Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Electorial Process and Voting: If Occupy got Involved, What are some of Your Ideas?

Posted 6 years ago on June 12, 2012, 3:20 p.m. EST by Endgame (535)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I know that the 1% of Occupy(the Anarchists) don't think we should get involved in the political process and voting. While the large majority of Occupiers feel we should get involved in some shape or form. So I would like everyone to think of this as a hypothetical topic and give out your ideas of the unconventional ways Occupy can make change Electoral and Voting wise.

My idea would be for Occupy to run Candidates all across this country on the platform of NOT taking any outside money for their campaigns and only taking public money. Our candidates main message should be ending the corruption and bribery in our political system. And how everyone no matter your position and standing in life should play by the exact same rules. No one is above anyone in terms of fairness and justice.

The end goal of these candidates running is not even always to win or get reelected if they do win. Its to spread the message of Occupy on many different fronts. Letting people know what we stand for and how we want to create a system that is not about choosing the lesser of two evils but a system were anyone should be able to run for office on an even playing field deluded of bribery and corruption from outside forces. Its all about creating a real democracy where the people have all the power and we are all able to have debates based on facts not about the garbage bought off and paid for politicians feed us.

But imagine if we do win seats in Congress. Imagine Occupiers in Congress having the freedom and power to call out ever other bought off politician that continues to play by the rules of a corrupt system ruled by outside money. Not only is it another major platform for us to show people what Occupy is about but it will show people that it is possible what it would be like to have a system in which all politicians play by Occupy rules. Meaning a system for the people and by the people. Not corporations and big money.

All the while Occupy continues to protest while another branch of Occupy(working together of course) gets the word out in another arguably equally important way. This allows Occupy to use the Electoral Process to make transformative changes without going against the values of the movement. We don't need to play by the same corrupt rules but I do believe we need to get involved.

This is NOT about left vs right but about imposing our message of fairness and honesty into our political system as a whole. And showing what can happen if we tackle the problems(bribery and corruption in our political system and government) at its core. Maybe running Occupy Candidates as Independents all across this country on a national and local level?

Your ideas and thoughts?



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 6 years ago

Fairness and honesty in our political system. Changes to the election/campaign system should be at the top of our agenda in order to create a better environment for a 3rd party. So................. Publicly funded shortened campaigns, no other money, no ads. only weekly debates for all candidates of all parties to allow 3rd party access. Open primaries to allow access by all parties. top 2 go on to general. Eliminate electoral college. Expand house of rep by at least a hundred seats to improve representation. Mandatory voting for all legal age citizens.

That is what our candidates should want in regards to eliminating corruption, unfairness in the elections Of course there are many other issues that we should be "running" on. I will post later if any one is interested.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

The more ideas the better. Feel free to post them all.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Voter Suppression, Union Busting, Flaccid Political Action, Citizens United Purchased Elections (WI), Another WMD-GOP Witch Hunt, Big $ and Biz Always Turns Out, Americans Have the Lowest Turnout, and YOU Wonder How it Got This Way and Don't Know What to do???

In Just 4 Months We Decide Whether CU-$-Backed Regressive Democracy Haters or Unorganized Unsupported Progressives Run Our Gov

Posted 11 hours ago on July 2, 2012, 9:34 a.m. EST [BANNED]

(Partisan Labels Removed for rules? It didn't help)

Do we let Big CU Money Buy the Election like They did in WI? Or do we get out the Vote and fight back like we did in 2006 and 2008?

With just 4 months to Election 2012 we just need to make sure we don't repeat 2010 (Never EVER Again!)! No more Blanks in Congress (state and fed) and definitely no Blank in the WH! We are still suffering from their last WH Occupancy!!

This is strictly a get every warm body to Vote time. No pouting or sniveling over petty Blank imperfections. We cannot let these crazy Blanks seize control. They've thrown down the gauntlet with their crazy and treasonous Shock Doctrine plans and they can't be allowed back in our government just because their sabotage has worked. They will cheat and steal the election any way they can. So we MUST fight back!

We must get out Massive Votes!

When Big Biz and Big $ shows up, Fucking Blanks steal elections. But when We the People show up, imperfect but sane Blanks win!! Fight back and VOTE!!

Don't let Big Biz and Big Money buy elections for their Blank toadies.

Don't let these greedy bastards make us a third world nation!

LET'S Repeat 2006 and 2008 and Vote for Blanks!!!

[-] 2 points by msrc123 (2) 6 years ago

Occupy should get involved in voter registration and nationwide poll watching on election day, assigning people at every polling place, whwer these parties would write down the numbers of voters hourly and the number at closing for each machine. These sheets should be faxed to the administrative team who can verify these numbers against what was reported to the states attorney general. In Wisconsin voting there were always suspicious corrections made after polls closed, this process would go along way towards challenging the cound if applicable. The US attorney General is challenging voter surpression laws and procedures in several states, Occupy could march on those state legislaturs and on the court hearing related to these matter. I would love to help organize these efforts. Shirl Moore-Byas - Msrc123@aolmcom

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

More More more!!!

More Political Balls!!!

That's what democracy IS!!


[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

Well you already know my position on it. Adopt a PIRG type of organization (or better yet, Occupy your local PIRG), push initiatives, and write up affidavits for candidates to sign to hold them legally accountable for supporting specific political issues.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Hear, hear!

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

I see two paths. If you're going to involve yourself in electoral politics, only do so by holding candidates to a legal contract pertaining to the most important issues held in common by the electorate (see some of the discussions at http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ ). Otherwise, electoral politics is a dead end. The other path is to engage the public directly by proposing initiatives at the local and state levels wherever possible. This requires ongoing campaigning and therefore ongoing organizing and ongoing funding to keep the electorate informed of the issues.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I like the idea of holding our candidates to a legal contract.

But I don't see why we have to choose between those two paths you mentioned. We should do both. Why can't we have one branch of Occupy get involved in the electorate while at the same time engage the public directly at the local and state level. Im sure we're creative and talented enough to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. :)

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5909) 6 years ago

I never said a choice had to be made between the two paths. I only stated that I see two paths. Both should be taken. In fact, the contract path should focus on independents as independent voters are more likely to hold issues above candidates in contrast to partisan voters.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

In that case I think we are exactly the same page LeoYo.

I've actually been thinking about the running Occupy candidates as Independents angle. And I think I agree more with that strategy now. It makes more sense to do it that way.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Didn't see that thread before. Thanks. I really dig this idea.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Are you saying there should be an Occupy party? Or should we support almost any other candidate as long as they aren't of the major two?

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Either, or or even both. Doesn't matter which, just as long as we get involved.

Personally I would suggest we run our own candidates. Candidates that are really knowledgeable about politics and our government and are articulate and passionate BUT has never run for office before.

Running Occupy candidates in both parties would be the more practical path to go. Im definitely not against an Occupy Party but I don't think that would get as much traction early on. I prefer initially us Occupying the parties that exist now. Not converting to what they are but using the platform to bring the public to our side.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Wouldn't running as Independent be more in keeping with Occupy's message?

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

jrhirshch, i've been thinking about what you've said since yesterday and i've come to the conclusion that I think you are right. I think it would make much more sense for Occupy to run candidates as Independents.

We don't need to Occupy the existing 2 parties. But instead we need to Occupy the political system itself to change it.

I really appreciate you making that suggestion.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago


[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Honestly im okay with that too. Even though I prefer the method I stated in the post you responded to, I just want us to get involved while staying true to our core of ending the bribery and corruption and setting an example by not taking money from corporations and any other form of outside money. And at the same time inspiring people with our message of what a fair system can really achieve.

So im cool with whichever way we decided to go. Occupying(hijacking) the existing parties, creating an Occupy party or running as Independents. Its all good with me.

EDIT: After thinking about it a little more I think running soley as Independents is the best strategy to take. We don't need to Occupy the existing 2 parties. But instead we need to Occupy the political system itself.

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

How does choosing not to get involved in the electorial process make you an anarchist? That's like calling someone who does not vote an anarchist.

[-] -2 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I should clarify. I am not saying everyone in Occupy that doesn't want to get involved in the electoral process and voting are Anarchists. But the large majority of the people in the movement think Occupy should. Not in just a left vs right fashion but in some shape or form. But because we allow the Anarchists to control what the movement does(very ironic since the movement is suppose to be leaderless) and almost all the Anarchists feel we shouldn't get involved in electoral politics or running candidates..we don't. Thats a problem.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I reread my post to you yesterday, and I noticed that i did not make my point as well as i wish I had. Like i said before, this site and the movement in general should be seen as more of a information hub. Tocqueville would be proud of this web site, but if it started promoting political parties or solutions then it would be no better than MSM agencies. Journalists should be un bias and the fact that such a concept seems to be foreign to major news agencies, this site brings the unbiased aspect of journalism back in vogue. Now I know the people who post here are very bias, me included, but such a site in a republic is needed. I, un like most people, enjoy the fact that the moderators have fallen asleep on the job. It allows many points of view to be expressed, and that alone is a good reason for the movement to continue in its current configuration. If you want to support a party, that is well and good, but the occupy site should remain Apolitical, as much as humanly possible.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33639) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I see noting wrong with pointing out individuals as to their being against the people. Right now there are an awful lot of republicans in office that are anti people as well as some democrats. Like wise this extends out into the private sector to the heart of many problems - Corpo-Rat-ions.

Know your enemies.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I read both of your comments yesterday and I think you explained yourself pretty well(especially in the second comment). And I think you had some interesting points. I completely disagree with you on some of those points but I do appreciate you getting involved in the conversation.

And im not talking about Occupy promoting any specific party. Its about us using the system and their parties to promote Occupy. Im not saying we should compromise our core message of fairness and ending corruption, etc in any way.

And like I said its not just about winning. We can still win even if our candidates lose. As long as we get out message out in many different ways and get more people on our side. And if we do actually end up winning a seat or few then that could be an epic display of power and constant national messaging from Congress. Thats a powerful thing.

And you don't have to tell me about the main stream media and the state of Journalism. Its ridiculous. But that doesn't give us an excuse to avoid doing certain things. That would be an example of Occupy giving them to much power.

Being Apolitical doesn't have to mean we stay out of the political process. In fact I would go as far as to say it would be a huge mistake for Occupy to continue to stay out of the political process.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago
[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

Why would you play in a game you know to be rigged against you?

Why not ignore and ridicule that game,. while starting up a new one, based on egalitarian participatory democracy.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Just because you play in this "game" doesn't mean you have to play by the same corrupt rules. The power in this particular game comes from the amount of people you get on your side.

Occupy is in a unique opportunity to where we can generate our own year round publicity with the protests. Running candidates that do not take outside money is the key. That is what is going to make us different and morally superior and puts us in a position to actually make transformative changes to a corrupt system.

"Why not ignore and ridicule that game ?" Because if we don't show political power in some shape or form we have no power. The only thing corporations and politicians fear is the ability to make a difference at the polls.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

This should go without saying however I will say it; my words are simply my thoughts, my opinions, and these are based on my personal experiences, and observations and analysis of these., nothing more.

If you think you can make change by adopting the corrupt system then go for it! I just see it as misspent energy that will be corrupted in the end as well. You say we don't have to play by their rules, however if you want to run a candidate, that is exactly what you have to do,. the rules are laws. Yes, they just make these up, but they have men-with-guns to enforce them as well,. whenever I hear this proposed, the words of Leo Cohen pop into my mind; "They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom for trying to change the system from within." I suppose because this sums up my thoughts on it,. it is slow (and boring) to work your way into this type of entrench power structure,. and then even attempt a move to make any real change,. this is why we see so little of it, or none at all. Look at Obama lots of words zero action,. in fact a big step backward in many ways!

Anyway I am all about building new community based systems that supplant the old ways with new ones,. I see this a viable and simply where my interests are. degrowth, permaculture, slowmoney, relocalize, etc.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

But no one is forcing candidates to take outside money and be slaves to the corporations. Now if you are a typical politician that is basically the only way you can survive in this corrupt system. But Occupy has the potential to be anything but typical. As stated before, Occupy is in a unique position. We can find ways to show people that we can have a system where candidates that are elected aren't corrupt.

But I respect your opinion. Thanks for not responding in a way that belittles mine. I've got that a few times around here. ;)

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

You're wasting your time with this guy. I am becoming more and more convinced that he is here for one reason, and it is not to see that OWS succeeds.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

As I commented earlier, my "idea" is to vote for whoever you want, or don't vote at all. Just put on your street clothes, and get out in the streets if you really want to see a sea change in the way our corrupt system is run.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I think people should do that anyway. But we all know how corrupt our current system has become. But it doesn't have no where near the same effect as having an entire populous movement behind them(as Occupy initially advertised itself to be). So I just think its common sense for us to use the electoral process to spread our agenda and get people on our side. Winning and losing isn't the main goal at first. Its all about building up support for the movement in many different ways.

But if someone's main goal is to create some Anarchic society then I can see why they would like the idea of getting involved in electoral politics in any way. Fortunately this is not the views of the majority of Occupy. The irony is that the Anarchists that do believe this would have a better chance of having an open conversation about their views under a system where outside money has been removed from our politics system and our government.

[-] 3 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

It worked for the Tea Party. The Ron Paulies are getting a crazy amount of delegates to the convention by just showing up and voting. Now why is it that Occupy can't do that? Seriously, why?

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

We can't do it because our leaders the Anarchists(the 1% of the 99%) don't want us to. Apparently we are suppose to just shut up and do what they tell us like good little drones.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

Isn't Anarchist Leader an oxymoron? F*ckem and feed them minnows.

The Paulies know how to do it.

"In Massachusetts, Paul’s Liberty Slate swept the Republican caucuses in April, stealing delegate spots that were expected to go to Romney’s friends and allies, whom he had selected. "


[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

So anyone who does not want to get involved in the putrid system that our electoral process has become wants anarchy as our final goal?? When you make those either/or definitions that go undisputed in your mind, it might make you feel right, but it does not make them valid to the rest of us. Anarchy and the recalcitrance that comes with it is the tool we need to bring about the systemic change that most of us desire.. The people in the streets know that, but unfortunately you, and granted many others here on this forum do not. Instead you seem to keep wanting to create divisions in this movement, and have this movement focus on electoral politics. One more time, look at Montreal, and now many other towns and cities in Quebec.

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

You are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested that. Judging by your defense of Anarchists goals and some of the other statements you have made I was under the impression you shared the same goals of abolishing government and creating an Anarchic society, same as the Anarchists. If I was mistaken on your particular goals then just say so. But please don't twist my statements.

But again, I fail to see how fighting for a society with no government is the only way to fix our political system. I honestly don't know what your goals are. One minute you sound like you're saying you aren't fighting for an Anarchic society but then you basically say fighting for an Anarchic society is the only way to achieve real change. ..../confused

Either way I completely disagree with you. And I've said this before also but I feel I need to say it again. Occupy initially advertised itself to millions of people in this country as a populous movement. Its why I (along with most who joined) got involved. So excuse me for having some disagreements with the Anarchists (we have been allowing to lead a supposedly leaderless movement) after finding out what their end goals are. Which again, are completely different than what was advertised. Im not the one is trying to create divisions. That division was created as soon as the powers that be decided to hide what they were trying to achieve with a supposedly populous movement.

And you mention Montreal and other cities in Canada as if you're proving a point. The fact is that their are many different dynamics in each country. So even though Occupy global you can't just blindly point to one foreign situation and expect the same outcome for every country.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Sorry, but yes you were mistaken. I do not want anarchy to be our final goal, but every successful movement has had a radical element in its wing, even in Ghandi's time. If this movement goes political before the masses are awoken, and out in the streets, we are doomed as we will become controlled, and impotent by a corrupt system. It is only with the possibility of civil unrest will we get the sea change we need. That's unfortunate, but it is true considering how much this corrupt system has so much to lose when we are successful. At this point, we do not have enough people out in the streets to affect any sort of REAL political change. If we 'go political' now, we will resign ourselves to the dust-bin of failed political movements.

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

"a corrupt system" The system is not corrupt. I am pretty sure it is not possible for systems to be corrupt. I think that requires people. I have read all this stuff and though there are a lot of words to wade through, EndGame is not the only one who does not get it.

What anarchists? We had a few pass through. Hell, we had every imaginable type of person pass through.

The problem with hippies in tents is that it takes a whole lot of them to be scary. Yes, scary is what gets their attention. They brought riot gear for us.The generic us. Why not the Tea Party?

The TP folks Occupied the system. The Paulies are doing it now. I see only to paths. You either use the system or you tear it down and create a new one.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Of course the corrupt system is made up of people. They are the people who have rigged the system in their favor and to the detriment of the most of the rest of us. The anarchists are still amongst us, and at this point, I don't think that is bad for all the reasons I have outlined in my previous comments. The degree of change that we achieve is dependent on having them aboard. It is with the threat of having anarchy that we will be able to have systemic change.

This movement has evolved from far more than having a bunch of hippies camped out in parks. In fact from my experiences, it never was totally about that. Most of the people that I have met near the core of this movement are bright, dedicated, young people, and they are being joined more and more by people from all walks of life, and age groups. Their focus is educating the masses, and resistance to the status quo.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

"This movement has evolved from far more than having a bunch of hippies camped out in parks. In fact from my experiences"

Of course the movement was never about that but if you think the overall perception of Occupy has evolved then you are living in a bubble. In the US our support is stagnant thanks to the Anarchists.

Their are people in the background of Occupy doing good things. But all of that will not matter if we continue to be seen as a movement that is trying to abolish government.

[-] 1 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 6 years ago

But this government needs to be overthrown. Anybody thats paying attention can see that. Our ruling class not only is out to suck the life blood from its own people but from the whole planet.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

So instead of fixing and transforming the our system your solution is to abolish government all together and live in a system that has never been successfully implemented..ever?

Im all for creating a system where everyone plays by the same rules. Everyone from the President of the United States to a janitor at McDonald's to a CEO of a Bank to a garbage man, etc. But we can do that without an Anarchic society...

Its not about big government or small government. Its about accountable government and ending the corruption in our government. Fixing the problem of bribery and corruption at the core of our political system is how we deal with this problem.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

The perception of that OWS has is controlled by the corporate owned news media. We need to have more people questioning, and rejecting what they hear on it through education.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Yes our corporate media is bogus. But just blaming them for all of the problems of Occupy is a cop out. Even if 8/10 of the things the media reports about Occupy is false we just can't completely ignore the rest that is true. Every time we have issues we need to deal with all I see is a bunch of people just using the media excuse.

But I agree that we do need more people questioning what is being reported. But the fact is right now we have to do better at not allowing the media to successfully paint us as Anarchists trying to abolish government or whatever else they are trying to paint the entire movement as.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I diasagree with the divisiveness that you bring to this movement, and i question why you are really here.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Honestly I question the same from you. I will never be someone that doesn't ask basic questions. Especially if those questions pertain to something that I spent a lot of my time with only to find out I haven't been told the full truth about what im really fighting for. But to each his own.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

WOW, it sounds like you are on a higher plane than me! "438", no i don't think you "spent a lot of..... time" at all on anything except how to make this movement fail

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I am not trying to pretend to be on a higher plane than anyone. I just don't blindly follow anyone. I ask questions. The fact that you aren't asking those questions to the ones you so proudly let lead you(the anarchists) then it just shows you are the one that is spending time making sure this movement fails.

If you honestly believe that people are going to get on board a movement that is seen trying to abolish government you are living on another planet.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

And "you are living on another planet," if you think this movement can get the sea change we need through the putrid political system. As i have said repeatedly, radical elements played a part in past struggles in the same way that they are playing a part in this one. And they did NOT have the same goals as you have stated again, and again, and that is a proven fact if you take the time to look it up. I know this will never sink in, not because you are stupid though,...... it is just because you have ulterior motives. That's all.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Here we go again...

Odin we clearly disagree with the political strategy so for the sake of this particular discussion lets leave that out of this.

Even if we all agreed not to go with not getting involved in politics(which we clearly don't), the Anarchists are still the ones running this movement into the ground.

Why do we STILL not have a core message? Why don't we have better structure? Why has the support and growth of this movement in the U.S. become stagnant(if not started to decline all together)? Its because of the Anarchists.

They are the ones leading this movement yet they are in the small minority of the entire movement. For whatever reason they do not want us to fix these problems because it is not their priority. That is what happens when you have different factions within a movement that want different goals all together.

And once again(this is getting annoying Odin since you keep ignoring this part because you know you can't counter the facts) your analogy with the different factions in the Civil Rights movement does NOT work here. In the Civil Rights movement all of those different factions may have had different ideas about how to reach their goals but the key point is that they at least all had the same end goals. The Anarchists in this situation DO NOT. That is a huge difference. That is a problem. You can't continue to pretend that problem does not exist.

I swear if you ignore that point without any sort of acknowledgement at all...

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

"This movement has evolved from far more than having a bunch of hippies camped out in parks"

Indeed, but that is the image we have. I don't want to think about how much free advertising we totally wasted. No, worse than wasted. Much was negative. But it is hard to make a kid understand that they want to make a fool out of him when he gets a chance to do the, "Hi, Mom." on TV.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

We were lucky enough to have some mature folks. Vets. Nothing like a sergeant when you need something to get done. Our "den mother" just got her first church. She will be pastor of a downtown Presbyterian church in September. One just finished his first year of law school and represented us at the state Democratic Convention. I spent last Saturday at the Republican State Convention getting signatures for our amendment. A few guys who are so brilliant they would fit in on the set of The Big Bang Theory. Yes, I am bragging. God, I love these people. They know us at city hall. And a few state government offices. Some not happily.

Fighting a shady looking deal on eminent domain now. Chamber of Commerce deal. I almost hate those guys. Tax payer money to support those assholes? /done/

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

We are never going to get accurate coverage from the corporate owned news media. They will continue to cover the most sensational aspects of this movement in a negative way, and little else especially in depth reporting. That is why it is essential that we reach out to educate people to the corrupt dynamics that have been in place for the last thirty years or more. That paradigm that serves the elite at our expense is the common denominator in all of our plights....neoliberalism. There are many OWS affinity groups that have sprung up with the express intent and purpose of doing just that, reaching out to the masses. One of the main purposes of these groups is to get people off CONM, and to search for the truth.

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Yes it is true that successful movements in the past has had radical elements to it. But that point that im trying to get through to you is, is that all of those extreme elements in those successful movements in the end had the same end goals. Occupy will not achieve any of those goals if we continue to allow the Anarchists to lead this movement. The same Anarchists that have completely different goals than that of the majority of the movement and the goals Occupy initially advertised. Its that simple.

And as I just stated to you in another thread, we just have completely different views on getting involved electorally.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

the majority of people are non violent

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

Those "radical elements" of the past had the same goals, and a lot more. They had to concede to the lesser goals of the more moderates, the same way the opposition did.

[-] -1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

I agree with that. But my point is that the main goals of the Anarchists are NOT the same as the majority of the members of Occupy. Again that is why your analogy does not completely work in this situation.

[-] 3 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

I am not accusing you of being a troll. I myself have been accused of it for my belief that partisan politics has no business in this movement. BUT if a person wanted to subvert this movement, the two quickest ways it could be done is by, 1. Creating divisions between the leadership of this leaderless movement, and 2. By trying to make this a political struggle. Combined they would be death knells for this revolution. You or anyone else here who is hell-bent on the above, and on not being out in the streets, risking arrest, or (if that is not possible for health reasons), directly supporting those people who are....well you have little value for this revolution in my opinion. You and your cohorts may indeed accomplish some minor victrories in the political arena, but it will only be because of the people making the true sacrifices in the streets. This is not what i planned on doing in my retirement, but I know it is necessary.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

But the thing is this movement is NOT leaderless. If it were leaderless we wouldn't be allowing for Anarchists to lead us in the direction that they've been leading us in. And this direction contradicts how this movement was initially advertised. As far as im concerned the Anarchists have subverted themselves. The division was created as soon as this movement went against what it initially stood for. The Anarchists have no one else to blame but themselves for that. What did they expect, that the people that were attracted to this movement by its populous rhetoric wouldn't ask questions about the direction the movement takes and just follow whatever the Anarchists say? Not going to happen.

And once again not only do we disagree about getting involved into electoral politics but you continue to misconscrew my position on the subject. As i've been saying its not about supporting the existing parties its about Occupy running Independent candidates that do not follow the same corrupt rules the others do. Our candidates would not take any outside money and be tied down by bribery from corrupt special interests and our candidates would have the freedom to actually do whats right for this country.

And I seriously don't understand why you continue to insinuate that i've said that this movement should stop protesting and being in the streets. I have literally clarified my position with you on this subject around 7 different times. I have always said that the protests are the most important part of this movement and under no circumstances should they stop (until we achieve the populous goals this movement was initially about). Why do you continue to ignore this? Its fair that we disagree but please stop trying to craft my position for me.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

The overwhelming majority of the people out in the streets that i have conversed with are pleased with the direction of this movement. I can't believe that if you are a protester in NYC, or any other major city in this country that you could have a different analysis from the people out in the streets. When you constantly complain about the leadership here, you are either inadvertently, or purposely creating divisions that are harmful to the movement on the whole. If you are not happy with our direction, you should quit OWS and 'go political', rather than trying to subvert this into an impotent political movement of any stripe.

Finally if you believe that this movement misrepresented itself initially, you should get over it. This is still a somewhat free country, and you can do whatever you like, but when we start focusing on politics, we are going to lose the defiant attitude that we need to sustain the struggle that we are in. Your two-tiered approach of criticism, and wanting to turn this more into a political movement is very detrimental. It's that simple.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Most of the people in the movement believe they are marching to fix our political system not to abolish government. So yes it makes sense to assume that if you believe the movement is fighting for the populous things it advertised itself to be fighting for then you are happy with that. But that doesn't mean that there are huge disagreements from the people on the ground. If you don't see that then you are stuck in a bubble.

You continue to say im creating division by stating the factual divisions of the Anarchists and the rest of the movement. You come off as a follower. Im sorry but im not going to pretend I want to fight for a society where there is no government. That is not how the movement was advertised and im not going to blindly follow some Anarchists to achieve a goal I do not want.

And no im not going to just get over how Anarchists basically lied to millions while advertising a populous movement. Are you freaking kidding me?! The fact that this is a free country allows me and the many others that are NOT Anarchists to voice our feelings about where the Anarchists are taking this movement. I honestly can't believe you said that...

You continue to use your views on the movement getting involved politically to completely misrepresent my views on the subject. Its that simple. We completely disagree and will probably never agree on that. But im not going to let you get away with mischaracterizing my views and putting words in my mouth. And there is no way in hell im just going to get over being lied to by Anarchists and just accept fighting for their end goals. Contrary to what the small percentage of Anarchists in Occupy want, this movement is not a movement to achieve an Anarchic society. Thats not what it was initially and that is not what it is going to end up becoming.

[-] 0 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

So just go on trying to create divisions in this movement', by trying to make it an impotent political movement, and i will be there to "call' you on it. Most of the people here can see the value in having anarchists in this movement in the same way that I can. And despite my repetitive explanations of the value of this alliance, you just cannot understand it, or you do indeed comprehend the threat this defiance poses on the corrupt status quo, and that is why you continue on doing it. And at this point, I believe the latter is most probable. I have outlinded the close parallels that having a radical element has had in past movements to this one. You have simply ignored this rationale, and then go on to imply that anyone who supports this alliance wants anarchy to reign in the end.

Your views are vastly different from most of the people out in the streets who are making the real sacrifices. And i assure you that i am not "stuck in a bubble," in my belief on this. I simply will not allow you to try and destroy this movement unchallenged...plain and simple.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

WTH the division was created by the deceptions of the Anarchists. Im sorry if the fact that this movement was not initially advertised as movement to abolish government annoys you but its the FACTS.

Yes you are being repetitive in your explanation and you defending of the Anarchists but you haven't done a very good job at it. The bottom line is that unlike the different factions in the Civil Rights movement the Anarchist want completely different goals. You can not deny that fact and just gloss over it. That is a huge difference. It would be one thing if the alliance with Anarchists didn't mean that they were LEADING the movement into what THEY want us to do and what THEY want us to fight for (abolish government and create an Anarchic society).

If my views are so different Odin why are so many people pissed at what the Anarchists have done to this movement? Why has this movement stalled in gaining support? Why aren't the majority of the people on this street fighting for an Anarchic society like the small group of Anarchists are? Yet the Anarchists lead and our movement stalls. Its you that are living in a bubble if you don't see this.

And anyone who tells someone to "if you don't like that you were deceived, and don't want to get behind the creation of an Anarchic society...just get over it" is just being a lemming. A drone that just follows their leaders no matter what they tell them to do. Which is very ironic...

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Odin you clearly aren't paying attention to anything i've been saying. Not a damn word.

You completely ignore all the facts about how this movement was NOT a movement about achieving an Anarchic society. You keep ignoring all of the facts about how the radical elements of the past movements had the SAME goals even though they had differences in how to get their. Anarchists have completely different goals. How the hell is that not getting through to you?!

The people who are pissed with the Anarchists are not armchair quarterbacks. They just don't like being lied to. They don't like being forced to fight for the goals of the few people that have hijacked this movement for their own personal gain.

I don't think you are a lemming because you don't want Occupy to get involved in politics. That is not the point. Its fine if we have different views on where the movement should go.

You come off as a lemming because you blindly follow Anarchists and fight to achieve their goals. You don't question them at all. Just shut up and do as you're told. That is why you come off as a lemming.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33639) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Anarchy is not about ending government - it is about ending abuse of power - it is about ending the oppression and suppression of the people.

Anarchists that deny this - are not anarchists.

Anarchy: A Definition

What is anarchism?

Anarchism is the movement for social justice through freedom. It is concrete, democratic and egalitarian. It has existed and developed since the seventeenth century, with a philosophy and a defined outlook that have evolved and grown with time and circumstance. Anarchism began as what it remains today: a direct challenge by the underprivileged to their oppression and exploitation. It opposes both the insidious growth of state power and the pernicious ethos of possessive individualism, which, together or separately, ultimately serve only the interests of the few at the expense of the rest.

Anarchism promotes mutual aid, harmony and human solidarity, to achieve a free, classless society - a cooperative commonwealth. Anarchism is both a theory and practice of life. Philosophically, it aims for perfect accord between the individual, society and nature. In an anarchist society, mutually respectful sovereign individuals would be organised in non-coercive relationships within naturally defined communities in which the means of production and distribution are held in common.

Anarchists, are not simply dreamers obsessed with abstract principles. We know that events are ruled by chance, and that people’s actions depend much on long-held habits and on psychological and emotional factors that are often anti-social and usually unpredictable. We are well aware that a perfect society cannot be won tomorrow. Indeed, the struggle could last forever! However, it is the vision that provides the spur to struggle against things as they are, and for things that might be.

Whatever the immediate prospects of achieving a free society, and however remote the ideal, if we value our common humanity then we must never cease to strive to realise our vision. If we settle for anything less, then we are little more than beasts of burden at the service of the privileged few, without much to gain from life other than a lighter load, better feed and a cosier berth.

Ultimately, only struggle determines outcome, and progress towards a more meaningful community must begin with the will to resist every form of injustice.

In general terms, this means challenging all exploitation and defying the legitimacy of all coercive authority. If anarchists have one article of unshakeable faith then it is that, once the habit of deferring to politicians or ideologues is lost, and that of resistance to domination and exploitation acquired, then ordinary people have a capacity to organise every aspect of their lives in their own interests, anywhere and at any time, both freely and fairly.

Anarchism encompasses such a broad view of the world that it cannot easily be distilled into a formal definition. Michael Bakunin, the man whose writings and example over a century ago did most to transform anarchism from an abstract critique of political power into a theory of practical social action, defined its fundamental tenet thus: In a word, we reject all privileged, licensed, official, and legal legislation and authority, even though it arise from universal suffrage, convinced that it could only turn to the benefit of a dominant and exploiting minority, and against the interests of the vast enslaved majority.

Anarchists do not stand aside from popular struggle, nor do they attempt to dominate it. They seek to contribute to it practically whatever they can, and also to assist within it the highest possible levels both of individual self-development and of group solidarity. It is possible to recognise anarchist ideas concerning voluntary relationships, egalitarian participation in decision-making processes, mutual aid and a related critique of all forms of domination in philosophical, social and revolutionary movements in all times and places.

Elsewhere, the less formal practices and struggles of the more indomitable among the propertyless and disadvantaged victims of the authority system have found articulation in the writings of those who on brief acquaintance would appear to be mere millenarian dreamers. Far from being abstract speculations conjured out of thin air, such works have, like all social theories, been derived from sensitive observation. They reflect the fundamental and uncontainable conviction nourished by a conscious minority throughout history that social power held over people is a usurpation of natural rights: power originates in the people, and they alone have, together, the right to wield it.

[-] -2 points by Odin (583) 6 years ago

No the divisions were not created by the anarchists. They were created, and continue to be sustained by people like you that want this movement to focus on being a political one, and therefore a controllable movement. You simply do not 'get it,' or rather YOU do not want to for reasons that have nothing to do with the success of this movement, but instead the failure of it.

The radical elements of past movements were never satisfied with what they were forced to agree to, but they definitely played a key role in the sea change that did indeed occur. The role the communists in Roosevelt's struggle played are a PERFECT example...correlation to the role the anarchists in this revolution can play. The corrupt elite back then knew what was waiting if they did not capitulate to Roosevelt's demands. It's a 'card that Roosevelt played to the fullest. Read the history of this transformation in the way our political, and financial institutions were changed.

The people who are "pissed" at the anarchists are the arm-chair quarterbacks..... NOT the people out in the streets........who do understand the dynamic role that they (the anarchists) can play, and they are not the people that are trying to run this revolution into the ground. We will never get the systemic change we need by following your tried, and failed POLITICAL prescription, and you damn well know it. And screw your "lemming" analogy.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I think that 1% figure you list is grossly understated.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

First of all the OWS needs to kick out the anarchists. The Anarchists need to be beaten, persecuted and in fear of their life if they ever show up to an OWS protest. The American people as a whole do not like Anarchists, don't buy into their loony shit and sure as hell don't want to live in an Anarchists dream world... Hence the reason OWS has lost most of it's support.

Next OWS needs to get back to it's original message and push all the other political B.S that we all do not agree on out. We have a lot of problems in this country but none of them will be fixed until our government is back in the hands of all American citizens and not just the few rich enough to buy politicians... Take back our country then work on the other issues.

Last, sadly unless the OWS protesters want to pick up guns and fight for our country, highly unlikely, we need to start backing politicians who will work to help us take back our country from republican , libertarian and conservative trash.

The only problem is that it's most likely already to late.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Hey you "politics is the problem" idiots and eunuchs, listen to this guy!

People NOT PARTICIPATING in our Electoral Process is the problem!

It's not too late, but it may be hopeless to wake some people up. The RW has been blasting everybody's mind with commercial, selfish, anti-democracy, hopeless Brain Wash for so long, many who rage against the machine and protest the system are completely castrated of the ability to achieve an election.

Take some democratic Viagra! Get your Registration ON! Get into that sweet booth and VOTE!!!

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

Don't stop.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

I don't stop but I keep getting banned, per the PM I sent you. WHY?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Reasoning like that is exactly what Occupy is opposed to.

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Then they have to change. Everybody does it, that's how you WIN!!

[-] -1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

And that's why the OWS movement has accomplished exactly ... Nothing in the U.S.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 6 years ago

Speak for your own Occupy.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Oh yeah, let's listen to someone who wants human beings to be beaten, persecuted, and in fear of their lives? I for one would not wish the same for you, but I wouldn't be too upset if you were to go fuck yourself.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 6 years ago

Or let's just keep them around and let them make fools out of the OWS movement. The OWS movement wont be taken seriously with them around and will be looked at as an extremist movement.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 6 years ago

Big image problem with the Woodstock Reenactments and cardboard and crayon scribbles. (Immage: What America sees on TV! It's all that matters!!) OWS needs American FLAGS and Clear signs and messages so that every MSM shot contains a few flags and unmistakable Class War messages.

Back Blocs and Anarchists are saboteurs whether they know it or not!

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Our candidates main message should be ending the corruption and bribery in our political system.

You realize that it's extremely rare for a US politician to receive an actual bribe, right? As in that the politician gets money for their own personal use. (Though receiving a job is more difficult to prove but still happens.)

Much more frequent is for money to go to the politican's state or the community they represent, such as a specific corporation in their state winning a government contract. This is allowed by other politicians precisely because it is not illegal and these "small lies" lead to job creation financed by inflation, which is a way of "taxing the rich" that doesn't allow dishonest rich people to benefit by evading taxes.

If you want this to end it isn't enough to include "lower corruption!" in a political platform. You must address the root cause which is unemployment, and do so without more government spending as would happen through the accelerated work week.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Misaki, how do you think the economy got in a recession in the first place? Its because Wall Street, corporations and other entities used their vast wealth to buy off politicians. And basically used them to craft legislation(usually deregulation) that benefited themselves over the people. When we allow for this bribery and corruption to go on its just a matter of time before it collapses the economy. And because we haven't dealt with this problem its just a matter of time before it happens again. And it will probably be even worse than it was this time.

It always boils down to outside money, bribery and corruption. Its the root of the problem.

[-] -1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Its because Wall Street, corporations and other entities used their vast wealth to buy off politicians.

Do you think the housing bubble had anything to do with it?

The financial crisis was possibly partly due to corporate influence, though it's also possible that it was due to nothing more than a poor understanding of economics and markets in the dominant trend of intellectual thought. Many US officials encouraged deregulation of markets but this doesn't mean they were actually "bought off" by corporations.

(For example JP Morgan recently lost $2+ billion in a risky investment, but the government has no reason to compensate them for that loss.)

But you'll have to make a more convincing argument that the housing bubble was due to corporate influence or corruption, because I have not seen anything that suggested that.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

"The financial crisis was possibly partly due to corporate influence"...are you freaking kidding me?

Are you seriously suggesting that the hundreds of millions of dollars that Wall Street and the banks give politicians each year doesn't drastically influences the legislation that gets crafted?! Almost all the legislation that gets crafted is influenced by money. If you can't even see that then you are either blind or naive. Why do you think corporations give so much money to politicians? Because they see it as charity? I mean come on...

You can't honestly be an Occupier if you seriously believe our politicians aren't bought off.

[-] -1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

A Wall Street insider discussing the "culture of fraud" of today says that the financial crisis happened because the government DIDN'T bail out Lehman Brothers when they were overleveraged.

But as long as pension funds keep going up, you'd be content, right? Even if it means the government has to spend billions, or even trillions, to keep corrupt financial firms afloat.

Why do you think corporations give so much money to politicians? Because they see it as charity?

Apple made $34 billion in profit last year. If they spent even 1% of that, it would have been $340 million.

Do you think they spent anywhere near that on lobbying or political donations?

$10 million, or $20 million, may sound like a lot to the average person, but on the national scale it's almost nothing.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Okay Misaki you're right. Wall Street, Banks, Oil Companies etc collectively give politicians BILLIONS each year because they are being nice and just want to give money away and expect nothing in return. Thanks for clearing that up.

[-] -2 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

You still think the financial crisis was due to corporate bribery of government then?

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 6 years ago

Just as much as I believe water is wet.


[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 6 years ago

It's all about implementing 75% individualism and 25% collectivism in a direct democracy voting system, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans, plus $10,000 more credit every year) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small investments (or businesses), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 investments (or businesses) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ , and related NextDoor.com; so help us help you, and join today!

You won't understand the above summary unless you read and think about, repeatedly, the entire new constitution at: https://docs.google.com/a/strategicinternationalsystems.com/document/pub?id=1mKKLMTIyvRCLK2ppPj_GDjdieCvJnATaZaCmlajubWU

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

I don't believe Occupy should take part in the electoral process by endorsing candidates. Voting is a different matter, it's personal and really noone else's business. Anarchists couldn't resist co-opting a leaderless movement like Occupy and they've been successful. The parasite doesn't care if the host dies if they can move on to another host.

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 6 years ago

an endorsement from ows is the kiss of death

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 6 years ago

They haven't endorsed anyone and they won't.