Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Clarifying the purpose of Occupy Wall Street

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 1:07 a.m. EST by Neworldvisions (7)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

complete version posted at http://samericatravels.livejournal.com/33076.html

The Occupy Wall Street protest is a classic example of a decentralized organization. There is no leader, no central organizing committee, and no established list of needs. It is more of a growing mass of various perspectives on why our current economic system does not include everyone, and what could be done about it. The solidarity against something that is not serving our needs is powerful and wonderful, and there are substantial, favorable arguments to maintain improvisational decentralization, but there are drawbacks that need to be considered. This inquiry should ultimately help us develop a decision and find a balance.

Improvised decentralization certainly has its merits. For one, it brings people of different beliefs together. They may disagree about the solution, or have different desires, but they agree that the common cause is oligarchical capitalism. Coming together creates a strong sense of camaraderie and solidarity that represents the kind of daily attentiveness and mutual support needed inside our communities. It's a world of difference when one is constantly giving and being taken care of. And yes, one’s independence is acknowledged and respected during this.

Colin Powell said in his autobiography in regards to the Civil Rights Movement that "a movement requires many faces." This makes no particular activity in the movement wrong, per se. Rather, different approaches only add momentum. They can be used concurrently to reach more ears, or during select times to overcome select challenges.

Planning, having specific goals, and defining demands (if not an overall vision), is focused on getting results. It lets people know what this movement is specifically achieving, and why. It encourages politicians to seek ways to create this vision at the level of policy, and it pushes big corporations to replace business as usual with value-led decisions and planning. When this movement shouts dissatisfaction at those in places of power, it is left up to those in power to make the recommendation on what to do. But when the movement determines a common vision, specific desires, and a road map of how to transition into this vision, it is the movement that decides what to do and whether or not each move made is genuine or besides the real point. The mayor not kicking people out to clean the park, for example, is beside the real point.

This approach also gathers people's energy towards specific destinations, creating powerful momentum. Collective thrust is critical, and when it is concentrated in one direction, the chances of arriving increase intensely.

Articulating appropriately will be important in accurately representing and communicating people's true concern and vision. The ideas need to be expressed clearly and in a way that the lay public can understand. Wording should be pithy and direct. Big ideas should be broken down simply, and the way these are explained should be considerate of the audience. For monetary reform, this could be, “We stand for government control of the creation and dispense of money. This can drastically increase the amount of money continually flowing in the economy, and increase the money supply when the economy is ready to grow. And it can all be done without paying interest.” Or, “Imagine a world where all the money collected on interests from loans became the budget for public infrastructure. We want our government to be the main provider of loans, not the Federal Reserve.” Or even, “We want government encouragement of community projects like time building to reduce our costs and build cooperation amongst neighbors.”

For my part, I can recommend several ideological systems that may help define the vision. Based on the biggest themes that I observed in the park, 99% vs. 1%, and monetary reform, I suggest using the following established systems as the ideology behind selected pith statements:

NESARA (National Economic Security and Recovery Act): http://nesara.org/bill/executive_summary.htm

Monetary Reform: http://www.monetary.org/intro-to-monetary-reform/faqs

A comparison of NESARA and Monetary reform: http://nesara.org/comparisons/monetary_comparison_chart.htm

PROUT: http://www.prout.org/Summary.html

Time Banking: http://samericatravels.livejournal.com/32061.html

Overall, when we live as if the vision has arrived, the vision arises. If we excessively focus on what we don't want by staying angry, we will only get more reasons to be angry. Being a community throughout this process is crucial, but in order to create the world where this solidarity is part of our everyday experience, we need to take the required steps. Creating requires intention.

May the Golden age dawn. Brian Landever

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

I really don't think anything will ever be fixed if we keep the physical, easy-to-hide money that we have today. That way, illegal shit will continue behind our backs and it's like we didn't do anything at all.

Basically, money, and how the 1% is using it, is the problem. If we create a new monetary system based on something completely visible, traceable, and accountable, then corporations will have to clean up their act for fear of our public scrutiny.

Let the sunshine in.

[-] 1 points by poltergist22 (159) 12 years ago

How about we just keep the same system....cleaned up from criminal activity and unite? I thought times would head us here and lobbied politicians recieved alot of auto-response e-mails about how busy they are...so I started a non-profit (not running for office, no donations wanted ,just a concerned citizen) here's an idea that OWS could incorporate www.nationalday.org

[-] 1 points by random (2) 12 years ago

holy cow that's a complicated proposal. you really think that would bring back all our jobs instantly if the government instituted all those policies at once?

[-] 1 points by Neworldvisions (7) 12 years ago

Is our goal a quick fix or long lasting fix?

[-] 1 points by random (2) 12 years ago

why not both?

[-] 1 points by BHicks4ever (180) 12 years ago

I hope all the morons who are saying "OWS has no message or goal, they just wanna party, blah blah I'm a fucktard." Read this. But they wont. They don't read the posts like this they just start their own to bash us.

[-] 1 points by Neworldvisions (7) 12 years ago

@ BHicks4ever I wrote this hoping to reach an audience of supporters and lay public alike. If you like, feel free to post this article on other web pages and in other forums.

[-] 1 points by kamoako (52) from Litchfield Park, AZ 12 years ago

Awesome proposal, but a revolution in general needs several leaders or council or something or it can be smashed, and dissolved quickly. People need directions of where to protest in their cities all over the world, we need recruiters, what are the tenants and the reforms whether they being free market or socially based,and spokes people if your are the creator of this site I urge you to stand up start forming some sort of direction.

[-] 1 points by Neworldvisions (7) 12 years ago

@ kamoako Thank you for your encouragement. I had spent some time in the park recently, but am today traveling to Peru to open a plant medicine healing center. I can only offer thoughts and direction via internet. As for the need for leadership, I personally believe we need the same collective pride and enthusiasm while also having representatives. Is there a web survey or voting site that can organize a vote for agreed upon ideas and leaders? But if we select representatives, I URGE you to keep them as representatives. Do not give them a position of decision maker. Consider the PROUT model of decentralized, bottom up democracy. Small groups all over first gather to make a collective decision which is represented by one person. Each of these people, who are part of the smaller groups and ideally have the same needs and desires as the group, come together within a given area (or within a limited number of representatives) to represent the decisions made. They represent the needs of their group, and come to conclusions on how to collectively meet the needs of each smaller group. This meeting then selects a further representative to reflect this upwards to a larger geographic area, and so on. The focus here, in our case, is determining what are the most heavily supported solutions to our economic problem, and what are people’s direct needs. At each step of the way up, the representatives should be genuinely and generously focused on cooperating to meet the needs of everyone.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 12 years ago

How about an even SIMPLER message ?

We are the PEOPLE, and WE WANT OUR GOVERNMENT BACK !

Once we have it back, we can use an UNCORRUPTED Democratic process to settle our differences. As long as we INSIST on fighting over all the OTHER issues, we become FACTIONS with no POWER ... JUST the way the STATUS QUO wants us !

See some thoughts at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/ and a proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/

[-] 1 points by Quark (236) 12 years ago

YES!

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) 12 years ago

if i work harder than the guy next to me, how do you compensate me for the extra production under a time banking system?

[-] 1 points by Neworldvisions (7) 12 years ago

@RichardGates Thank you for your interest in Time Banking. It’s a beautiful system that focuses on the development of trust and cooperation in the community. It’s not something that we could immediately use to replace capitalism, but it can immediately be a complementary system that saves us a buck. It can be used as a service exchange system for everyday needs from house cleaning to legal advice. Everyone does only what they can within the time bank considering their need for actual fiat money, and for each hour of work that one does, one credit is received. This credit can then be exchanged for an hour of work from someone else. The more one works, the more credits they receive.
The main complaint that people have initially towards this is that it forces all work to have the same value. But once people become engaged in the time bank, they love the opportunity to get to know their neighbors, help them by generously sharing their skill, and receive help from others in new areas. This review is commonly shared, and I’ve met everyone from story readers to corporate lobbyists in time bank get-togethers. People like supporting and being supported. Don’t you?

[-] 1 points by dmjordan (48) 12 years ago

I agree with you very much - I hope that some kind of organization will be born, for it is necessary to clarify our intent. What do you think about my post - a suggestion for the first order of business :) http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/

[-] 1 points by Len911 (24) 12 years ago

It kinda sounds like an example of democracy to me. I suppose they, we, could incorporate and adhere to the same principles and standards, but then would it be a real democracy? Form a corporation, pay off the politicians, voila, another what? Political party?

[-] 1 points by Neworldvisions (7) 12 years ago

@ Len911 I agree that the danger is always there. I believe that if decisions are constantly being made in small community meetings and being reflected upwards through representatives, then we have sufficient accountability that would prevent representatives from becoming mischievous. This particularly becomes possible when community meetings happen as a result of worker owned businesses’ weekly meetings where they discuss and vote on a handful of topics. Cooperatives are a key element in economic democracy. If this is chosen, it will be critical to form neutral support and training teams to coach the groups or cooperatives in participative decision making. There are many details in holding a meeting, listening actively, and speaking with dignity and transparency. These details are crucial for people to get along. Research on cooperatives show that cooperatives made up of those with better interpersonal skills succeed more easily.