap out of me. i dont see anyone picketing specific politicians for their roles in this. i dont see anyone picketing the specific businessmen who should be indicted for their roles. i dont see a giant tent city near the national mall. all i see are wall street, banks, corporations CEO homes, the federal reserve. which indicates to me its people without money holding a grudge against those who do. i'm not saying that's what it is, i'm saying that's how it looks to the rest of us.
You definitely have the passion this type movement needs. Hope you don't bail too quick. Like I say, don't use this website exclusively to make your judgement, you've gotta look around. And it'll take time. Those aren't excuses. And I give you my word, I'm not a OWS shill. I'm a 52 year old unemployed Midwesterner that knows the system is broken. I may be wrong about this whole "movement," I hope not. The way I look at it is this: I think pretty much everybody knows there's something very bad on the horizon. If someone doesn't see that, no amount of talking will convince them otherwise. So, a person has basically three choices. Do nothing and just watch everything come crashing down, do something and watch it crash down anyway, or do something and help get it fixed. I'd rather be a part of history either way. Just my opinion. If I'm wrong, well, it certainly won't be the first time. Sorry for being so long-winded.
nah, not using this website as a judge. forum is full of pinko nutjobs and trolls. more disappointed with my interactions with the local occupy group, which i posted about earlier in the thread.
You're not the first one I've heard expressing frustration. I'm not sure what to think of that. If I've noticed it seems they would be noticing, too. If their not careful, they'll be chasing away as many as they attract.
The reason the movement is taking place in Wall Street is symbolic... I don't think people are expecting any other change then what can come from future legislation. (This movement isn't about seizing wall street and leaving government un-accountable).
Sounds like a cop out for wall street.... I'm expressing anger at both entities... not just wall street.
And no... they are U.S. corporations who "signed" the social contract from their creation... asking banks to make sober, long-term investments is not "holding them back", it SHOULD be the foundation of any business owner. While I agree wall street shouldn't receive the entire blame... they deserve their fair share.
as am i. i'm pissed at both. i just dont see how picketing some CEOs house is going to get results. he reports to his board and shareholders only, anything else takes the sharp stick of the AG or SEC. it reeks of kids not knowing how the world works and how to work within that system to get results, that's all.
I understand... and I'm with you there... I wish there was leadership and a general direction to OWS...
With that being said... I'm not going to let my cynical side get in the way of at least TRYING to call some attention to these issues.
CDS's in plain english...Person A borrows money from person B. B is worried that A will go bankrupt and not pay him back. Person C is willing to write contracts (for a fee) that will pay B if A goes under. Effectively, C and B have swapped the risk of default.......They are weapons of financial destruction because once millions of them are out in the system, no one knows who owes who and what ripple effect a default would actually have...
Yeah it's a 3rd party bet... that's the extent of my knowledge... my problem is (as you pointed out) know one knows who is exactly tied to what... and the implications on the entire system if one of the "players" go down.
Yes, exactly. They are unregulated and they are super dangerous. No one knows who is carrying counter-party risk and where the domino's will fall. Since they are unregulated, anyone can write them and write as much of them as the want. AIG was the main player in the CDS market. They wrote contracts and guaranteed waaaay more debt than the whole company was worth. The Govt was scared to death to let them go under because of their CDS's. Big Mess!
Because you don't make more than 200k/year.
I think what you consider "a bunch of hippies with no plan" is really just the nature of movements. As a result, people will claim a variety of opinions to be a part of the movement (one the one end are the End the Fed maniacs and on the other are those who want every cause of the Democrats to be included). Nevertheless, if you look at what the majority of protestors are getting at, it's the disproportionate concentration of power in our democracy. It's what makes it impossible to truly reform banks, have a credible policy on the environment, and rein in defense spending appropriately. When large corporations and government are so incestuous in their relationship, it leads to lax regulations and unequal distribution of costs and benefits.
the nature of grass roots movements at their start and their early growing pains, yes. absolutely. i'm patiently waiting for them to get their shit together past that chaotic, messy beginning, basically.
I guess the only other point I can make is that you can still be a part of the movement and influence its direction since it is so open. The more I talk with OWS-ers, the more they realize that it's not just one public issue that's the problem, it's the nature of how we legislate public issues that's the problem. Sane people like yourself just need to have your voice heard so that OWS doesn't take its eye off the ball, which in this case is captured government
Those attending the protests have to get there shit together and understand that OWS isn't a sounding board for ANY left-wing/liberal agenda. It's about democracy and eradicating the legitimised bribery of the legislature. That's it. That's the only thing that "the 99%" are supposedly in agreement on, isn't it?
Sure, other agendas which are INCIDENTAL to this main standpoint (eg. campaign funding reform) are warranted, but if you bundle it together with ALL your personal gripes the movement will be easily marginalised and will lose it's potency.
Don't screw this up.
I signed on because I'm sick of multinational shareholders with no allegiance to this country that are allowed to hide their profits off shore while filing their losses here in the US. The end result being that they pay zero in federal taxes while collect billions in "refunds" each year paid for by We the People. Now, the only way such robbery is possible, much less legal, is that our so called representation is bought and paid for.
I'm also a fan of re-instating Glass-Stegall.
Just my two cents.
This movement is NOT for you. It is a leftist movement.
They want to take things away from you. Namely your money and ultimately your liberty.
what a wank
F-U you British commie scum.
British?
yeah we're all commies alright. We want your money and your freedom. Without your freedom we will stop breathing... Hold that thought - Bill O'Reilly is calling
how many months did it take to be up to speed with your current employment ?
It may have started as such, but it doesn't have to remain as such and nor do I think it will. Pretty much everyone on here that's not some sort of troll can get behind campaign finance reform and Glass-Steagall has almost equal support. Honestly, I think the movement needs people like you to get involved, simply because if enough voices within the movement start demanding cohesiveness and basic consensus then those things should begin to materialize.
No plan
You might be right right about the no plan. But no plan does not mean no goal. The goal is pretty simple. It's that "we are the 99%" thing - the goal is pretty much: one person, one vote. Not, one dollar, one vote.
Really, the point/plan/message is: the system doesn't work - it's designed not to, unless you're pretty wealthy. Radical, fundamental change is needed. Hard to come up with specific "demands" or "plans" when you're up against that !
that is dumb and defeatist, the people at the local occupy site who told me that were the biggest disappointment. all that crap is just another way of saying "i dont know how the system works and i'm too immature/impatient to work within that framework to get the ball rolling." its lazy and its childish.
there are specific, concrete things that we can demand from specific people and groups to get the ball rolling and address several of OWS' core concerns, particularly when it comes to the wealth gap, prosecution of those who played key roles in the financial crisis, legislation that promotes job growth that isnt filled to the gills with pork, fairer tax policy, comprehensive campaign finance reform, etc.
this kind of excuse is rubbish
What is wrong with you developing a plan, a program, a manifesto, an agenda? From what I can gather the one constant in every project that OWS has initiated thus far is people power. May the best plan, program, manifesto, etc win. Presumably there are some out there who are taking the opportunity that OWS has provided to...begin. It is important that OWS is helping to demonstrate that we are all generally in the same predicament. It is important that this is made public because part of our problem has been being isolated we imagined our situation was insurmountable. Now we find, Arabs are inspirational, democracy is revolutionary, the future is open and the old game of complying with the run of the mill and behaving ourselves waiting for new latest thing be it a corn flake or a leader is absurd. You have identified a need. Get to work if you want to help.
i have, actually. i've said earlier in the thread that i went to visit the local occupy site armed with suggestions, ideas, possible targets and strategies. i tried to talk to everyone there to soak in all the different POVs. and i was completely underwhelmed and disappointed by the unorganized mess and people there. the general assembly meeting was a joke, absolutely nothing was accomplished, it got to where a pothead and a hippie were arguing with the mics and started shoving each other and the cops on site were called in by scared occupiers and ppl were crying at the drama. everyone had their own fruity, misguided idea of what they should do, no matter how absurd. ultimately, nothing was accomplished. a lot of curious outsiders like me left that place saying they'd never come back.
i tried. the people were a complete failure.
Neil, I had the same experience at the heart of the movement, the Wall Street hub itself. It was a thriving, bustling space -- but to what avail? I tried to share my ideas about campaign reform, outsourcing, solar energy…but to who? I asked a 20-something woman sitting on a stack of the Occupied Wall Street Journals where I can leave my ideas, and she said, "you can talk to me." So I did, and that was it. She didn't engage in discussion, she didn't take notes, she didn't say "I'll pass this along." Frankly, it was so STUPID. I spoke with five other people there that day, all to the same result, except for one guy who really should be a spokesperson. But wait, there are no single spokespeople! Maybe I just abhor "hive" mentality.
There is a problem with the way OWS has spread very rapidly. It has grown too big, too soon. OWS started in NY. This will be its center at least until the movement finds a better aim. The trouble with OWS is that Wall Street is a real place and this has problems for everywhere else the movement has spread because all they have to go on is its symbolic meaning. It means the action is elsewhere for everywhere else except NY and this can not be resolved because the symbolic meaning is not enough to go on given the enthusiasm, the hope, the urgency and the feeling that something real needs to be done now! Part of which I suspect is your frustration. Occupying Wall Street isn't enough of an aim to prevent those who aren't in NY from overcompensating for not being there. The real problem is what is enough? What is enough to essentially make every local site the center of revolution so people can work together?
Thank you for putting it that way and I am certain that many share your sentiments. I am currently a bit frustrated with the whole disunity thing and organization thing, but I understand the co-opting ploy that political parties employ to sway the seed change towards their side of the fence as evidenced by the Tea Party.
I know you are hungry for change, even in a position of relative success. I feel your compassion for all of us and feel that you are in the right for asking for a course and plan of action. As private citizens, we do have a way that is realistic and likely to happen if all the players that are willing come together as they should. Many say it is unlikely, but this is serious seed change by targeting the root of the problem.
The story of this is that the political campaigning and finance process favor those that can afford to fund campaigns so our elected officials are bought and sold by corporate lobbyists and bankers.
We have an overall agenda, but the start is within our rights under Article 5 of the US constitution. What people fail to know in a lot of circles due to the lack of education presented in our schools is that private citizens are eligible to call on their state legislatures to request a constitutional convention under article 5. We are starting to gain traction with this through a ground game. You will never have an impact on change at the federal level due to money in politics, but you can demand it on a state level. If 34 states request a constitutional convention, the requirements are satisfied.
Ok, so it sounds like an uphill battle, right?
Here is how our ground game is developing. I am an Internet marketer with a small start-up company. I deal with web hosting and conferencing. I have a team of Internet marketers that work from their homes because they cannot find a job that satisfies their goals. We primarily communicate with each other to support each other's efforts through Skype and through the web conferencing.
Our plan of action:
Drive traffic to this website: http://www.articlevmeeting.info using proven Internet marketing strategies that anyone with half a brain can use effectively, even with little tech savvy.
Invite people to our skype group until we have sufficient coverage in each state to start the petitioning process in states that require it. We need 34 states to furnish congress with an official request for a constitutional convention. (2/3 of the states in the union making the request)
Inform people through a web conferencing platform with unlimited seating. We can get the people when they come home from work if they cannot make it to the movement.
Explain the root cause of all the symptoms that you have heard and seen. The root cause is with election law. What we want to get through a convention is an amendment or amendments taking corporate money out of politics so the Supreme Court is forced to overturn this decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission This is the decision that allowed unlimited corporate money into our politics.
Do a massive country wide voter registration drive so that within the 7 years required, 3/4 of the required states pass the amendment. I believe that if it happens before the 2012 election, it will be ratified based on outrage against the big banks and Wall Street just to name a couple of the demons.
If you wish, you can click on my name and contact me personally with your Skype ID and if you do not have one, you can get one here: http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/get-skype/on-your-computer/windows/ Skype is free and we have a group chat that I will invite you into.
This is about taking back our rights and using our constitutional protections to defend a nation against demise by the efforts of the highest up on the totem pole of our society who are waging war on 99% of the country.
Yes, in a nice tight package!---
"You will never have an impact on change at the federal level due to money in politics, but you can demand it on a state level. If 34 states request a constitutional convention, the requirements are satisfied."
Now the key is the ground game!
In all seriousness Neil... Themultitude.org is a much better site for OWSers to chat... lots of serious discussion
See [http://occupywallst.org/forum/seize-the-shield-break-the-blade/].
The leaderless thing is to prevent co-opts and being bought and the media/powers that be picking apart a single person.
From what i have been told( read the news down the page a bit on this site) we are the demands. TBH, i am not really ok with that. We either need to start putting forth demands as a movement or we are going to fall apart. Its fine in the beginning to not have a list of demands.
But from what i recently hear, they dont seem to ever plan on making any. I also read that each individual community should make its own demands. While the DC protesters could make national ones.
This is idiotic. You cannot change anything this way. We need to unite with one unified voice and start making demands/grievances or we might as well all go back to our miserable lives under the corporate thumb.
I am really starting to question the judgment calls of the people that go to the NYCGA. They want us to unite in solidarity but from what have been reading lately they are doing the exact opposite. They are wanting us to stay in little individual groups and each be responsible for his own little community.
Not really what i was looking to get out of this. Either shit or get off the pot. But NYCGA needs to do one or the other and stop telling people to unite in solidarity and then doing the complete opposite.
We can do this without a leader. But without any goals/grievances/demands we might as well go home now.
i'm in almost exactly your situation. i will be watching this thread for any real answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9zkQcLi4Yo
dead on! thanks
Here's another for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCRnkamitVk&feature=related
We are here protesting the overwhelming influence corporations have on government... and the governments inability/unwillingness to fight it. Unfortunately it is a complicated problem... but I assure you that the people screaming to have their student loans paid off are not indicative of the entire movement.
why dont you guys want to select leaders and spokespeople? it makes no sense. no one will take a leaderless mob seriously, the arab uprisings were the polar opposites of leaderless mobs.
I think you should join simply to lead the singalongs. They usually suck.
Oh yeah? Anonymous is a leaderless mob, but to hear the FBI tell it, they're a "significant threat". A leaderless mob being taken seriously, imagine that.
What do you think will happen to any leaders we elect once political spin doctors catch word that this movement has a leader? The answer is: The same crap they do to every candidate that runs for office. By remaining leaderless we can prevent that.
a silly argument, that is. OWS is a grass roots uprising, none of its participants are running for office or seeking appointment to a government position, that kind of standard simply isnt expected, especially by the public.
Bingo!! It's taken the establishment by complete surprise, because it wasn't expected.
What does Anon always say in their warnings?
We are legion. We do not forget, we do not forgive... Expect us.
But no one ever does.
I disagree with their tactics on insisting to not produce a demand (or a spokesperson).... their theory is that if the message is too focused it is easily de-railed
Hmmmm, ditto on 1 & 2. Actually there is some unity sprouting off to the side.-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/you-think-your-rights-were-taken-away/
We see that the unity of OWS is powerful. Based in "a bunch of unorganized kids not really knowing wtf they're doing", but there sure is a lot of them all over the nation. We see that the states are the entities that can force the federal government to be constitutional. And, it is constitutional to meet the many demands the "bunch of unorganized kids" made because they are real issues, whether or not they are properly packaged.
Their needs are our needs. Our rights our theirs too.
I would say don't waste your time with this movement.