Forum Post: Fighting for the movement, not the movement's purposes
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 14, 2011, 10:48 a.m. EST by coehl
(12)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
As an occupier myself there is one thing I've grown extremely tired of. That is the fight to educate. I read this article this morning: http://news.yahoo.com/singer-crashes-obama-summit-occupy-song-212243354.html Wherein the movement is stated to be "anti-capitalist", and it is said in benign matter of fact voice.
I think I missed the part where Occupy was anti-capitalist. Unless by "capitalist", the author meant "A system that subsidizes institutionalized gambling and lobbies legislation". Which isn't likely.
Or am I incorrect? Is this movement anti-capitalist? When I see statements like this, I don't see occupiers speaking up against it. I don't see anyone saying "Actually, that's not what we're about." There's no defense of the movement's goals that were decided upon by consensus.
Maybe it is the case that if someone said that Occupy was protesting the flying spaghetti monster (the one that ties your headphones in knots in your pockets), the occupiers think "Well, that may be the message of some of us, so we can't censor them." That was not a motive that was decided upon by consensus though, right? So you can still create a defense for what the consensus opinion is.
I make this thread because I'm afraid that I'm arguing in favor of what I understood the Occupy movement to mean, and I am incorrect in my interpretation of the direction it is going. But if I am correct, it's very necessary to start shooting down misleading narratives.
The stated message from the Occupy Movement is "Get the Money out of Politics." The reason you don't know this is because the Main Stream Media are desperate to make the OWS group look like a bunch of unfocused Rabble.
They are quite focused.
I've been following nothing but internet based resources about OWS. The Main Stream Media is not the reason that this message is not getting out there in my case. Let me be clear. I feel Occupy needs to start occupying everything that there is regarding them within the media, website articles, videos, and if someone tries to pass off an unfounded summation of the goals of OWS, it MUST be called out. Each uncorrected statement could translate to a person that is not supportive.
You have totally valid points here. And you are right to ask these questions.
Mainly, I support campaign reform, equal and fair representation in government and getting money out of the political process - 1st and foremost. Getting Citizens United overturned, Corps are not people and money is not speech.
What direction is this movement going? It goes in all directions and no directions. Saying everything is as good as saying nothing. I do believe there is alot of support for campaign finance reform and ending govt corruption though. But its hard for it to break through all the clutter. Also, this movement is decidedly Direct Action in nature. Please Wiki it if you are not 100% clear on what that means. Don't worry - I had too also! It is important.
"Saying everything is as good as saying nothing." Thank you so much, that is a one liner full of gold. One thing I've attempted to do is distill it down to the underlying issues that would hold high likelihood of correcting issues that lie closer to the surface. As an example, income inequality has roots in a lobbied government. So taking aim at the lobbying in itself allows one to spend less time discussing the ethics of income inequality and the acceptable margins, and instead focuses on something that is fundamentally wrong and nigh impossible to argue. That lobbying is unacceptable and corrupt.
Just as an example.
Totally with you! I believe that the underlying problem IS the issue of money in the political system. Lobbying, the way campaigns are financed, all the money sloshing around there. It prevents fair and equal representation. I believe that the wealth disparity that is evident today is a result of this. The 1% have rigged the system to their own benefit at our expense. It is not just a taxation issue. In fact, I think this is small. It is SO much deeper than that. People immediately criticize and point to wealth distribution. This is a minor point. So many of our policies and regulations benefit the few, rather than the many. Taxation is the least of it. Simplest and easiest example is the repeal of Glass-Stegall. This benefitted the few, maybe more than a few, for a while. But caused a major disaster for the many! Has nothing whatsoever to do with taxation OR SPENDING for that matter! Just BAD public policy! Rigged towards the benefit of the few.
If there was no money allowed in the political system, I do not believe Glass-Stegall would have been repealed. Wall Street bought and paid for their deregulation of the industry. They sold the idea to Washington for ALOT of money - and Washington sold it to the people.
And here we are.
Without getting back our representation - we can't accomplish anything else. It all flows from this issue. Then we can fix everything else, in a truly democratic way, the way our Representative Republic is supposed to work. We need to separate money and politics.
Did you read up on Direct Action? It is important.
I've been doing that all the time on here; trying to explain to people that all we want is to see some sort of reform so that the system no longer benefits an increasingly small group of people at the expense of the rest of us. I highly doubt that the majority of the movement is anarchist, communist, anti-capitalist, etc. and I honestly have no problem disowning the fringes or beating them into line. Somebody needs to start doing PR and media interviews, preferably an articulate moderate with a suit and a haircut.
If the message comes from an Anglo Jesus, I really don't care, as long as some very serious, very pointed educating is done. And preferably this would be a committee of types rather than individuals. No one face, after all. ;)
I'd also like to have a rotating committee because that's more likely to be something that OWS as a whole would be more comfortable with, but I don't want anarchists or communists on the committee because those people are very likely to scare ordinary people and their views are not representative of the movement. Also, if you want to be a part of the committee you need to be willing to abstain from drug use and excessive drinking, and OWS should spend a couple of hundred bucks on a suit and a haircut for each committee member who can't afford it or doesn't have one.
I can't say enough how much I agree that calculated words for calculated ideas are invaluable. The ordinary person is being frightened more and more each week. Overcoming the propaganda is not something that will take care of itself.
I agree with you, and I actually have a few ideas I'd like to run by you, mostly summarized in this post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-possible-plan-of-action-to-clean-up-this-mess/ Sorry for the links, but the whole thing is too long to fit up here; as I'm starting to unify it into one document and write it all out it's still only 75% done and it's already hitting eight pages single-spaced.
Awesome, thank you ARod. I will check this out in the coming hours as I hope others will as well.
I am closest to being an anarcho-capialist. I wouldn't associate myself with a movement that was anti-capitalist. We are anti-cryony-capitalism which is to say anti-fascist as fascism is the marriage of the corporate and the state.
So why is it then that so many misleading illustrations of the purpose are being left alone? That misinformation has to be fought. I'm not saying that it is never argued or clarified, but all too often it seems that those willing to come to the vocal defense of Occupy are too busy chanting anti 1% and not placing that mantra within the context of what the 1% are doing to necessitate this movement.
After all, there will always be a 1%.
Because the media doesn't like complicated issues. They like sound bites that stir up controversy and get people to watch or read. Almost no one in journalism in the main stream is investigative - they just regurgitate sounding messages from their editor or repeat what the AP said.
Comment systems are there and in place under many of these though. I am of the feeling that Occupy should be down the throats of all of these articles, correcting any of this noise on the spot and applying pressure. It may not fix the problem, but it will make it harder for journalistic integrity to be breached to such a degree.
Using Google notifications for keywords and watching Reddit's politics section is a good way to stay on top of these items as they surface on the web.
The true purpose of the movement has already been accomplished; To make a statement of inequality.. and that statment has springboarded into whole host of discussion. thankyou OWS
I can't really think of a system other than full on socialism that will ever bring about true monetary equality.
What, and this is my opinion, we should be fighting for is vocal equality. That's the republic for you. With vocal equality, the people will always have access to what their works are deserving of.
May I share this with you:
the simple answer is to place a CAP on sales profit .. something that reflects federal interest rates .. the explanation is a little more complex .. let me try : the borrowed money that recently created the boom is mostly sitting in piles in the back rooms of corporate middlemen .. which they gained through enormous profits.. and now that there is very little borrowed money pouring into the economy .. including the government stimulus plan drying up .. the economy has recessed. Had there been a CAP on sales profits .. that money in the back rooms of corporations .. would still be in circulation .. creating jobs. It's really a correction in the mechanism , but one could also look at it as a CAP on greed .. either way .. it seems to correct the problem .. If implemented tonight .. retail prices would drop .. and we would immediately see an increase in sales .. and the rest is obvious.
A transparency law may be required: All retailers will display their cost price and profit will be added at the till.
ps. when we make a purchase we know how much we pay in sales tax but we do not know how much we pay in sales profit.
It makes some sense, but I am afraid we're often too quick to resort to mandates with causes that can be achieved organically. Is it not the case that our culture could change to frown upon hoarding, as an example? Perhaps OWS might start promoting a culture more like that. But more to the point, when something is "Too Big to Fail", it is in essence a monopoly. If we remove the capacity to legislate in favor of big business, reinstate glass-steagall, and finally do away with corporate personhood, would we not already be creating an environment in which that some sort of hoarding would be less achievable to begin with?
frown upon hoarding .. resort to mandates with causes that can be achieved organically .. create an invironment where hoarding will be less achievable to begin with .. this is exactly what a sales profit CAP will accomplish ..
here is one for you:
Are you not in fact lobbying the government to eliminate lobbying?
What I'm trying to say is that a priority system should be in play between mandates and what can be brought about organically. I, personally, prefer to achieve something with an organic approach first. So if one of these goals can be achieved through an organic approach, or a less restrictive mandate proposal that fosters an organic approach, would that not be more desirable?
And have we considered all options available first to reduce stashing before proposing a bill that quite literally restricts the wealth that one can achieve?
by organic approach , you mean leave corporatrions to make morally justified decisions... good luck with that !
and to imply my proposal restricts the wealth of one , you are referring to the " one percent" ..yes?
It's not just the 1% that are to blame for this gap. Our complacency as a nation is to blame as well, this could have been stopped long before it took root. This is why I feel cautious about placing restrictions on how much money one person can earn, or are you speaking specifically about corporations? In any case, what are your thoughts on the effects of undoing a corporation's capability to lobby legislation? Wouldn't that allow us, as a people, to have more say over what they do and impose morality on a corporation instead?
By placing restriction on lobbyists , corporations or otherwise , you are in fact restricting freedom of speech . This I adamantly oppose.
These corporations and lobbyists can still speak. Speech is the expression of thought. You trade ideas in government, not money. And you can't have both. So no, there is absolutely no restriction of speech there. They're being restricted TO speech.
OWs has a donate button for anyone who wants to support this movement .. politicians need support too .. and if someone agrees with their cause why should they be restricted to give support?
again you are the pot calling the kettle black ..
This is why campaign reform is on the table. Currently, the money backing your campaign has a direct relation to how well you will do. That is a system that does not work in the interest of the people.
I'd much sooner have campaign reform than restricting one's potential for wealth.
There is no message for the movement because you are the energy behind the agenda of a few. Most of the trolls on here are Canadian anarchists supporting Adbuster and/or Global Revolution(the brand), or college friends of Mr Hall, who I believe to be a contact for government infiltration. By doing this they make sure that you guys are so confused and scattered that you need OWS. They have attacked in many forms any branch of the movement not directly under the control of OWS. I have a project of my own, they tried to shut down the facebook page for it.
Can you please explain this a little further? "The agenda of a few" - what is the agenda and who are the few? Who is Hall and why do you believe he is part of a govt infilitration?
Are you implying that the govt wants to confuse the protesters? Why? What is your facebook project?
My understanding is that anarchists started this movement. Are they now trolls? How so?
Sorry if this seems like an inquisition! But I guess it is. I am seriously interested though.
It's irrelevant. The people are coming off the street. They have seen enough and know enough, the movement is no longer reliant on the OWS brand.