Forum Post: Is this movement being co-opted by the left?
Posted 13 years ago on Sept. 29, 2011, 12:50 p.m. EST by oclisa
(74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Seems that it is turning into a socialist extravaganza. Too bad! The real message should be not anti-capitalist but the corrupted system we currently have wherein the monied power elite are in the pockets of our politicians in D.C. Capitalism is not the problem kids, croony capitalism is. If you continue to feature a Socialist message, I am afraid this movement, if at all successful, will not result in any real solution. I supported you in the beginning but I am re-evaluating - just as I did with the Tea Party, which actually started with an anti-corruption, power-back- to-the-people message but was quickly co-opted and distorted by the Republicans with the cooperation of the press. Believe me, even if you don't want your message to be a Socialist one, it is quickly turning into that and the press will go forward with that. Sigh....Guess I am just a movement of one.
There will always be people imposing their point of view whether it be anarchy or communism. But that doesn't mean they represent this movement. I think the demands that have been proposed are well thought out and target crony capitalism at its source. I think the way most people see it Obama and George W Bush are equally responsible for not dealing with white collar criminals head on, so aligning with a political party is pointless. Also I know Michael Moore has controversial points of view, but I am thankful for giving support and exposure to this protest and I would feel the same way if a well known republican supported this protest as well.
...Re-distributing money from the non-socially productive people on Wall Street to the productive working class IS socialism. It isn't that the movement is being co-opted by the left, it's just a leftist movement.
Most of the people here are deeply concerned about social inequality - a key issue on the left, not so much on the right.
Social inequality links: https://occupywallst.org/forum/publicly-financed-elections/
The argument for redistribution of "claim checks": https://occupywallst.org/forum/money-doesnt-exist-not-really/
no, actually, thats not socialism, you got lost. Democracy with limits on what the rich can do to scam the rest of us is still democracy, not socialism.
My initial impression was that this movement was against corporate personhood, undue influence of corporations on government and elections, and that we want a government by the people for the people, not by the corporations for the corporations. These are not leftist views as far as I know.
I disagree with your %90 tax rate on rich people idea.
This movement is about inequality. The divide between the rich and the poor. Corporations are just a front end/ cover up / veil for the wealthy individuals. On a lighter note, legally today as per the latest Supreme court decision a corporation is same as a person, so we are not just against rich corporations we are also against rich wealthy.
I don't see this movement as anti-wealth. I see it as being against the system that allows the wealthy people/corporations to influence the government for their own gains (bailouts, unlimited contributions to campaigns, etc...), and therefore prevent the government from functioning with the interest of the population as a whole.
To reiterate: I don't have a problem with rich people or successful corporations. I have a problem with them owning "my" government.
It sounds like everybody internalizes the movement in a different way.
Money is power, my friend. You want to allow concentration of power and then you want them not to use that power to influence government/politicians to protect their power. How foolish..
It's like you keep candy in the container to see and don't want your child to eat it.
I guess I still believe in the power of law to keep the influence of money out of the government (if there were such laws). Foolish? Maybe, but hopeful.
I know you want to be a rich guy. Wish you good luck and remember to control your greed :)
Please don't assume I'm greedy just because I am not anti-rich. Having money and being greedy are very different things.
Also, please don't make assumptions about my goals in life based on a handful of posts and my handle. It's error-prone.
Let me take another guess, you are already rich and you fear losing your wealthy status. I guess I'm wrong anyways. Also, if rich people are not greedy, let them just keep what is needed to lead a simple, healthy and happy life and donate the rest to charity. Charity is tax deductible you know. Why don't they do that ?
90% top marginal tax rate, there's a difference. And why is that?
It appears to be an anti-rich stand. See my comment above.
Actually, I have been watching from early on when I signed on to Anon and Operation Empire State and I was at Wall St on the 18th and 19th (I live in CA, so that's what I could do) and as I understood this as it formed, the message was anti-Federal Reserve, anti Wall St bailouts and had a Ron Paul-type message. It is not so much "social inequality" as traditionally defined, but anti-pick pocketing that is done by Wall St and its handmaiden D.C., i.e. taking from the 99% of us who aren't mega rich and putting it in the pockets of the 1% who are. This isn't about spreading the wealth, it's about the criminal activity (i.e. theft) and the 1% are the thieves, the 99%, the victims.
Well said, I agree.
I would have to agree with your assessment,but I'm holding out just a little longer.If they could keep the likes of Michael Moore from diverting their "message",and truly keeping their focus on the 99%,I'll continue to support them.If not,would it be okay if I joined your party?
I agree this is a potential problem. This is an open movement so all the professional protesters are out in force. "Abolish money", "free housing for everyone" and other slogans make it too easy for outsiders to dismiss the movement.
The key I think is for people like us to participate even more, not less. This is a democratic process. We can make our voice heard too.
And I think we are far from alone.
That's what is keeping me around.The Right,the Left and even the Center are all corrupt,but the new possibilities seem doable.
I like that and agree. The labels divide us and the citizens will never have any power but will always be led by the nose by whatever label we subscribe to. If this movement continues to have many voices, I would be happy. There is room for those who want to redistribute the wealth and for those who have a Libertarian perspective and everything in between. But the simple and clear message must be this: Stop the corruption, stop stealing from us and from our future. Everything else is just noise.
I agree 100%. OWS won't be successful if it's about socialism or overthrowing the government. Mentioning that is political suicide.
This movement should not be about any particular party, but wrenching power away from the 1% who are keeping our party system from functioning. After that, our democracy might work as it's supposed to.
Right! In truth, many will try to tag the movement as leftist anyhow, thereby dismissing it as the old class-warfare hippy rhetoric. So it's essential that the fundamentals are clearly published. There needs to be a strong distancing from any political or philosophical polemics. This is about the criminal hijacking and manipulation of the free world for the enrichment of a relative few.
And so it begins: Former NBC News Producer Yells at NPR For Missing Leftist Wall St. Protest
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/09/29/former-nbc-news-producer-yells-npr-missing-leftist-wall-st-protest#ixzz1ZP58Xp7A
What is so shocking about a movement created by the left wing media and financed by unions become left wing. it was always and will always be left wingl
What is your evidence that this was a movement "created by the left wing media" and "financed by unions?" That seems a bit preposterous. Give evidence or you are just talking nonsense.
Many here many agree that unfettered capitalism has hurt many people, but that does not necessarily mean they have socialist views.
RESIST LABELS. The beauty of this movement is that is represents people from all walks of life -- all races, genders, classes, ethnicities, and sexual orientation. It's about creating an open and free society that respects the voice of the people. In this sense it is about Democracy in action. DO NOT ALLOW OTHERS TO LABEL THIS GROWING MOVEMENT.
Refraining from labels like "Anti-Capitalist" will ensure this movement remains open to infinite possibilities.
Is there any other kind of capitalism but crony capitalism? Capitalism IS the problem. It is a system of inequality, privilege and propaganda. It is the OPPOSITE of democracy.
We need to replace capitalism with democracy: with a society organized on the principles of Freedom, Equality and Science.
It means everyone has the FREEDOM to pursue whatever lifestyle they want, everyone has an EQUAL power to build that lifestyle and the purpose of SCIENCE is to make those lifestyles possible.
In a real democracy, you would have real equality: equal votes, equal ownership in the economy, and equal pay for equal effort.
If pay was allocated equally in the US, everyone would earn $127,000 per year, enough to make everyone wealthy and enough to end most social problems.
this is spinning attempt to bring us to the right. We are not interested in socialism, we are not interested in being sheeple herded to the right by use of distorted words and mind games. There is no such thing as a capitalist system, thats a lie the corporate oligarchy uses- a fiction- a make believe. We don't have a socialist message. You saying we do is spun rhetoric.
I think the goal is compassion. Compassion has no political stance but that of radical nonviolence and equality.
i agree raylorsun . and i would add the word inclusivity after radical ;=) a beautiful ideal
Radical inclusivity, compassion, and equality, rooted in love.
yes . . nvda as tactic to achieve that ;=)
I don't believe that capitalism can work. As a political society it seems it will always result as the 1% ruling the rest. Because the point is to get ahead. And then those not ahead are upset. So, if you're talking of evening it out, then that is socialist. We belong to a larger society that we can lead with our actions. Other socialist societies are a lot better off than we are. I don't understand why it's so taboo. Capitalism isn't the only way to grow, invent and thrive.
capitalism has NEVER been tried. Socialism has never been tried. And no even-ing things out is NOT socialist. There are no socialist societies on this planet there are oligarchies pretending to be socialist.There are no capitalist systems on this planet there are only oligarchies pretending to be capitalist.
Its crawling with reds.
I agree, not anti-capitalist. These politicians need to be reigned in on. Severely limit lobbying. I do and dont agree with universal heathcare. It should be a private business, but unfortunately its too late for that.
The only way to fix the skyrocketing costs is to adopt universal heathcare. Too many fleecing the system. Liability insurance, and prescription costs have gone way out of control, that is part of the reason why it costs so much to insure yourself.
By the way, in a healthy system you need a mix of social programs like the military, police, and I would argue health care, post office, justice system as well a well regulated capitalist market. Pure Socialism AND Capitalism BOTH end in dictatorship. With Socialism the dictator is a person and with Capitalism the dictator is a board of directors. Our country was settled in large part by Christian communists. Think about that.
I don't think anything is being "co-opted".
It only stands to reason, given the nature of the protest, and the issues it seems to be challenging, that it is naturally somewhat left to begin with. Definitely left of center, but not really out on the fringe.
It really depends on the individual issue.
HI Alan, we'd have to agree to differ . i don't mind the left lean (i'm an anarchist committed to direct democracy - something exemplified by #occupywallst), i do not see that same commitment to direct democracy from corporation or union or government . . every ounce of energy committed as time and action by #oocupywallst to protests that do not support direct democracy is energy being co-opted imo . . no problem with supporting and affilating broadly (as long as it broad) from Liberty Plaza nor with diversity of excellent demands from Liberty Plaza nor with those who wish to affiliate with those in Liberty Plaza . . but joining someone else's dem can be thought of as an act of solidarity and ofc it is that . but the energy of a finite number of people (at present) in Liberty Plaza is being co-opted and absorbed into a cause that is arguably (that is what i am arguing) a cause that does not sit easily alongside the methodolgies of those at Liberty Plaza . . i guess i'm just being proved wrong and being shown that a nodel for society and democracy and participation that i have long believed was possible will tarnish rapidly under competing pressures, not pressures for what is possible but pressures to be absorbed into those structures and institutions that have brought us all to this point, to this moment
I just watched Martin Bashir interviewing Russell Simmons about the Wall Street protesters he met earlier today.
Simmons' primary concern with getting behind this movement (and essentially what's holding him back from calling in even deeper widespread support from the entertainment community), is the lack of a clear direction, and no real substantive objection to focus on.
I'm sorry, but this is just how the protest is being perceived. Unfocused and lacking direction. And that perception isn't exactly wrong.
People need an idea to get behind. And it needs to be a somewhat broad idea (as Simmons put it, something like "getting special interest money out of Washington") that somehow relates indirectly or directly to their particular issue.
People really want to get behind this movement. And they need sufficient reason and purpose, with a clear objective to strive for.
Correction - You got it backwards - the politicians are in the pockets of the monied power elite. Corporations are not people, money is not speech
i agree . . the movement had genuine verve in breadth . somewhat a tabula rasa . . its compelling power stems from there being no leadership . from consensus and from a multiplicity of demands . crony capitalism IS the problem . there is corruption at the heart and soul of government and there is corruption in the corporations and there is corruption in the unions too . i've been a supporter and advocate since day one . . now that you are being co-opted by vicarious other union protests your energy is being dissipated and co-opted too .
I guess this is what happens when you have aleaderless movement - the leaders step into the vacuum. In this case, it was those who lean towards a socialist message who stepped in. If the people who started this don't move in and take it back immediately (and I don't know how they can do that), the message that I believe was meant to be heard will be subsumed. Lesson learned: movements must have a focus and some real leadership.
I have a feeling the people on the streets feel a bit differently than those on the forums. If you watch the TIME video (elsewhere in the forum) you can see at least one person on the street acting as a face for the movement, who is on the capitalist side.
I am hoping a leader will emerge. I have seen some excellent postings on this forum that aren't so radical - especially gandhikingmindset's list of demands.
But if it is yet another far left movement, I'm outta here, along with 95% of the population.
gee... i always thought Steven Learner was the face of the movement!
more important lesson to learn. the far right isn't going to suck us its direction by making a wtich hunt and red scare.
I would have to agree with your assessment,but I'm holding out just a little longer.If they could keep the likes of Michael Moore from diverting their "message",and truly keeping their focus on the 99%,I'll continue to support them.If not,would it be okay if I joined your party?
All are welcome, but what is it about Michael Moore's message you disagree with?
michael moore is dead on right about everything.
especially on the bit about rich people paying more in taxes, even though his $11 million shouldn't be subject to it.
everybody has their shadow i guess.
many.
Make that two!