Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: For OWS consideration

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 2:50 p.m. EST by Adam101 (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

FOR OWS’S CONSIDERATION

It is difficult at best for a leaderless movement without specific goals/demands and a code of conduct to attain meaningful change in society. OWS might want to model itself on successful revolutions of the past, such as the Solidarity Movement in Poland, and to work closer with other movements that seek to overthrow the corrupt establishment, to give itself the best chance of attaining success.

Without recognized leaders to turn to it is easy for the mass media to misrepresent the movement by turning to anyone in a crowd for comment. As a result much of America might be left with a completely distorted view of the movement. This in turn makes it easier for the police to use force. Without clearly recognized spokespeople for the movement it is easier for the establishment account of various incidents to go unchallenged.

Many Americans are left with the impression that OWS consists of a bunch of radicals that are lazy losers, want something for nothing, and are cluttering streets defending their tents. And when they read about clashes with police they assume that the demonstrators started the violence. Thus having elected leaders armed with a stated code of ethics that rejects violence, along with a list of goals and demands, would help counter negative perceptions. Sooner or later trusted leaders will also be needed to negotiate matters with the establishment.

It might be best to initially limit the goals and demands to a few that most of the “99%” can relate to for maximizing support for the movement. That way the people as a whole will associate the demonstrations with demanding something that they believe in as opposed to associating them with protecting just space and tents. “End The Wars,” “End the Fed,” and “Take the Money out of Politics,” are among very popular and meaningful goals to strive for.

Among the most important factors that contributed towards Solidarity’s success in overcoming the establishment’s corruption was having a strong leader (Lech Walesa), declaring itself to be a non-violent movement, and starting with a few specific demands from the start (basically calling for a free worker’s union). Faced with good organization, and a strong leader making very reasonable demands which were supported by millions in the streets, the corrupt Polish establishment was forced to engage from the start. It was also hard to discredit the movement and place provocateurs among them.

There is another move that OWS supporters might want to consider immediately – supporting Ron Lawl for president by demanding equal press coverage and time during debates on his behalf. It is understandable that OWS might not accept all of his positions. Many present supporters of Ron Lawl also disagree with him on some points but recognize that he serves as a powerful and influential force that is challenging the corrupt establishment on some very vital issues, and has a 30 year old proven track record of doing so.

For many years Ron Lawl was laughed at, ridiculed, and basically spit upon while constantly warning of the day that the U.S. would end up in bankruptcy if building empire and crony capitalism continued. A Ron Lawl administration would immediately work effectively and tirelessly to end the wars, curtail the Fed, and his policies would start putting an end to special interest group control of the economy. Ron Lawl does not view this as battle between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, but one of freedom and liberty for the people versus what has become a corrupt elitist establishment.

America is constantly moving in the direction of full scale Depression, bankruptcy, and ever more wars. As the poor get poorer and the middle class gets wiped out, tensions will rise and the conflict between people and establishment will escalate. Soup lines, breakdown of law and order, and riots can be expected in the streets. This could result in much violence and mob rule or, more than likely in the end, a police state. The country and the people will not benefit from either catastrophe.

If the wars, Fed, and special interest group control of the economy were brought to an end then we are 90% of the way towards taking the country back, which is what Ron Lawl and the majority of people stand for. Less important differences would be easier to address under a Ron Lawl administration than with the present establishment. Thus there is a chance that these goals can be attained through the ballot box as opposed to violence in the streets.

When considering that the stakes are so high it is very unfortunate that the American people don’t look to cooperate as much as possible with one another. It is only the establishment that benefits from people focusing on divisions between one another as opposed to focusing on overcoming the establishment together.

2 Comments

2 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by CrossingtheDivided (357) from Santa Ysabel, CA 12 years ago

Right, we should only vote in people that make generalized, obvious predictions, and tell us what we want to hear. . .

. . .because that's worked so well for us so far.

Nope, no flaws in that plan.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

I agree that leadership is required. How about a group representing a good cross-section, similiar to the group that produced the Suffolk Resolves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffolk_Resolves