Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Egypt's Presidential Elections. Is Occupy making the same Mistakes the Revolutionists made in Egypt?

Posted 2 years ago on June 24, 2012, 4:56 p.m. EST by Endgame (535)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We can all agree that Egypt's Revolution and the ouster of Mubarak was a great thing.

But unfortunately a lot the Revolutionists in Egypt decided that they were not going to get involved in the political process. And the few Revolutionists that did get involved lacked the focus and the structure to search and ultimately elect a candidate they could get behind.

So because many thought it was pointless to get involved in the political process the country's choices turned out to be someone from the Muslim Brotherhood and a general from Mubarak's regime. Naturally the majority of the country hated these choices. But is anyone really surprised? If you don't get involved, you get what you ask for.

So now that the President of Egypt is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood with the majority of the country NOT voting. To a lesser extent is this what is to come of America? And is Ocuppy going to continue follow the lead of Egypt's Revolutionists? Just sitting out because "we don't run candidates and we don't get involved in politics"?

I don't think the Revolution of Egypt is over by any means. But the outcomes so far could of turned out so much better than what they had if more people would of focused, collaborated, ran the candidate they wanted and gotten involved in the electoral process. On this site in the past I've seen alot of praising of Egypt's Revolutionists. But if we praise the success of their Revolution are we in Occupy going to learn from their mistakes?

179 Comments

179 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Excellent Post! Been waiting for someone to point out that revolution without politics creates a vacuum that often gets filled by something undesirable.

I mentioned that Hillary alluded to this in another thread but no one seemed interested.

The situation in Egypt should be food for thought amongst Occupiers

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Absolutely. We should be learning from what happened in Egypt. Occupy can't hype up the Revolutionists in Egypt for months then when the mistakes of the Revolutionists in that country are shown for all the world to see Occupy pretends the story doesn't exists. Seems like selective admiration.

[-] 2 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

But hey man, they did a revolUtion. Cool. Damn tbe aftermath.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Even if the new government is more repressive then the one they removed?

[-] 1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

Guess sarcasm doesn't play well in writing!

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Sorry it is difficult to tell sometimes. Your statement is the actual belief of some of those here.

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

OWS can not do that because they are politically split. The best they can do is unite behind the things we all agree on like corporate personhood and the money in politics.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I agree.

But until we openly decide that we are not going to by hijacked by Anarchists goals, and finally decide that we should be fighting for(and our core message should be) ending corporate person hood and getting outside money out of politics this movement will forever be at a stalemate. Gaining no more support and showing no real power for change.

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

"hijacked by Anarchists " Too late. They have put a negative image on OWS that can not be undone.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I definitely can't argue that the Anarchists have indeed put a negative image on Occupy. But I disagree that that image can not be undone.

If there is a clear cut message and a clear cut acknowledgement that we are not fighting for Anarchic goals the perception of the movement is absolutely fixable. Even now. I think there is a real hunger to fix our corrupt system and I still think Occupy can be that force to initiate it.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

And what just came out of Philly? I have not looked, yet.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

The document from the national convention.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yet more divisiveness in OWS being promoted by you. Hmmmm??

[-] -2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I just choose not to be a drone. But please tell me how my question isn't valid.

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

Endgame (423) 1 week ago

I just choose not to be a drone. But please tell me how my question isn't valid.

Egypt isn't finished?

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Nope.

Even though the Revolutionist didn't follow through and because of it they were forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, it still isn't over. They still have a chance to for real Democracy. Unfortunately now its going to have to happen later rather than sooner.

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Being labled a "drone" by you is much better than being a 'troll' sitting around on the couch trying to steer this movement into ineffectiveness....don't you think?!

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I like how you think asking common sense questions is being a "troll". And yet you ask none and just follow the ones you claim you have key differences with...and yet you don't see how you appear as a drone...

I also like how you didn't answer my question. You ignore the validity of what I asked and just go for cheap shots.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Like you were under the impression this was a political movement from the start, and there were no radicals behind it?? You saw a chance to divide this movement, and you're going for it. As I said before, I will not let that happen unchallenged. You are here for one reason only...to make this a controllable, ineffective struggle, and thereby steering it into oblivion.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

No I wasn't under the impression that this movement was a strictly political movement. I was under the impression that this was a populous movement that was willing to achieve the populous goals it were very vocally promoting itself to fixing. That meant any and all ideas were welcomed.

The fact that you keep leaving out is that Occupy NEVER initially advertised itself as an Anarchist movement with the goals of abolishing government. So the question YOU should be asking is why not? But you just follow the Anarchists like a good little drone. Ask no questions.

If you sit there and say this movement advertised itself as an Anarchist, abolish government movement you are just lying.

So you go ahead and completely ignore the thread topic and question. Drones tend not to have any good counter arguments.

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

the argument for drones goes

american soldiers don't have to die

war has never been about fair play

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

If you feel that OWS misadvertised itself, and that you do not see the value of having radicals on board with a radical agenda, you should leave, and go somewhere else. There are many more benign-type failed political parties that you could join, and be happy! Most people here believe like me that our alliance with the anarchists is a good one, and that we need each other. All you are doing here is trying to create division, but you already know that. Afterall that is your purpose, isn't it??

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

You are completely missing my point once again.

Every movement puts its core goal outfront. Occupy's core goal was not abolishing government. So why should we accept that now? That is deceitful as hell.

And I see you continue to ignore the facts of why your comparisons with the radical factions in the Civil Rights movement and Occupy are ridiculous. Also not only did those radical elements in the Civil Rights movement have the same goals but...those radical elements were NOT leading the entire movement like Occupy allows itself to be lead by the Anarchists. The more you keep repeating this analogy like you're actually proving a point the more ridiculous you sound.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

And the more you try to create divisions here, the more you are showing people what you are really here for. When, and if our interests diverge from the anarchists, and most of us are willing to settle for less than what they are striving for, I will always feel grateful to them for having started this as I know that there could be no other way of having gotten us to where we want to go.

To quote jph's eloquent comment below, "Like monks in Asia they represent the ideal, and should be revered for doing so......I hope there is always anarchists around to pointing people in the direction of that ideal of freedom and community."

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

So basically you have nothing to counter anything I said. Understood.

As i've said before I will never blindly follow anyone. I will always ask basic questions. If you see that as divisiveness, then that says much more about you than anything else. You're a good follower, i'll give you that.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Lol.....And "I'll give you that" you are a wonderful insidious troll who ignores the facts on how radical movements played a part in past movements, and how they can play a part in this one. I do realize though that you do not want to let the facts get in the way of your opinion especially when it has NOTHING to do with the success of this movement. Yes we are now "understood" by each other. lol

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Wow. Just wow.

When the hell have I ignored how radical elements in movements have played apart in past movements?! How many times have I acknowledged and even agreed with you on that fact?! But you continue to ignore the FACT that in all of those movements even the radical elements had the same end goals.

You aren't listening to a damn thing I say. Going in circles with you all the time is like talking to a child. You never counter of the facts I put out then you reply to my replies by putting words in my mouth.

If you have some sort of comprehension problem then I am not trying to offend you. But man if you are going to hold a conversation with someone you can't just completely ignore the facts that you don't like...

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

The facts are as I have stated before that the communists who played a part in getting the New Deal passed wanted more than what Roosevelt wanted. They wanted COMMUNISM. Also as I have stated earlier Roosevelt played that card to its fullest in getting the sea change in the way our political and financial institutions are run. In essence he told his elite buddies, either you agree to these sweeping reforms or...else....(read the history of these years), and that paradigm with our anarchists is very evident here to most of us, with the exception of those people who are trying to run this movement into the ground of course.

So in summation "Endgame", the radical element here as in other struggles did indeed NOT have the same goals, or 'endgame!' The divisiveness that you promote, and the reasons for it are evident to me, and many others here.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Your communists dealt with the democratic party within the existing power structure. That is an important fact you should remember. The Civil rights movement got its laws passed through the existing structure. People can do anything.

People CAN co opt a party. and make them serve the 99%. You may disagree and accuse people of trying to divide the OWS movement. but I think what you miss is that the OWS is not what we are trying to save. Our goal is helping the 99%. OWS can be a part of that if they do as I have seen them say. "We embrace all non violent tactics".

When you attack people who want to encourage citizens to exercize their right to vote in order to prevent more right wing pols from taking office you are expending energy doing negative work.

Stay positive. Embrace all non violent tactics. treat everyone here as if they are people we will be working with for years.

Peace. No one is out to get you.

[-] 7 points by beautifulworld (22137) 2 years ago

Were communists working within the Democratic Party during McCarthyism? I think not.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The Civil rights movement got its laws passed through the existing structure. People can do anything.

The Civil Rights Movement forced a Constitutional Amendment through street actions, general strikes, mass marches and civil unrest that shook up the powers that be.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

All non violent tactics...then why not vote? It's nonviolent, it gets one closer to where one wishes to go, even if the choice between candidates isn't what one would wish, it's still a choice.

There are more means to get the politicians attention. We the People may not have the cash in campaign contributions, but we do have a voice...vote, work to get your choice elected, then petition, write letters, call... MAKE NOISE!

Visualize this, five people write their Senator or Congressman/woman, some aide opens the letter, files and forgets, 500 write, the aide opens it passes it on before it gets filed, 5.000 write, by golly it's getting closer, 50,000 write, now it's starting to get some attention. See where this is going?

We can't just vote, we have to continue to actively participate after the election. We have to let them know in those Halls that we are paying attention and that, damn it, they work for US, not some faceless entity with a nearly unlimited bank account.

Attend local meetings, work at 'ground level', help build a foundation for the political structures you desire.

Don't vote party, vote the person and the issues then make them stick to those issues.

[-] -2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

The left wingers are almost as bad as the right wingers. Look who signed the financial Modernization Law into effect; look who has endorsed the TPP; look who did not show up in Wisconsin, and signed the NDAA, and how many supporters there were from the dem party.

The Communists during Roosevelt's time were not "within the existing power structure" (until the end perhaps) at all. They were the agitators/radicals more than anything, and they did have their own agenda, much like our 'beloved anarchists' do. lol

I care deeply about the success of this movement, as I know many of the mostly young people who sacrifice so much. Thanks gotta go now, getting ready to go to Denali

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Odin said: "The facts are as I have stated before that the communists who played a part in getting the New Deal passed wanted more than what Roosevelt wanted. They wanted COMMUNISM"

VQkag2 says: "Your communists dealt with the democratic party within the existing power structure. That is an important fact you should remember. The Civil rights movement got its laws passed through the existing structure. People can do anything."

Bingo.

Odin said: "The Communists during Roosevelt's time were not "within the existing power structure" (UNTIL THE END PERHAPS)"

And that is the point. In the end they got the new deal through the existing power structure. They had to come together and agree with what the end goal was going to be.

You contradicted yourself and basically made my point for me.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

dealing with a well spoken troll I see, don't be fooled

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

No Odin I do not think this movement is as far along as those other movements. But this movement even in this stage should be much further than it is now.

Back then there were no internet or social media. No major source of getting out ideas and connecting with mass amounts of people on this scale. If there were then I do believe the Civil Rights movement would of progressed much faster than it did. You would think we would be using these advantages to..our advantage. But we are just stuck because we choose to let the Anarchists dictate everything we do.

And yes I do think we should get involved in the political system in some shape or form but that isn't even my biggest complaint against the Anarchists that run this movement into the ground. Its the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be lead by people that have completely different goals than most in the movement and definitely the population in general. And that is why the support of Occupy in the U.S has flatlined. We don't seem to be doing anything about our mistakes even with the social media tools we have at our disposal.

[-] -2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I did not contradict myself at all. Do you really think this movement is far along as those other movements were before those who opposed them conceded. Those people were out in the streets, and workplaces agitating long before they were able to get anything done through the system. You just want to get us on this placid, controllable, political march for reasons that are evident. Your near constant criticism on how this movement is being run, and the divisiveness that comes with it is the real eye-opener to me as to why you are really here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok. So you have much criticism for the democrats. I think I understand.

No worries. Good luck. I support the 99%.

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Gee, I thought Roosevelt was a democrat. Whatever you need to crusade for your partisan politics, including misrepresenting me, do it, i have big shoulders.

[-] -3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

OWS didnt worry about advertising anything, screw the media. If one wants to know whats up, then go.

If you dont, we arent worried about it.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

The basic facts are that Occupy never initially pushed for abolishing government. That is undeniable.

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

electing someone from the military is not good

the military solves problems with violence

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Agreed.

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

I thought islam was supposed to mean peace

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The revolutionaries don't like the guys with the guns or the guys with the beards. They understand that they really have no choice (sound familiar?) because both sides have been carving up power, behind closed doors, over the last few days. This action has left their citizens wary of BOTH sides. I don't think they've even written a new Constitution yet.

As to what is to come of America; at least in the short term, I believe :

experience hath shewn mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.

~ Thomas Jefferson ~

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Partially correct. But you're leaving out the fact that the Revolutionists could of been the ones to run a candidate and not just settle with the choices they got if they were focused enough and chose to get involved in the political process. You can't just start a revolution then say that we're not going to change things by getting involved in the process. It doesn't work like that.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The political process IS what's broken (same as here). To engage in a corrupt system, with the cards stack against you; and expect to win, is foolish. [I think that's why OWS took the stand it did, politically]. They should have re-written their Constitution (empowering the people in a more direct way), before they held elections. Then engage. Now they're in the same boat as we are - choosing the lesser of two evils.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Then you are living in a fantasy world if you think you can just flip everything in an instant. If you don't get involved in the political process you have no power. Its that simple.

And like I said the Revolutionists had the chance to vet through their choices of candidates and eventually decide on one before the elections. But a lot of them chose not to get involved in the political process. So now look where Egypt is. Their Presidential choices ended up being terrible and now they are stuck with a guy that will potentially set that entire country back.

At least if the Revolutionists would of ran a candidate they would of had a chance. But because they didn't they never had one in this election.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I agree with this so much...


VQkag2 says: "Just came from the con ed/occupy protest in union square. They were very political. Which is good thing! It is healthy and productive to recognize that one party wants to screw union workers/99% and the other party supports us. They know there is great problems in our system. Corruption and spineless betrayal. But another system has not developed. They have families. They can't wait for the new system. I support the creation of a new system! Until then we must attempt to effect change. That is practical."


That is it in a nut shell. We all agree that the system is broken. But we don't have the luxury of waiting years and years(if ever) for this pie in the sky Anarchic system to save us all so we live happily ever after.

We need PRACTICAL solutions now. Just thinking you can get the country on board with something they already have a drastically negative view of is just nonsense. Especially in the immediate future.

We know that our system is corrupted. BUT we know the causes of corruption(money and bribery) and we know how we can fix and transform our system NOW. The reason Occupy is losing support is because we don't show how we are willing to fix it(like occupy did in the beginning).

Yes both parties are corrupted due the corruption in our system(one more so than the other). But we will never fix that by just sitting on the sidelines. In fact the ones that are making things worse wants us to continue to not get involved. The irony is that we end up helping the corporations and bought off politicians by doing nothing...

Don't you think things would of turned out much better for Egypt if the Egyptian Revolutionaries would have gotten more involved in the political side of things and had enough structure to put forth a proper candidate?

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

Now the white house admitted they will suport the military., or will be consequence some of those consequence cutting back millions dollers paid to egypt., you see how much our darling (Israel) costing Us.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I never said anything about Israel or the White House.

Im just pointing out the flaws and mistakes of the Revolutionaries of Egypt and the outcome of their Presidential elections and how Occupy is making some of those same mistakes.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2239) 2 years ago

Making change takes a two handed approach. OWS must work both inside and outside the established political process. Doing only one or the other, either way is formula for failure.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

The majority in Egypt are Muslim. They elected a Muslim president. The revolution in the US will hopefully let Americans elect a president representing their ideology. That's not bad. That's democracy.

Today, the US is run by the same gang of thugs that killed JFK. A minority in control. That's dictatorship.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

The Egyptian people electing a Muslim President has nothing to do with the Revolutionists failing to pick a candidate of their own. Even if the Revolutionists would of settled on a candidate of their own whats to say that he would not of been Muslim? And if he was why would that be a bad thing?

The problem with what you said about Occupy playing a significant part in any election of any President is that as of now the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim.

Until this movement realizes that we are letting a few Anarchists lead us and until we do something about that, this movement won't get involved in politics because the Anarchists says so. And Occupy will matter less and less as time goes on. Its just the sad truth of the state of this movement right now.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Who is stopping you from getting involved?

Why do you need OWS to spearhead a political movement?

[-] 3 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I already vote. But we both know one person doesn't make a difference. Its people that make a difference. If one Revolutionist in Egypt spearheaded an attempt to actually run a Revolutionist candidate and ended up being the only person that voted for him does that really achieve anything?

I know you were being condescending but I thought I'd answer with a real reply.

OWS started out as populous. As if all doors were open. But as time goes on and as support goes down it just feels more and more like its just a movement for the Anarchists to try to achieve their unrealistic goals. I've spent a lot of time and sweat supporting this movement. If im going to ever leave it im going to make sure this movement hasn't completely sank before I do. I do think there is still hope.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Nope sorry - your misunderstanding. I do a lot of advocating/campaigning. Not everyone likes it and I get attacked quite often. I still campaign/advocate. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I don't understand what you're getting at then.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Because those are not true anarchists.


[-] 1 points by Endgame (456) 3 minutes ago

Well said VQkag2. I always find it funny how we are suppose to be an inclusive movement accepting of many ideas, but when those ideas are put out there the Anarchists basically shuts anything that isn't "abolish government!11" down. Yet the Anarchists asks everyone else to keep an open mind...for THEIR ideas.

Hypocrisy has many faces. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Sure are alot of them around here. And not much push back from the "true Anarchists.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I am just saying get about your work - you do not need the official support of OWS to campaign for social change. Just do it.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

You'll never get "attacked" from me DK if you do this outside of OWS.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I'm sorry Odin - um - I think maybe you need to explain that comment.


[-] 1 points by Odin (3136) from Island Heights, NJ 4 hours ago

You'll never get "attacked" from me DK if you do this outside of OWS. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

It's just i believe that this should remain a place of education, pressure, and recalcitrance, not advocating for one party over another.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think we should have free speech. Express whatever opinions we like.

I may believe we must end the 2 party monopoly. I may believe the Dems betray progressive principles when they cave in and vote for conservative policies, And I may believe that the repubs proudly trumpet the conservative 1% policies that benefit the plutocrats. Mostly I think both parties have been allowed to do this because we the people have been asleep. Mostly we are to blame.

As such I think both parties are guilty of allowing the plutocrats to exploit the 99%. As such the 2 parties do not deserve our votes. As such I believe we must educate, protest, agitate for a new govt from the top down, horizontal, with true direct democracy.

I also believe we have 16 weeks until another election. And I believe we can't ask the progressives on this site to give up their right to vote. That would just play into the hands of the 1% plutocrats. I believe we must elect more progressives. Then actively protest, pressure, agitate all pols to implement progressive solutions to the destructive conservative policies that crashed the world economy and serve the 1% plutocrats.

Even if someone on this site disagrees, I have every right to express my opinions. The revered anarchist founders may not agree. That is their right. Even the great and powerful Odin can disagree. It's ok. He's allowed. When anyone deals with disagreement with insults, and or suggestions that a given opinion is not welcome they appear to be afraid of honest debate.

That is their misfortune. I welcome civil disagreement. It is like excersize. So have at it. Be nice.

and Peace

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I am not here to quell anyone's right to express his opinion, or their right to vote. I do believe though that the more that we make this a political struggle at this point by advocating for different parties, or canidates, it is harmful to our cause, and i will speak-out strongly in opposition. This has to be a place of defiance. We have the chance to reach out into the middle-right for support by being apolitical. There are many good people 'there' that just don't realize how they are being screwed too, and they just don't understand the corrupt dynamics behind it all.

I live in a county which is a republican strong-hold in NJ, and surprisingly it is a very middle to slightly lower class area. I get plenty of practice promoting OWS amongst my mostly republican friends/acquaintences here, and also in the affinity group Occupy Town Square in NYC that I belong to. I can tell you from experience that i have had more success arguing my case without a political slant to it. In fact it is disarming to the people I debate when i tell them that both parties are to blame for the rotten system that no longer answers to the will of the people, but instead to the will of corrupt, corporate, and banking interests.

We are involved in a righteous struggle, and we should not fall into the old left/right political paradigm. The fact is, we need some of these people on our side if we are going to be successful, and by demonizing them for their misguided beliefs, and turning this into a political forum....well it does not help. It's that simple.

And as far as "the great and powerful" goes, save that accolade without jest, or sarcasm for the mostly younger people who sacrifice so much to keep this movement going.

How's that for a "civil disagreement?"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sure you have to appeal to repubs. Sounds like you have found a good approach. I hope that you are advocating for the policies that the 99% (R &D) need.

Public health care option

Forgive working class and poor debt. Limit cr card interest rates

Money out of politics. publicly funded campaigns

Free college restore/expand Pell grants.

Cut military by 1/2, repeal anti civil rights laws NDAA, patriot act... end drone bombings

You don't have to call these things progressive. But doesn't mean they ain't.

You don't have to discuss the politics of our situation but that doesn't change the fact we have an election in 14 weeks. Good luck getting your middle right neighbors on board. Even if you don't want them to vote.

I suppose the candidates in your town don't support these policies. And I suppose you ain't votin. Thats your right.

Y'know its possible to elect local pols who are not of the 2 parties. Perhaps starting small (school boards, city council) would be more palatable for you.

Good luck.

Peace

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

had to reply here. Yes OWS has a wonderfully big tent that does not need to have political ties of any kind at this point, and that is as it should be. If you don't get involved with advocating politics on the street supposedly, why do you do it here? What's the difference, and don't you see it as being harmful to this defiant movement? I do.

Please take this to another thread as I am unable to reply under your comment here.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

If OWS as a whole truly believes it has a big tent (and it does) then you have to expect many of the people in the movement thinks that the movement should get involved in the political system in some shape or form.

You don't need to go on about about why you disagree with the notion of Occupy/politics, i've heard it plenty of times and know where you stand. I'm just pointing out the big tent dynamic of Occupy and the strong desire by many to get involved.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thank you. I truly believe in the OWS statement that they embrace all non violent tactics. With Odin I only have a concern that hedefines my tactics as somehow "hurtful to the movement" as if it is sacred and I am a blasphemer. Itseems a little much and the hostility rises to threatening level.

More inclusiveness, tolerance is always a good thing.

Anyway thanks and good luck.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree with you. We must consider political action. certainly pressure on existing pols should be stepped up. Especially because there is an election in 14 weeks. The recent OWS meeting in Philly confirmed this approach and the anarchists were consensed out. Apparently some sort of water shed moment.

And y'know I am for a new govt, ground up, horizontal, direct democracy, anarchist thinking. I am with them. I just gotta keep working to reform the current corrupt system.

I can't convince Odin. And I cant stop him from trying to discourage OWS supporters from giving up their right to vote.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

That is an interesting development you experienced in Philly. I've experienced similar. We in Occupy should at least be having this debate in the open. We need to honestly and openly come consensus on what our main goals are and what we stand for. These huge divides in goals from the majority of Occupy and the Anarchists needs to be figured out or we achieve nothing.

And yeah i've been going back and forth with Odin too. I completely disagree with him too on the political angle of Occupy. I don't think his mind is ever going to change but I just want him to understand the other point of view on the subject. Not sure if he does or not yet.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Many have an equally strong desire for Occupy to stay out of politics. Besides, the country does not really need another politically motivated organization (plenty to be found, moveon.org for one). The country sorely needs Occupy to be, and remain, something we don't already have - a revolutionary movement.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

A movement is only as strong as the amount of people supporting it. Occupy is losing support because we let the most extreme in the movement dictate what we do and dictate how the movement is seen in the eyes of everyone else. And also because people see us as people that lack any real power because of the unwillingness to make change politically.

It may sound nice and sweet and self gratifying to say things like "we do not need to bother ourselves with this corrupted political system in any way" but it is just not practical to think we can hold that stance and create real long term change.

If a movement doesn't have the support it needs to make revolutionary change...then it can not call itself revolutionary.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes OWS does indeed does have a big tent. Those of us who have been aggrieved by this poltical/financial system, or who luckily weren't, or who suspect they or their loved ones might well be screwed by this system in the future are all welcome. The people in the corrupt system who aided, and abetted the people who caused so much pain and misery to so many people are not welcome here though.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I protest on the street now for the same reason I have for 35 years. I want to improve the lives of the poor. I see that goal in OWS. And I have a kinship with all the liberal minded people I meet.

I like that Occupy has been joining up with striking unions (coned, verizon, sothebies,) and larger labor rallies. Thats certainly progressive/liberal/dem leaning and those groups pick candidates. So I like that. it strengthens us when we work together with like minded groups. I've also mentioned the Occupy/moveon.org protests against Romney and his 1% campaign contributers in the hamptons recently. Thats kinda political. Occupy ain't hurt by that, Occupy is stronger

It is natural for all groups of people to express their views on the issues that affect them. That IS politics. We may mostly agree that our political system is broken, corrupt, unresponsive and requires a replacement system (I agree). But many of us also think we must work with what we have while recreating the new bottom up, horizontal, direct democracy system we need.

You claim we hurt Occupy by attempting this. I disagree. I may feel that the tactic of giving up your right to vote and encouraging the progressives in occupy to do the same is hurtful to the attempts at affecting change within the system. You probably disagree. Thats ok with me. I'm not gonna tell you to stop your efforts. I feel our approaches must compete in the marketplace of ideas. I hope we are both successful.

I express my politics here because I am frequently confronted with unfair republican partisan rhetoric. It is necessary to challenge fallacies like "the parties are the same". They ain't!

Solidarity.

Sorry I don't know how to "take this to another thread" but you don't have to respond if you don't wanna. We disagree. You wanna make it about me hurting you. I wanna bring us together. Whats to say?

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Had to reply here to your comment below.. You said, The Con Ed/Occupy protest was "very political." In what way? I seriously doubt that Occupiers were political in terms of us wanting to endorse parties , or canidates. Maybe there were people there from different political parties that supported the plight the Con Ed workers are in, but I would bet there was no collusion between OWS, and them in promoting canidates, parties, or even setting up this protest. You are at an advantage though for now as I am 4,000 miles away from NYC, and will be until the end of the month.

"They can't wait for the new system."....meaning the locked-out workers. NO "they can't wait" for the dems to do anything that will bring about the systemic change we need. Incremental change will indeed come though by us continuing to agitate from the outside. By cozying up with political parties, we will have to be satisfied with piece-meal reform that in short order...compliments of lobbyists will bring us back to where we are now. These parties see the power that OWS has, and they are doing their damndest to co-opt this movement as has been made clear by people like Chris Hedges, and the link I included in my last comment. Do you even read my comment/links?

Yes by all means work with any group you can to effect change, but bringing the party sewer here will only hurt Occupy. The sea change that we both want will not come from our alliance with the political parties. We, OWS including the anarchists amongst us have to play the role of the crazy cousins, who are pushing the progressives from the outside, and in effect the whole political spectrum back to the left. And as you know that has already started to happen. We simply cannot let off the gas pedal to settle for crap.

Please don't misrepresent me either, and imply that I am asking you to give up your right to vote, as I have never asked that of you or anyone else. You say that only to bolster your argument in a faux way. What is really "playing into the 1% plutocrats hands," and is astonishing to me is your belief that this system, and the parties that helped cause one of the most ugliest times in this country's history, can now be called on to save what's left of our democracy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You state "these parties....are doing their damndest to co opt this movement" You state "the... change.......will not come from our alliance with the political parties"

The repubs are NOT trying to co opt OWS. They are attacking us consistently and viciously. You use of the plural is misleading. To suggest that Hedges agress that both parties are trying to co opt OWS is inaccurate. Why are you suggesting that fallacy?

Seems more like an attempt to equate the parties as "the same" They ain't. The dems are natural supporters of labor/unions/working Americsans/99%. The repubs are narurally against.

OWS has moved the discussion with it's extreme rhetoric, "crazy cousin" positions. I like it, I support it. I support you! You don't support me! We only disagree because you take issue with my tactic of attempting to co opt 1 of the 2 parties in control (Dems) until the new system emerges.

The 2 parties did create our current problems (they arethe same that way). One proudly trumpets the conservative policies that created our problems. The other party always seems to cave in and provide enough votes for those same conservative policies.

We must use our numbers protesting to prevent the spineless party from caving in to the conservative plutocrat policies next time. We can make progress while we wait for the new system to emerge.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes i too have many years of protesting under my belt from the Viet nam War to the Iraqi War, and several in between, but I have never been so involved in anything as much as I have with the Occupy movement. This is the 'crown jewel' of struggles as it encompasses so much of what is wrong with this country, and it will be the definitive stuggle of my life-time, and your's as well

I have had many ties to Con Ed throughout my work-life as a sub-contractor for them. I know some of those guys personally. I have broken bread with them. I despaired with them as we watched both WTC Towers fall on what had been a beautiful September morning in NYC, at the Con Ed Ravenswood Generating Station, and I will be glad to stand with them in Solidarity for the plight that they are in when I return back east. I also met a striking Sotheby's worker who was so thankful to OWS for our support.

Let's not confuse all of the above, and the Verizon struggle with any alliance with Moveon.org as being a superlative. We have good reason to be leery of this group as not only are they an extension of the democratic party, but their wanting to co-opt this movement seems quite clear to me, and others in OWS as well. OWS has no affiliation with them that I know of, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You have done an excellent job of lumping together all these protest movements with having us get involved with the rotten political process, and then saying, "You claim we hurt Occupy by attempting this," as if I don't want these worker to be victorious in their struggles. My position is clear...supporting workers.....home-owners, or anyone else who has gotten screwed by the 1% is good.....alliances with political parties is bad, as we will be the ones who are co-opted, not them.

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3870:moveonorg-and-friends-attempt-to-coopt-occupy-wall-street-movement

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just came from the con ed/occupy protest in union square. They were very political. Which is good thing! It is healthy and productive to recognize that one party wants to screw union workers/99% and the other party supports us. They know there is great problems in our system. Corruption and spineless betrayal. But another system has not developed. They have families. They can't wait for the new system.

I support the creation of a new system! Until then we must attempt to effect change. That is practical. Occupy seems to recognize it enough. They have worked with moveon.org, and dem leaning unions, the positions OWS has taken are the same that progressive parties (incl dems) support.

I won't pretend otherwise. And I will vote to effect change if possible until the new govt system is in place. I will also make the case that progressives should not give up their right to vote. That would be playing into the 1% plutocrats hands.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I definitely did not ever tell anyone...you included.. not to vote, or that protesting was a waste of time. In fact I believe protesting is the main tactic we should be engaging in. When anyone uses this place as a politcal forum advocating for canidates or parties....yes i have a problem with that. I have had many exchanges with you, and I am surprised you do not know this. Apology accepted.

This was in reply to your below comment.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Good luck to you.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

had to reply here. Yes you are right the repubs are not trying to co-opt this movement. They spend their time trashing us. It is solely the dems, and groups like moveon.org that are doing their damndest to co-opt us. Thanks for pointing that out. The dems have a long history of placating people into thinking that they are for the people, but in reality we all know who they are 'for'....the same people the repubs are' for'...big monied interests. Yes the dems are supposed to be the guardians of labor unions, and the rights of the 99%, but considering where we are now....have they really been there for us? I doooon't think so.

We will never co-opt the dem party at this stage of the game, and that should not be our goal. Rather 'our goal' should be to put both these corrupt parties 'out to pasture,' and lock the gate so neither can return to 'graze' on our land again. As I have implied/said before, it is only with the threat of civil unrest that this ship will be righted, and that will only happen when enough people have become educated as to what has happened in the last thirty years or more.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Civil unrest? non violent protest to pressure all pols to pass progressive solutions to the crises/inequity that conservative policies.

Some dems always cave in to vote for conservative plutocrat policies. Most dems vote for progressive policies and have been the engine for all progress we have had. They can do more but only if we recognize the small progress that they have squeezed past the republican plutocrat tools. Repubs have obstructed, delayed, watered down all the efforts we need.

If you do not acknowledge that, you aren't dealing with reality.

I have no problem getting rid of both parties, I'm willing to support a new syst/govt. horizontal, ground up, direct democracy. Until then I can't pretend that we can't affect change. I can't deny that dems mostly vote for progressive policies. I won't pretend repubs (& conservative policies) are not the real problem.

Massive strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, March, solidarity with like minded groups. Protest, Agitate. Elect progressives. vote out conservatives.

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

To your comment beginning with "Civil Unrest It's amazing to me that you consider yourself a revolutionary in terms of 'supposedly' wanting a revolution....a sea change in the way that our political, and financial institutions are run, and at the same time you want us to get involved with the putrid political system. I mean...aren't these the the same folks who aided and abetted those who rode roughshod over our lives for the past thirty years or more.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Some pols are not putrid. (Bernie Sanders). I can't surrender the system to the right winf 1% plutocrats. I must urge all people to elect progressives while we work towards the revolution we all want.

I know you can't understand, or don't believe it. Thats fine. I am confused as to why you can't allow me to have my position. I mean I support you. I don't think I'm hurtin you, or preventing you. But you seem to be makin an extra effort to get me to give up my right to vote. You've also suggested in the past that protesting isn't worth while either.

So we are both amazed at each others methods. The difference is I support most of yours. I guess I can't support trying to get people to give up their right to vote.

Good luck.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes we need all that, and more, but it is not my aim to have them take part in a dead political process. Rather it is my goal to educate them..... wake them up as to how things have become so screwed up. The one thing that has driven all this is neoliberalism, and both parties have endorsed it. It is not only a problem here, but it is a world-wide problem. I want them to share in the outrage that we here at OWS have. It is only when this corrupt system feels that anger, and when they are in jeopardy of having civil disorder will anything change.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OK - lets say you have woken them up.

Now what?

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

When enough people are awoken, applying pressure in a myriad of ways, they will have to listen, just like in Roosevelt's time.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lay it out - How Does That Work?

What are your myriad of ways?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Keep reaching out, educating, agitating, resisting, and applying pressure, but don't become part of the putrid system where the deck is stacked against us...and where we can clearly become controlled. We will never co-opt the dems until we have a plurality of the people aware of what has been going on. The only co-opting that will be going on is them of us, and no systemic change will come out of that, as this system is too far gone, and it has too much to lose.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

So basically do the exact same thing the Revolutionist in Egypt did?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I said you already woke up the people.

Now what?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So grow the movement. Educate more people to the inequity. Create enough dissent so the powers that be will react and change their ways?

Is that the plan?. I'm for that. Certainly I have been a part of many protests in the last 8 months expressing my disgust.

I also believe we gotta keep neo cons out of power. And pressure all pols to pass the policies I listed.

Peace

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

PLEASE tell me: When did I ever suggest to you that "protesting isn't worthwhile.?!" And WHEN did I ever ask you or anyone else here to give up their right to vote?! You are purposely mis-stating me to put yourself on a higher plane, and you clearly don't belong there when you do this.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

i recall from our many exchanges you telling me i shouldn't vote, that protesting was not worth it. and i was hurting the movement and didn't belong here.

If i got that wrong I apologize.

So you support voting,protesting, and embrace all non violent tactics.?

Just correct me. I've been wrong before. And will again.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I agree with the first paragraph of your comment below. You are not hurting me if you vote, or if you don't vote. The problem between us is when you start promoting canidates, or parties here...now. The only thing that i can see coming out of that is us becoming another 'branded' by the right liberal party, where every one digs their heels in and it becomes another futile left vs. right argument. We are aove that, and our cause is much more far reaching...and becoming political at this point belies what this is about.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Of course you do know that OWS has been branded right? The right wing of American politics attacks us mercilessly. And the left wing embraces us.

Today I noticed another call to join with the con ed union worker/protesters. We've joined with Sothebys, telephone and large scale general union rallys also. Very successfully I might add.

This is a great use of our numbers. I can't deny that one side of the political spectrum embraces and pushes the progressive agenda OWS speaks out for.

I have defended Pres Obama when I see unfair partisan attacks on him. I have repeated the notion that our problems come from conservative policies. And I maintain that a few Dems have consistently betrayed progressive principles when they cave in and vote for those conservative policies.

I believe these are true statements but of course it is my opinion. I don't tell people to vote for Obama. I don't tell people to vote for dems. I urge people to vote. And to vote for progressives. I further urge people to vote out politicians who support for the destructive conservative policies that I believe hurts the 99%. That IS dems as well as repubs.

I have stated why the 2 party monopoly is destructive,but I urge all progressives not to give up their right to vote.

I believe that IS education. I believe I have tried to stay out of specific campaigns. I believe I have criticized the Dem party more then the repubs. I believe I have mainly discussed specific issues/policies.

I am encouraged when I see OWS joining up with unions, and moveon.org. Also when we push for specific issues, This weekend we had a meeting regarding forgiving student debt. Excellent! Repubs would never go for that. Dems might. We have staked out the progressive position on citizens united/corp personhood/money=speech. Dems support our position. Repubs against. I can't deny where OWS sits on the political spectrum.

I think we are big and should embrace all non violent tactics. I think we must be inclusive and embrace any progressive movements/groups, and I think we must pressure all pols to change the conservative policies that have hurt the 99%. I support your goals. I'm not sure what exactly you have against me.

Peace

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

That is a faux argument on your part to suggest that I do not want this movement to be inclusive, but whatever you need to try and make this a political movement is fair game, I guess. It is no little nuance that we should not become advocates for canidates, or parties here. The health of this movement is dependent on it. And once again, if indeed you have been participating in direct actions, I can't see how many people would agree with you, and your push to get us involved in the political system now. In fact, i would find it incredulous!! I have run into only one of these people in all my trips to NYC. Was that you at Washington Square Park? lol And OWS does not endorse canidates, or parties, so let's not imply that they do....or that by me doing so i would be labeled by you then as being "inclusive."

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I never push dems or candidates when I am on the street. I see many progressive, dem leaning protesters, but even they don't do much politicing. We agitate for specific issues/policies. These of course wind up being progressive idea/policies. And I get the impression most protesters are profoundly disappointed with dems but still lean dem and would vote dem. I don't ask. then there are those who will not vote.

Apathy has been a problem forever. I want more people voting for honest progressive candidates who can implement the solutions we need.

You wanna educate and convince the pols to change with all the disgusted people. I am with you. Your not with me. You claim I'm hurting you if I vote, I can't buy that.

Sorry

Peace

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Yes that is the plan i believe we should pursue. The difference we have is using THIS movement for political goals and that is not because i want neo-cons in power or their faux progressive bretheren......rather it is simply because it waters us down, and gives legitimacy to a corrupt system which has wrought a lot of pain and suffering to the 99%. But yes, there should be people working on the political front too, just not under the OWS banner. We (OWS) are their crazy cousins, and together with the anrchists amongst us are waiting in the wings if 'they', the corrupt status quo does not capitulate. That's all.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I can't agree on excluding tactics. I like the OWS statement that they embrace all non violent tactics. All political persuasions. I was there when they joined with unions for Sothebys, Nynex, and Coned. I was glad to see OWS with moveon.org protesting Romney contributers in the hamptons.

The OWS banner is large. Like a big tent. I'm sorry to hear you state that you don't want certain people here. I think it has grown beyond just anarchists. I accept you and your tactics, I wish you could be more inclusive. I don't think more people and ideas water us down. I think a growing diverse movement is our strength. but thats ok.

Peace

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Well said VQkag2. I always find it funny how we are suppose to be an inclusive movement accepting of many ideas, but when those ideas are put out there the Anarchists basically shuts anything that isn't "abolish government!11" down. Yet the Anarchists asks everyone else to keep an open mind...for THEIR ideas.

Hypocrisy has many faces.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And where have I done that? Advocate for a party. Hhmmm?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Not saying that you did.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well then - your comment seems to be out of place. Does it not?

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Whatever you say DK.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

To your comment below. No one can predict how a revolution will transpire, but when the system itself is the main problem, you are fooling yourself if you think the answers can come out of that same f****ed up system. Other than that, we have went over our differences many times over the past few months. There is no need for me to do it again with you. And BTW, you do remember that I supported you when you were under that unfair troll attack a coule of months ago...don't you.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What ever comment you are replying to - I don't know as there isn't one below to refer to.

What does a troll attack have to do with anything?

And no I do not think that we have ever had a conversation about our differences.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Sorry, the comment was above. You acknowledged our differences in a PM that i sent to you when you were unfairly being attacked by the trolls, so you must have known what they were. Although i diasagreed with you on our involvement with the political system, i did not agree with their attacks on you when they were malicious, and some of them were.

If you believe that OWS should not advocate for canidates, or parties at this point, then we have no differences. Until we have enough people educated as to what has been going on, and have them angry about this corruption, we will never see the sea change we need. Yes there should be people pushing for political means, just not here under the OWS tent.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I believe in a multifaceted approach. You started out here supporting that idea. Time has gone on and you have changed your stance. I will always advocate for the people to reclaim their government.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Granted we have both evolved since being here, but you would be hard-pressed to find anything where I ever advocated for OWS getting involved with the putrid political system at this point, or any time soon. I can leave it at that, and know that we are both here for the same reason.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so speaks the keeper of the true OWS path, all hail ODIN

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

No...."so speaks" a person who cares about the success of this movement. No need to praise me though. lol

[-] -2 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

On your comment below: Yes..."Hypocrisy has many faces." Gee i think we can agree on something!

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

Well my whole argument against Israel is that it is a Jewish state and not a country for all peoples. Now you tell me that it is okay for Egypt to have a Muslim state instead of a secular one?

Most Egyptians are Arabs and not ethnically Egyptian (our modern capacity to study DNA will reveal much), so we better get some consistancy here.

I would really want to believe in the Arab Spring again. Right now it seems like one big hoax

[-] 1 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

It IS okay for any state to have a peculiar bent for particular religion or ethnicity or anything else as long as there is sufficient tolerance for differences between people to provide peace and prosperity for all. Segregation of people into different states is not necessarily a bad thing if it can avoid unnecessary conflicts. Frankly, I have a major problem with how the Muslim world treats their women and I do NOT want their ideologies imposed here but of course in return, I do NOT want to rile up their women to cause them instability which may be even worse.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

I agree with you that the majority rulers should not force their ideologies down the throats of minorities. Time will show that Egypt will be able to pull it through if external meddlers are not allowed to spoil democracy there.

Egypt had Copts and Jews living in peace with Muslims for over a thousand years. Last year, bombs were planted in churches in order to preoccupy Egyptians with sectarian fueds so as to abort the growing revolutionary spirit in them.

[-] 1 points by grapes (3552) 2 years ago

The apparent belief in external meddlers may have resulted from the propaganda by parties hoping for political gains through blaming foreigners to divert attention from domestic failures. Many ruling parties used this trick many times before. To prevent falling under this spell, the freedom to peruse widely dispersed and conflicting information worldwide becomes of paramount importance.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

It is not about 'running a candidate' in a broken system,. it is about removing the broken system and replacing it with something better, a participatory democracy,. do you think you can just change the faces in the broken system and somehow make change? the system itself,. the very idea of elected 'representatives' is what is wrong. We need a system where everyone is able to participate, and all voices are heard and considered. Not more of the same,. .

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Curious, what is the difference between an Anarchic society and a Participatory Democracy? Im not being sarcastic or anything I really want to know.

And yes we should run candidates in this broken system. Because the only way to fix it is to tackle the problem from the outside(protests) and inside (running cadidates ). Running candidates doesn't mean we have to play by the same corrupt rules. Our candidates should not take any outside money. Just public money along side using the publicity generated by the protesters of Occupy.

Ridding the corruption and bribery in our system will transform our system at its core and it will fix the root of the problem. This will allow us to better implement a system to where everyone from the President to a janitor would have to play by the same rules.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

How will changing the faces of the people in the 'representative' system change the system? They can not run, or win, unless they adopt the rules of that sad system, and once there must work with the other "representatives" that have little interest in cutting off their own hands,. they use these to take, take, take,. . no real substantive change will come from this sort of effort. Lots of 'good' people have gone to Washington,. what has changed? The system is perfect, in that it does not allow itself to be undermined from within. You are already talking about funding campaigns, to take my power to choose, and hand it to a 'representative' for four years,. I have zero interest in that tactic, we have been doing this for my whole life,. and result = steady societal degeneration,. .

Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state. - Wikipedia

All systems that claim to be democratic need to have the participation of the people,. the current systems in america (and most of the world) is far from participatory. Voting for a proxy once every few years is not participation, not even close.

Anarchist's are democratic extremists, they hold/pursue an ideal of a non-coercive society. This is useful and good,. righteous in fact. Like monks in Asia they represent the ideal, and should be revered for doing so. It is however difficult to actually achieve an ideal,. that does not mean we should not try. All life is a process, not an ends. I hope there is always anarchists around to pointing people in the direction of that ideal of freedom and community.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I see what you mean Bush was just a face and didn't change anything, my bad and here I thought CU did change the system.

Time to break out the shotgun shells and can food, I guess.

You do know most Americans really don't want to burn down schools and hospitals?

[-] -1 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

I had to reply here. "Well spoken.......," golly gee whiz, Thanks for that frf.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 2 years ago

Very well put.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

"How will changing the faces of the people in the 'representative' system change the system? They can not run, or win, unless they adopt the rules of that sad system". That is incorrect.

Occupy's power relies on the amount of people that support it. Winning and losing elections aren't the primary goal. We use the candidates we run nation wide to spread the message of Occupy. (Granted before Occupy can do that we need to fix our problems like coming up with a core populous message, clearly define our goals and deciding collectively if this movement is just going to follow the few Anarchists to attempt to abolish government or are we going to stay populous and transform our political system and government by ending the corruption and bribery at the core of our system.)

Occupy can win by running candidates and not playing by the same corrupt rules by utilizing Occupy as a whole to generate its own publicity for its candidates. No need for outside money.

Now if you are someone that believes in abolishing government and trying to get the majority of the country on board with that then yes you probably feel we should just keep protesting and nothing else. While failing to realize that this movement's support has stagnated if not regressed. Its because people see us all as Anarchists. And the majority of people out there do not want a society without government. They want a government that works for them. You achieve that by dealing with the root of the problem, not advocating to abolish the whole thing all together. Its just not going to fly. Not even with the majority of the people who support Occupy. If we become a purely Anarchist movement even the core supporters will leave.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"They want a government that works for them."

See, this is the whole problem with your position,. we can not continue with a system that is non-participatory, people have to be the ones doing the work of deciding on the directions we collectively take,. not handing this to some "government" who is then expected to do nice things for us. We are abdicating own own power to decide, with this type 'representative' ideology, and this will ALWAYS lead to corruption and bad results. The very idea that we can hand our power to 'representatives' is wrong-minded. The claim that if you don't like the policies of this or that representative, you can "vote them out" is asinine, they get a 4 year dictatorship,. and then we have look for some one we can "trust",. (who is that?) the fact is no one can be trusted with power, we simple need to re-form our social organizations, to remove this archaic simpleminded ideology of elected 'representatives', as it does not work!

Forget the word ANARCHY it has too much baggage in america (not true in other lands). Yes, I am proposing a more anarchic (egalitarian) system,. however it is a system of democratic participatory social organisation,. not some simplistic chaos that the word has been beaten down to here in america. As I said, Anarchy is the ideal, a non-coercive society,. and this is a step towards that. However, it is not a non-system, or utter chaos as you seem to be characterizing it as,. it is political organisation with the corrupt power removed. It is participatory every day, not just once every four years, with the dictatorship of the representatives in between. If an issue arises, we start a debate, call for a vote, and take action on that issue, instead of waiting four years to change the elected masters. I do not see how this can be construed as anything other than an improved system of democracy. A real democracy the arises from the will of the people not the 1% that manipulate the easily corruptible current implementation.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

You can label it any way you like. A society were there is no government and its basically a giant trust thy neighbor to do the right mechanism is Anarchism.

I actually agree with a lot of what you said though. But to achieve a system where it is more participatory and 100% populous driven is achievable without going to the extremes of Anarchism.

Take corruption and bribery out of our political system is how we can achieve some of the things you're talking about. I think the politicians having a 4 year tenure is actually a good topic to discuss and im not even disagreeing with you on that part. But under a cleaner system we can achieve those transformative changes you are talking about. But Anarchism(or whatever other name you call it) is a system that I do not want to live in. And if that was the end goals of this movement the Anarchists should not of advertised it as something else.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

That is not true,If wasn`t Muslim Brotherhood win the election, Any other candidate will be poppet for America

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

No they wouldn't. If the Revolutionists would have ran THEIR candidate that person would of done what the Revolutionists wanted. Hell, the Revolutionists could of even ran someone who was a Revolutionist.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

who Are you ???are u the next door to Egypt :) ?with your propaganda...,Muslim Brotherhood They are the Revolutionsts without Muslim Brotherhood who would done it,please do not be stupied in nice way!

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

lol what? The Muslim Brotherhood were the ones that started the Revolution? The Brotherhood made up the majority of the people that protested Mubarak's ousting?

Because if they were that is news to me. If not it just sounds like you're using the Brotherhood as an excuse. The reason a Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the election was because to many Revolutionists were too unorganized when it came time to get involved in selecting a candidate for themselves and/or decided because they were Revolutionists that they were NOT going to get involved in the political process. You can't blame anyone else for that.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

You don't have to be Muslim to resist the U.S.

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

I gree with you ,although I am not muslim

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

Or to trade in one oppressive ideology for another...

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the muslim brotherhood members are fascists.

[-] 3 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 2 years ago

-137 feedback tell all

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

all it tells is that ows people have a jr high mentality, yours is less than that.

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

let me tell you folks when revolution in Egypt will be over: until that time when the president of the Egypt by any means becomes american ally. im laughing at you. but tell me where i was wrong

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

let me tell you folks when revolution in Egypt will be over: until that time when the president of the Egypt by any means becomes american ally. im laughing at you. but tell me where i was wrong

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

obama backed the fascists( muslim brotherhood) in egypt and would not back the citizens of iran ( that were being murdered in the streets by govt thugs)that were rising up against the tyranny of ahmadinejad.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Its not just about running candidates on the Presidential level, its about running candidates on a local and state level.

And even so, if you are unhappy with Obama on this(which I agree with you) we have to make him fear what we can do politically. That goes for any politician or corporation or any corrupt entity. Without that we are just protesters complaining and with no real power. And the powers that be see that.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

How might you recommend making Obama "fear what we can do politically?"

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Like I said its not just about making Obama fear us politically. Its about making all politicians and corporations/special interests fear us.

We have to show that we have power politically on a local and national level. And of course the primary way we do that is for the movement to get larger and gain more support. The way Occupy gains more support is by not being Anarchists but crafting a core message that everyone can relate to. Like Occupy initially was. A populous movement. We craft a core message along the lines of ending the corruption and bribery out of politics. Because that is at the root of all of our problems. And it goes beyond partisan politics. Or the core message can be something different. But it has to something that relates to everyone and deals with the root of the problems.

We continue protesting. But while we do that we create another branch of Occupy that runs candidates all across this country. These candidates will run as Independents and will run take NO outside money from special interests groups. Those candidates will use public funds in combination of the constant on going protests from Occupy to help give them constant publicity in order to spread the message of what Occupy stands for. Making the movement stronger and our candidates stronger.

Our candidates will be unique in that they will be the only elected officials that are not worried about being reelected and don't have to worry about being slaves to any corporation or special interests.

Its not about our candidates even winning. Its about using them to spread the word about our movement. And if we actually do end up winning that would be great for the reasons mentioned.

But in order to achieve anything this movement needs to be able to gain more support than we have now. Our support in the US is stagnant due to the Anarchists and how they are making us look to the public. We need to fix that problem.

That is how we get politicians and corporations to fear us.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

Are there any third party platforms you feel already have very much in line with Occupy? Any third parties that reject corporate campaign donations? I believe there are. If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to join forces with them than to continue to build competing third parties?

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Can you honestly name one of those third parties that are anywhere close to being as well known and established as "Independent"?

Thats the point. Independent can mean anything. We can mold it into what we want. We run in some vague third party platform it would be a mistake. I agree with joining forces with those other third parties. But we need to run under something that is free of being tied to Democrat or Republican BUT it has to be well known and already established. Just makes to much sense to run as Independents.

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

green

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How many Greens in Congress, wouldn't that be the place to start?

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

I'd rather push for election holidays

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

shameless self promotion

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-about-a-lottery-ticket-if-you-vote-and-individ/

here's the ideal $50 on your taxes to anyboby you can vote for a kind of wide spread public funding and a way to get folks to vote, and yes the holiday is a good ideal a lot of people work on those too though

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

my housemate worked 7-4 at Target

didn't even know if he got paid extra

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

doubletime for holidays should be like 1.5 after forty in the law, unions get holiday pay, but unions are hard to get

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Nader killed the Green Party.

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

the Green Party marched in San Diego with Occupy against the trans pacific partnership

or big corps abusing countries

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

I don't find the Green Party to be small nor vague in what they advocate. Their platform is very straightforward and in line with much of occupy. Why split the vote? The only larger third party to my knowledge is the libertarian party, but the Green Party has had more success in general elections. Oh, and they refuse corporate donations.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

May be true but I would cut my own heart out before I vote for a Green, don't matter what they say, you never know what they're going to do.

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

well at least, we might hold them to what they say

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

they said they wouldn't but they did, so now I'm holding them to it

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

many shrug and say

"oh well, the government can't be trusted"

Nixon Resigned

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

if I could give up on government. I probably would but then some damn king would take over

you make a good point, but the GOP must be taken down first, otherwise the 1% will ride into the sunset with the whole ballgame

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

they simply are not as important as they used to be

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6481) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

the government itself becomes less important with each election, we may be able to change that, but it will take a focused effort

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

We, Most of All, Need to Get Out the VOTE!!

(Excerpt) The (Political) system is flawed because Big $ controls it!

We the People have ceded it to them by encouraged abandonment, neglect and ignorance!!!

No, We the People "aren't aware." Learning that "nothing works" and Voting "makes no difference" is the brainwash swill Big $ wants us to believe! Is this a naivete or deception? Either way it's DEAD WRONG!!

Orwell's "Newspeak" and "Doublethink" are in full operation.

Get out the Vote, people!! If it didn't matter, these bastards wouldn't be trying soooo fucking hard to suppress it!! And they will stop at nothing!!!

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Go ask the average American what the Green Party is. They will have no idea what you're talking about. Ask them what an Independent is and its something the relate to without it being molded into something specific. Which makes it perfect to run under.

lol its not about splitting the vote. Its about being practical. If anything trying to run candidates in a vague party is splitting the vote. Im not saying that to be mean but its just reality. I am not saying I don't agree with the Green Party because I believe I do. But that is not the point.

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

If they were old enough to vote in 2000, they know the Green Party.

Let's take a look at some of Stein's positions:

End war and withdraw from all 140 countries currently being occupied by U.S. bases. Cut the defense budget by 50%. Single payer health care. Tuition free higher education (forgive all student debt). Legalize marijuana. Repeal the Patriot Act and "kidnapping provisions" in NDAA. Repeal NAFTA and other pro-globalization legislation. Nationalize the Federal Reserve. Tax transactions on Wall Street. Regulate derivatives. 90% tax on bailout bonuses. Break up "too big to fail" banks. End for-profit prisons. Supports wikileaks -- would pardon Bradley Manning. Rely on closed-loop cycles that eliminate pollution and waste. Invest in organic agriculture and permaculture, public transit, and alternative, clean, sustainable sources of energy (get off fossil fuels). Instant run-off voting. Ending corporate personhood.

Vague party? That's as straight forward a platform as you'll ever see!

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Dude im not disagreeing with you about the merits of the Green Party. But the fact is most people don't even know what it is or that it even exists. Thats not me dissing the party. Its just the way it is.

[-] 1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

Really. Am willing to bet Stein will not be on my state's ballot in Nov

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

Well, she just obtained matching funds. The first ever Green Party candidate to do so, including Ralph Nader in 2000. The requirement is to raise $5k in 20 states before the parties convention. If that is accomplished, the govt. matches all the money raised. 22 or 23 states actually raised the funds in time with several way over 5k. Massachusetts in particular raised almost 20k. Stein is already on the ballot in 21 states and petitioning currently in 17 others, and the Green Party hasn't even had it's nominating convention yet.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Valiant effort. I'm not knocking the hustle of the Green Party in any shape or form. But for a third party to work it has to be well known and have huge momentum behind it. Especially in this era where our democracy is getting drained out with big money.

[-] 2 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

How can we avoid splitting the vote on the third party opposition? Even if Occupy officially endorsed an Independent candidate, the Green Party is identical and would steal votes. Nader got almost 3 million in 2000 as a Green. In two subsequent attempts he got about a half million each splitting votes with the Green's. It's just not a winning strategy in my view. The Green Party wouldn't just cease their presidential efforts. They didn't even do so for Nader when he chose to run as independent, why do it for Occupy? The Green's are an established political party with branches in other countries even. They are the largest, most well known left-leaning third party, and the only one to my knowledge that accepts ZERO corporate donations.

I think more people are aware of the Green's than you believe (although I would love for a Gallup type poll to give us official numbers), and I also believe it could reach a wider audience with some effort (what would happen if Occupy endorsed the Green's, for example?). If you read "Crashing the Party" by Ralph Nader or "Grand Illusion" by Theresa Amato you will appreciate how astoundingly difficult it is to run just one third party campaign. Arbitrary ballot access laws, absurd petition requirements, frivolous lawsuits and outright intimidation of voters and volunteers (very effective). To run as independent you would have to clear the same obstacles, the same outrageous petitions, the same frivolous lawsuits, the same intimidation, essentially double the work between both campaigns for the exact same message just because of the title of "independent." Collaboration seems far more prudent to me... I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I think your view on how popular the Green Party is is way over inflated. But I honestly hope this party catches on.

[-] 1 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

Every individual makes a difference. If you feel they need more exposure, why not help to accomplish that? (As a side note, Ralph Nader actually got less votes as an Independent in 2004 and 2008 than he did as a Green in 2000) In this day and age, average citizens have more of a voice with message boards, facebook and youtube video's, etc. than ever before! I'm not saying third party promotion should have our full attention. Who says we can't multitask? Casting a vote for a third party candidate, and advocating such action to a few friends and family members, takes little effort. We don't have to cease other forms of activism and protest.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Because like I said if you want to see any success in the short term you have to run as something that is familiar with the public. Maybe the Green Party alone may have some long term success(honestly even that is doubtful under our corrupt political system) but the Green Party stands no chance in the short term.

If a third party has any chance in the short term they will have to partner up and run as Independents and have Occupy backing them(assuming Occupy can fix its letting Anarchist lead the movement into oblivion problem)..

[-] 0 points by WageSlave (117) 2 years ago

Like I said, if they followed elections and were old enough to experience the 2000 election, and paid even the smallest bit of attention, there is no possible way they wouldn't be familiar with the Green Party. It was infamous because of Ralph Nader's "spoiler" impact on Al Gore, which was, and remains, a pathetic accusation. Liberal voters had a ton of leverage after that election, but chose to be cry babies instead of acting.

[-] -1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi. Good intentions without wisdom often result in unintended consequences.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 2 years ago

I can't believe this thread has 8 comments and the 9/11 shit gets 100's of post!

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

lol I know. It kind of feels like we talked about the Revolutionists in Egypt all the time in the beginning and before their were any solid candidates for their election. Now that we clearly see some of the mistakes made all of a sudden the Anarchists wants to pretend the story doesn't exists.