Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: How about spreading the appeal of the Occupy movement to other people and groups like environmentalist and animal rights people?

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 8, 2012, 3:54 a.m. EST by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why not reach to other socially consceince groups who are activist and not too far out but could be a benefit to this movemnt? Like for instance environmentalist and animal rights people? I mean if you want to grow and get more people supporting you why not broaden the appeal and reach out to other people? I see too many who want to limit this into nothing but a sterotypical liberal, Democrat Party support group and voter base. That's just wrong....the two main parties are too similar and two wings of the same bird of prey.

If you want to really impact society in a postive healthy way we all need to start to think out outside the box instead of falling for this "we must all be Democrats only and the Republicans are all the enemy" narrow minded party doctrine. This isn't about Left versus Right...this is about benefiting the American citizens and standing up for our rights. It goes way beyond the two main party distraction and false Left/right paradigm. I can't beleive some of you still don't get that.

We must broaden our base and appeal to more of the average American people. I say we should also make overtures to people out there that are already socially conscience and have some polical experence such as enviromentalist and animal rights people after all isn't unrestrained greed in big business harmfully to the environment and ecology with all the destruction of forrest and concreting over the entire countryside?



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

You really don't have much to offer mainstream groups, unless they need bodies for a demonstration. They have gone a more conventional route and manage to get some legislation passed through the system occupy eschews. Those groups do occasionally ignore political parties, fundraise, and support candidates that will work for their cause. They have political clout, employ lobbyists, and manage to get their agenda moved forward.

An association with occupy comes with a great PR risk. Some of the goals of occupy are being used by politicians, but the group itself is seen as politically dangerous to associate with. My opinion is that you look like an ineffective ally for an established organization. In the end you may have it backwards, other groups will occasionally use occupy, like the unions, but will avoid openly supporting it nationally.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 6 years ago

They should have made a move to get their own people elected from the start. What's the point in having encampments all across the country and not bothering to make a coordinated move to organize and use that power?

[-] -1 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

I couldn't disagree more, chemlady lot's of the environmentalist and animal rights people would look favorably upon the occupy movment. I know there is a large degree of cross fertilization with such people.

I wasn't so much talking about organized groups that claim to speak for environmentalist and animal rights activist as much as the people themselves.

Also I don't know what you mean by constantly refering to 'you" I sure don't represent or claim to speak for the occupy movement as a whole.

[-] 2 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

OWS and all the occupy encampments are represented by my use of the word "you". I had hope at the beginning of all this that OWS would become a national organization and develop political power through the system. OWS seems to have a sizable group within it that doesn't want to use the current political system, and doesn't want to organize politically or recruit candidates for office.

I see that tendency toward anarchy as leading slowly to defeat. There is already dissent between nonviolent members and proponents of black blocs. The way Occupy appears to the people themselves, even in some of it's own videos, makes it unattractive as an ally.

There is a big difference between my support of getting the money out of politics (or any other worthy OWS goal) and wanting to be associated with an out of control confrontation. My causes are making progress already, why accept the PR risk that goes with a rent-a-mob?

[-] 0 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

Well you keep saying you ....you... you...I am not the Occupy Wall Street movement or all the encampments. You don't know who or what I am. I am myself and nothing else.

Also I think the lack of an organization and regular tired old political party like what people are used to may be it's greatest strentgh and not a hinderence.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 6 years ago

Don't obsess so about the pronoun, we're only sharing opinions. The idea in the post was yours, my response is simply that I see it as a flawed idea. There is no reason for groups that have been successful working within the political system to ally themselves with OWS. OWS has image problems and had chosen not to cultivate any political power or support. That makes OWS a liability to groups that support congress people and employ lobbyists.

The OWS approach of no leaders and a sort of anarchist-libertarian-socialist organization limits OWS ability to get any changes initiated. As though they want someone else to do the work. It seems more designed to wait for the entire system to collapse. I see this as limiting it's appeal to the population in general, and certainly to groups that have had a measure of success.

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 6 years ago

Occupy isn't one organization, that's it's biggest problem. Of what use could it be to a national organization. It's seen more as liability when out looking for donations, support, or votes.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago

I think they already do in some areas. I know they have in NY. Atlanta of course is busy with the 500 a night homeless.

I agree with this. However, in order to move beyond the joining up with any organization that is working towards the good of our society, you will have to work towards the implementation of the change that you want to make. One would think that when you appeal to a state representative or senator that they would be willing to listen to the people.

And I ask, how open do you think the Koch influenced politicians are going to be to environmentalists? I don't understand how some people still don't get this.

[-] 0 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

As for the Koch brothers they are hardly the only wealthy financiers who control politicians. There are several of them and they finance politicians in both the major parties not just one.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 6 years ago


[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 6 years ago

This is certainly more feasible than trying to get OWS and the Tea Party to get along. The OWS interests are closer to environmentalist/animal rights groups than Tea Party.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 6 years ago

I agree and welcome these issues as my own. But...

I think the political supermarket is filled with special interest groups. Look at today's headlines. It's time to understand how what we personally focus on is only included in Chef Media's menu, when coalitions are being cooked. All your group can really expect is a place in the soup line, the next time your vote is required.

I believe that justice for the 1%'s crime, is an area that will improve the environment and animal rights. If their crimes go unpunished then justice will likely be skirted for other causes, such as these imperative issues.

For example: I understand that 40 states have agreed to a settlement with some of the fraudulent banks to compensate victims for illegal foreclosures, and the banks avoid criminal penalties. One part of the settlement was a $1700 payment per home that was illegally taken. Chicken feed.

They should have to be reimbursed for what their families have been through and the true loss of money. $1700 is probably a fraction of the money they wasted paying the bank, while being threatened with foreclosure.

The bank bailout should have had provisions to protect bank customers from toxic bank crime.

[-] 0 points by TomTommorow (78) from Hardyston, NJ 6 years ago

Good points jomojo.