Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Jart, what is the purpose of this protest ?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 4, 2012, 12:32 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB (1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I've been told OWS wants to overthrow the government / create a civil war. Is this true ?

[-]1 points by Jjons (52) 21 minutes ago

The OWS agenda is to overthrow the government altogether, so no, they are not interested in political affairs. They just use direct action in the hope that they can force a civil war.

193 Comments

193 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The purpose is to fight back.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's a given. People are asking about how. What does "fighting back" actually mean? What does OWS believe it should look like?

"Fight back" is a generality. What are the specifics going forward? Right now, a great many supporters are feeling bewildered, and a great many detractors are working very hard to exploit that bewilderment.

I am aware that OWS has established a PR and press relations committee. Perhaps that committee can clarify a few things for the rest of us who can't, for one reason or another, make it to GA meetings.

[-] 6 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You're looking at one of the people who helped start the PR working group, although I haven't been directly involved in it myself for months. But still, most of what we do with this website is PR.

Anyway by "fighting back" what I mean is taking direct action to loosen Wall Street's grip on power. We all have visions for how a better society would operate, some of us are anarchists, some marxists, and some liberals. The things we've pretty much all had in common is complete and total opposition to the current financial system and the use of direct action to create change rather than solely focusing on passive activities like voting or endorsing politicians.

What you can expect going forward in spring is the volume turned up. You're going to see more occupations, worldwide general strikes, and massive shows of resistance.

Then one of two things will happen, a) the government will be so terrified of the possibility of mass insurrection that it'll pass sweeping reform measures that strike at the heart of inequality (like the New Deal) without us even asking, or b) the American Empire will fall. Both of these are desirable outcomes, from my own personal point of view that is.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Hey jart

mind if I make a prediction?

We will turn up the volume, our success will largely depend on

  1. our ability to maintain control over the public perception of who we are and what we represent - and this includes strict adherence to principles of non-violence.

  2. our ability to network within communities where we operate:

    • to undercut forceful resistance to the movement where possible

    • to join with other organizations like unions, raising a common message

While groups like the black block may support our efforts - we cannot and must not support them. They must remain on the fringe, and they must accept that. There is no other way for us to make our message part of the mainstream dialog.

The more successful we are, will translate into success at the ballot box. We can't expect sweeping reform from Congress this summer - it won't happen. They may throw us a bone here or there, in an attempt to undercut our message, but they will not offer up meaningful change - not on the eve of election. Rather they will attempt to use us to bolster their own party base, and increase their hold on Congress.

If repelicans are successful, and there are some who predict they will maintain their grip on the House and gain control of the Senate - then going forward the opposition to this Movement will most certainly increase.

At that point it is likely that groups like the black block will appear to become more mainstream.

There are several wild cards at play - one of them is the weather itself, and the point at which public opinion swings overwhelmingly toward acceptance of anthropogenic global warming. Other issues like this include various industries, and their impact on society - another economic crisis, or major oil spill, these are issues that are unpredictable, much of the affect of such instances is dependent on timing.

The American Empire isn't likely to fall without some major upheaval resulting in internal chaos; or complete economic meltdown, which would probably go global, which in turn would tend to insulate the government to some degree from the public backlash. Private institutions in such an event as that last would not fair as well as the government itself.

It should be remembered that not all in government are terrified of massive demonstrations - there are many who know that this is the only way to restore the republic.

[-] 3 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

We will turn up the volume, our success will largely depend on our ability to maintain control over the public perception of who we are and what we represent - and this includes strict adherence to principles of non-violence.

All this talk of internal violence is much ado about nothing because occupy activists aren't going around hurting people. We has an amazing track record of not being violent and the media will do whatever it possibly can to portray us in a negative light. People will throw an empty water bottle at cops and it'll get covered in news. Seriously? That's why the media pounced on the Tim Pool incident. They're so desperate to find ways to discredit us that the best thing they could possibly find was two men getting into a scuffle. Well guess what, men get into fights and when you blame the movement, you're doing the medias job for them. When you try to police the movement by demanding everyone adopt a pacifist ideology, you're detracting from the real issues of economic injustice and war.. When you believe it's our fault for not appeasing the perceived wishes of a media that's against us, you're blaming the victim. Every time you throw a comrade to the wolves for doing something foolish in order to make yourself look better, you're raping solidarity.

We have to stick together to fight the system rather than fighting each other over disagreements in strategy. Nobody in this movement who supports a "diversity of tactics" ridicules nonviolence. We've always strongly endorsed and practiced nonviolence from the beginning. Just because we're not ideological pacifists doesn't mean we're not on your side.

It's also worth mentioning that public opinion doesn't necessarily correlate with the perceived violence of your actions, but rather their effectiveness.

While groups like the black block may support our efforts

The black bloc isn't a group... It's just a tactic where everyone comes out wearing all black (to symbolize unity) and takes direct action in a way that's very difficult for the police to crack down. The tactic itself isn't really about violence as it's about protecting you from police violence. This is because when everyone moves as a unit and looks exactly the same it's impossible to target individuals. The reason people cover their faces is because the cops film/photograph people and use it as evidence against them. Because the black bloc helps keep people safe from the police, it'll be used for all sorts of demonstrations, like a peaceful march in the streets or a more aggressive one that destroys corporate property. Both of these things are illegal and could lead to the police beating you mercilessly. A black bloc is a tool for people who want to be effective, who don't want to be martyrs.

But to be honest I wish people would dress in pink instead of black. It doesn't carry all the negative social connotations.

Edit: Changed the entire tone of the post to be more constructive and less frustrated.

[-] 4 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

When you try to police the movement by demanding everyone adopt your pacifist ideology, you're doing the medias job for them.

I'm just one voice - that is all I am. I'm not trying to police the movement at all. And the last thing I am is a pacifist - this is based on an actual event.

I'm aware that the media are anxious for blood - it sells. It has less to do with ideology and more to do with sensationalism - although among some ideology may be a compelling factor.

The whole question is - do you want soccer mom on our side?

Or not?

Anonymous is anonymous because it engages in illegal activity. You cannot sell illegal activity to soccer mom. She may laugh at certain pranks, but you cannot earn her trust with anonymity.

If we are going to be successful, we have got to have the courage of our convictions - stand up and say this is me, this is who I am, this is what I believe, and I am not afraid.

You can't do that wearing a mask.

I drink a lot of coffee - I don't drink Starbucks coffee because they siphon the money right out of the local community. But I'm not breaking their window. And I won't be part of a protest where the consensus is that breaking that window is what must happen - today - because this is the kind of behavior that will defeat us. It will defeat us in the minds of soccer mom.

That kind of violence will tend to happen regardless - it will happen because of agents provocateurs intent on creating just that kind of iconography - which is then used in several ways -

  1. to turn away soccer mom

  2. to harden the minds of law enforcement personnel as they are tasked with controlling us

  3. to erode our support from small business owners who fear what expenses they may incur just for having a shop on the wrong street, one day out of a decade of days

  4. to reinforce political pressure on city government: to keep us contained, and to protect private property

EDIT

There is a fifth way violence works against us - it makes it impossible for unions to join with us. If we are going to get working class Americans to support us, then we are going to need the unions on our side.

[-] 3 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I wish you wouldn't make your argument by stereotyping women. Just because someone's a middle class mom doesn't mean she's categorically opposed to breaking the law. And if they are then they certainly aren't going to like OWS because half the things we do are illegal. You think we get permits for our demonstration? This is because no unjust law should be followed. That's the whole point of civil disobedience.

So this is what I'd say to the hypothetical soccer mom. Come join us. Help us fight for social justice and make the world a better place for your children. We'll make you feel welcome, appreciated, and listen to what you have to say. We'll also do whatever we can to help you get involved in whichever way you feel most comfortable.

This is because outreach isn't about ideologies, it's about making people feel welcome and giving them practical ways to get involved. Unfortunately occupy hasn't been that great at getting moms involved because it's hard to sleep in a park when you have kids. It's also not a safe place for kids to be because the police terrorize our encampments.

But if she hates what the movement is doing then she's not going to join. It's as simple as that. So what I'd do is wish her well and recommend one of the thousands of other movements and organizations she might like to join (occupy isn't the only way to fight for social justice!) What I won't do is pander because when you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one.

But I honestly don't understand why people accuse us of not being inclusive. This is one of the most inclusive movements we've probably ever seen. I can't tell you how hard myself and others have worked to ensure everyone (anarchists, liberals, libertarians, etc.) can be a part of this movement and fight for social justice in their own special way. That's why we never branded this as an anarchist movement. We want to see the 99% united, which means solidarity comes first. The people demanding we kick out the anarchists, adopt a uniform strategy, and disown people who behave in a way the media doesn't like---they're the ones who're against solidarity and inclusiveness.

But I'm not breaking their window. And I won't be part of a protest where the consensus is that breaking that window is what must happen - today

I don't want to see people breaking windows either. I think there are much more effective tactics that don't involve being an angry dude breaking shit. But just because I don't like that tactic doesn't mean I'm going to pull a "no true scotsman", or snitch on them to the police.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22236) 2 years ago

Moms are here. ;- )

[-] 2 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Point of affection <3

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I have personally had windows of my store broken, though not during a protest. I consider the local police to be friends and definitely part of the 99%. Please assure me that you will "snitch" to the police if you know who broke my window. I am not some bank that just makes a repair call and uses some of my profits, (currently there are none), to do the repairs.

This tactic of breaking windows or any destruction may cause us to lose this very important fight! There will never be anywhere close to a 99% if this tactic is allowed.

[-] 3 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If a local non-franchise business had a windows broken by protesters (which is rare because people who break windows almost exclusively target large corporations) I would help them raise money to get the window fixed.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You make a great point. Even if OWS would commit to non-violence, there would still be situations in circumstances as this that are bound to get out of hand for various reasons, like there already has been. As far as I'm concerned, even one person being hurt is one person too many. It doesn't take much for a situation with large groups of people to spin out of control. Even if all intentions are 100% good, mistakes happen.

The very very least OWS could do is have a zero tolerance policy for violence. Knowing that the reality is, there will still be incidents. It's impossible to eliminate it completely, but to not have zero tolerance to begin with, OWS is just that many steps closer to these inevitable incidents.

But it seems as OWS is more concerned with being inclusive, than working to exclude some or any amount of violence. Because to be inclusive of those who might engage in violence, effectively excludes many others who won't agree with it. So this kind of thinking effectively excludes more people than it includes. OWS has already decided what's it tactics will be and this will not change. No matter if it drives more people away from the movement than to it. Seems its better to have a small protest of angry people that don't mind potentially getting violent, than to have a really large peaceful protest.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

'It's also worth mentioning that public opinion doesn't necessarily correlate with the perceived violence of your actions, but rather their effectiveness.'

Aha! That's the truth!

I'm with you, jart. Enough of this victim blaming. Enough of this violence and terrorism baiting.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

Ever been to Kinshasa?

"The pang, the curse, with which they died, Had never passed away: I could not draw my eyes from theirs, Nor turn them up to pray.

And now this spell was snapped: once more I viewed the ocean green, And looked far forth, yet little saw Of what had else been seen -

Like one that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread, And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread."

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Me? No, never been to the Congo.

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner I see,

and no, I have never been to sea.

[-] 2 points by ancientmariner (275) 2 years ago

I asked jart. I been to Kinshasa. it's horrible. it's anarky. just guys fighting. death everywhere. human life cheaper that one copper penny. men with ego like mosters leading half starved soldiers to rape and murder.

I mean this - this is true. this is anarky. this is life without law, without restraint. don't go there.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I didn't plan on it. I have this . . . um . . . confidence, that the kids experimentation with the GAs will in all likelihood cure most of them of their more idealistic tendencies in about ten years or so.

Not that I have a problem with the GAs, I don't. they seem to function fairly well just the way they are. More or less.

the need for change is obvious, it is dire, and the kids have given us an organizational framework that can make it happen. I'm grateful for that.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

What do you think terrifying the government means?? You think the government will be terrified by being peaceful?

There is no committment to non-violence. So there can be no adherence to it. The Direct Action Group has said very clearly that they operate using a diversity of tactics. Not a diversity of "peaceful" tactics. No where does the Direct Action Group talk of non-violent or peaceful.

Restore the Republic? Many anarchists don't believe in government at all let alone care about restoring the Republic.

And the way that this movement is set up, it is to carry out the plans that jart described. The GA can block proposals with a 10% downvote. This effectively prevents any change in the movement. So even if 90% of a GA voted for a non-violent, peaceful protest, it could be blocked very easily by a small 10% minority. And the 10% minority are the anarchists that started this movement and I suspect are the most dedicated attendees at the GA's. And they probably make up a large portion of the most influential and important Working Groups too. Like the Direct Action Working Group.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Special thanks to those who started OW. Enough of victim blaming. Enough of this violence and terrorism baiting. Strength and solidarity is what wins, not jumping through hoops for the enemy meida.

[-] 0 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

How am I blaming the victim? Its exactly the opposite. Why are we victims? Victims of what?

The movement shouldn't set up situations for violence, or encourage violence by demonizing authority, or put itself directly at odds with authorities. We shouldn't view ourselves as victims or seek to portray ourselves as victims of some unfair police state, and actively create those situations. This is a weakness instead of coming from a position of strength. And I think strength in numbers would be more powerful than a smaller movement that turns more people off, for lack of commitment to nonviolence.

At this point it just looks idiotic for the movement to create situations for large amounts of people, like the 400 in Oakland 2 weekends ago, to be arrested, not for peaceful protesting, but for breaking and entering.

It has nothing to do with jumping through hoops for the media. We should work to come from a position of strength for ourselves first and foremost.

To ignore the media entirely is foolish, and again, puts ourselves in a position of weakness instead of strength. If the media and authorities were with us, because we can work collectively to behave and conduct ourselves in a manner that wouldn't invite the enormous amount of criticism, this would be a huge strength.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

We could really avoid criticism by the media and one percenters by doing nothing. They'd love us but soon forget us.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

The movement shouldn't set up situations for violence, or encourage violence by demonizing authority, or put itself directly at odds with authorities.

If we aren't protesting authority, what exactly do you suppose Occupy is protesting. You cannot actually think it is ok to say that protest is actually unwelcome and not within our rights.

Secondly, simple math would tell you that the rate of violence has been higher coming from law enforcement and considering the level of tension, the protesters have had a mild reaction. In that article I want you to take notice of all the mentions of violence and who is perpetuating it thus far.

Out of at minimum, hundreds of thousands of people in support of Occupy, I think it is time you provide more than a few dozen people acting under a preexisting movement called Black Block as your evidence that Occupy is responsible for the violence. I also think you owe an apology to the Occupy protesters that risked their own safety to protect private property and bystanders.

Is Occupy the source of violence? No, clearly not. Should American citizens continue to allow police brutality under the social norms that it's ok to beat up on hippy punks? No, clearly not.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm not protesting against authority. The government isn't fundamentally bad. There's only some bad laws. Are you saying you are protesting against government in general?

Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed in a number of circumstances. Why would I apologize to Occupy protesters who stood up and did the obvious right thing? I've never said anything against Occupy protesters in general. I've only ever criticized OWS ptb. Mainly for its structure and News articles. Regular protesters are not responsible for these things.

And to the extent that some protesters put themselves in danger to do the right thing - this is exactly why there should be a zero tolerance policy against violence. I don't want to see anyone in a situation where they have to put themselves in danger, because of the bad actions and poor choices of what might be a few people. That's the whole point of advocating for a non-violent commitment. To hopefully minimize these types of situations as much as possible.

OWS can help to minimize violence by not writing News articles that demonize authority and invite Blackbloc participation and tactics.

What good purpose does it serve to demonize authority? And invite arrests by breaking and entering into a building? It demonstrates what exactly? What is the message that it is sending?

OWS should stop creating situations that it knows will invite consequences from the police. Did those people in Oakland think the police were going to let them walk right into a building they intended to break into that they didn't have any right to "occupy"? They knew there would be consequences for that. They knew they were not going to be able to just move into that building and set up a community. They wanted that reaction from the police. There was not real intent to "occupy" that building. That was simply an excuse to invite confrontation with authority.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

This is a protest. If you don't think we should be protesting authority, you are saying we shouldn't be protesting. With that, I'm sure you see how ridicules your argument seems. We are protesting. If you don't like that we are protesting, you should say that instead of ignoring the definition of the word and pretending we don't already know that yes, we are protesting. Your entire argument is a paradox of misunderstanding.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ptotest.aspx

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Peaceful assembly was never intended to protest authority, but to present to the government grievances.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm not going to argue the definition of the word protest with you, you're being absurd. You will need to take that up with society and Websters.

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

assembly facilitates organization and product

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

OWS shouldn't trample over the rights of others in order to protest complaints with government. I think there is plenty of public space that could be used in Washington DC where Occupy should focus its efforts. Or plenty of public space in any city on or around government buildings. Our grievances aren't with the city of Oakland's convention center. Which Occupy Oakland tried to break and enter into in an effort to Occupy it without permission.

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

it does make efforts the shut the protest down ny closing camps sort of feudal

[Removed]

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

Most news articles on this site are about the right to peacefully assemble, about police confrontations, etc... not about the issues the protest was supposed to be about.

they're is certainly news about the government spending millions to oppress the protest

but I would not say most subjects

Forum Topics

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

That sounds so much nicer and .. civilized.

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

right

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

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

spaghetti is cheap and efficient as is rice

it takes 10 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef

no one wants to be hurt by the police

[Removed]

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

actually it does

we are are discussing the issues right now because of that

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The constitution allowed for peaceful assembly in public places.. and though the founders did not have internet , than yes our conversations here and now could fall under the provisions of peaceful assembly in a public place. The purpose being to discuss grievances for petitioning of the government.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Well I know that we are protesting. lol. Maybe I misunderstood your wording. When you said "protesting authority", it sounded to me like you are protesting government as a whole, rather than laws of.

Anyway, why shouldn't OWS do everything it can to minimize violence? Because it can do more.

Do you think it was right, for example, that the Oakland group should try to break and enter into a building that didn't belong to them and they didn't have permission to use?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes. It's called civil disobedience and it is the tool chosen by protesters to get the reaction violence usually triggers, but without harm to other human beings. When people take part in such actions, it's planned and calculated. They know they will be arrested and are prepared to deal with it. The end result of such actions are as you have seen, organized and mild. ie, the protesters do not resist when the arrests begin. But they still make the point, it's more effective than violence. When they start breaking into occupied dwellings, then you may have an issue to raise.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The purpose of protestor violence is to cause a police reaction and thus villainify authority. The process tends to gain protestor support. Of course most Americans see right through the ploy and it only looks the protestor the fool.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Who said anything about overthrowing. Your assumptions depend on the idea that Occupy goals are not achievable within the legal framework of the US gov. In fact sir you will find most of it is covered under the right to assembly and the rest is covered under free speech. Hell, this stuff is so part of our culture, they sell permits to do it on a large scale in public space. They don't even charge rent.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

More assumption on your part and attempting to supplant your opinion for the thoughts and actions of other people. You can't believe that people take you at face value when there is a link at the top of this forum leading directly to the people you attempt to speak for. All the user accounts, stalking, voting abuse, you are starting to lose it or already have. Taking so much time and energy to be negative, stalk, and harass people is definitely indication that you are mental.

[Removed]

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

Could you do me a favor and call off your bots. I like to read what GirlFriday has to say and it is a little irksome having to uncollapse her responses. It would be nice if you could be a bigger person and end your personal crusade. Thanks!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

an effort to wrestle the power away from the anarchists

Your delusional. You just keep spouting the same tired crap. No proof and when asked for it you tell people to go look for it. I don't care if you believe it, just as long as you know I deal with you in the light of knowing you're off kilter. Check yourself and maybe come back with a productive and sane approach.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

richard, what do you want proof of? Anarchists are running the movement with a 10% minority. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. Only that that is the way it is.

It only takes a 10% minority vote in the GA to block any action. This is how the anarchists maintain their power in the movement. If it was a 1/3 vote, it would be a little easier for moderates to make changes to the movement. Like develop demands for instance. Anarchists started it and anarchists are effectivly running it, with a 10% minority. jart said herself, the only reason this movement wasn't advertised as an anarchist movement is because they wanted to be inclusive -

"That's why we never branded this as an anarchist movement".

http://occupywallst.org/forum/jart-what-is-the-purpose-of-this-protest/#comment-626368

You might say there are more liberals or moderates, yes, in absolute terms you're right. But absolute numbers are not what is driving the decision making on the most important of the decisions. Like the direction of the movement. Important decisions like commitments to non-violence, leadership, developing and executing plans for the movement, deciding on demands and tactics. These things - even if 90% voted for a single demand to protest for getting money out of politics, it could easily be blocked with a 10% minority downvote.

Based on this decision making structure, absolute numbers are almost meaningless for key decisions. The structure that is in place prevents change to the movement and serves to maintain the status quo. No demands, Direct Action tactics and maintaining a leaderless non-organization organization. Its not about absolute numbers. Its about the structure that is in place for decision making.

I'm just saying - it is what it is. Recognize it for what it is, rather than argue against the simple facts.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

So even if 90% of a GA voted for a non-violent, peaceful protest, it could be blocked very easily by a small 10% minority.

the reverse is, then, also true. A 90% vote in favor of violence could be blocked with 10%.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm not worried about the 90%! I don't believe 90% would vote in favor of violence. That is not the problem. But I think it is entirely likely that 10% would block a vote for non-violence. Which I think has already happened. Which is why Direct Action operates using a "diversity of tactics".

I'm not sure of the exact voting rules in Oakland, but just look at what is going on there. That is just a small preview of what will happen come spring in other cities. If this keeps going according to what jart indicated.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

if ten percent blocked a vote for nonviolence, then in all probability ninety percent won't show up to protest.

I can't really speak to specific actions I haven't participated in.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Exactly. So the movement will be reduced to a very small number of particpants using violent actions. And that's the real difference.

OWS seems intent to become a movement of Direct Action that will in all likelihood get violent in order to terrify the government in which only a small minority of people will participate in that.

Instead of a really really huge peaceful protest, which alot of people would participate in to make some really important changes by peacefully protesting government.

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

..violence is abhorent

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

It seem to be turning out that way in Oakland's FTP rally tonight. There is only a fraction of the numbers who showed up last weekend. And some of the people who are there are wearing white as an anti-black bloc message.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Smashing windows, burning cars - these are acts of violence. If the movement is to gain the public trust, it must condemn such activity. There was a video of Occupy protesters in California arms locked, preventing some from I presume the black block, from breaking a large plate glass window.

This is the way it must be. The Occupy Movement cannot endorse property destruction. Property destruction is not civil disobedience - it is vandalism. There are too many on the right anxious to hang that label on us already. If it appears valid it will undercut our support among the general population.

Like any American citizen, jart is entitled to her opinion.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (22318) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A plurality of tactics has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with keeping fluid, being agile, moving fast. None of that has anything to do with violence. We are Peaceful Warriors. The best kind of Warrior. Our weapons are Truth.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (22318) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Common sense. Thanks.

It's just not that common. Hence the education of America and the World continues unabated.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

there are those who would disagree with my assessment - some would insist for example, that it is better to attempt to engineer forceful backlash against the movement by authority, rather than to seek ways and means to undercut such authoritarian impulses. They would point to the obvious benefit of the iconography of such incidents as college kids getting peppersprayed while sitting in the grass.

I am confident that there will be more than enough of such opportunities that we need not attempt to engineer them.

On the contrary - the more transparent we are, the more fearless we are with our identities and our purpose, the greater trust the public is apt to show us. A part of gaining that trust is demonstrating that we are committed to nonviolence, and will work to reduce opportunity for confrontation to spiral out of control - diligently.

It may well be that the more successful we are toward such a goal, the more resistance we will face from authority in districts under tight grip of the ideology we oppose.

In any case, we need not - I am quite sure - attempt to engineer incidents that can be used as iconography - they will arise all on their own. What we need to focus on is who we are - what our message is, and how we hold it up high. The way in which we go about this will determine how much trust the public places in the movement itself.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22318) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth!

Let us continue with facts and quiet dignity.

Let the Bullies call abuse down on themselves.

We are Peaceful as well as in the right. That is our strength.

Truth & Peace.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thank you, Jart.

Although I'm not sure I share your view about the American Empire's falling, I very much appreciate your reply, and I suspect others do as well. It is probably the most detailed explanation I have seen so far.

Again, thank you. And wishing us all great success in seeing sweeping reform.

And, as a personal note, congratulations to you, Jart and OWS, for what you have done so far. The fact that OWS has changed, significantly I believe, the entire dialogue of the whole country is simply amazing and heartening. And it has done so by rightly casting income disparity and corporate and political corruption in clear moral terms. If it does nothing more, all by itself that's a great accomplishment. I may not share all of your specific goals, but I'm damned sure glad you exist!

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Just brainstorming here, but it sounds like option a) could be violent. In which case, I'm just guessing here, but only a small minority of people would participate in this. So it seems like this small minority would be doing all the dirty work for everyone else. That doesn't seem very fair.

What about instead, working for a really really gigantically large peaceful protest, which lots and lots of people would be willing to participate in. To protest against a few really key things, like income and wealth disparity and the corruption of government.

I don't know - call me crazy! Just an idea.

[-] 2 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The system is already violent. Wall Street and the American Government overthrow third world nations unprovoked, kick people out of their homes, ravage mother nature, violently crush peaceful dissent, throw people in jail for years for smoking plants, terrorize communities of color, and so much more. Violence is allowing this system to continue.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There are better ways to fix these things. We're a nation of laws. We can change the laws.

Violence leads to more violence. Instead of being a solution it's a damaging and dangerous race to the bottom. For it to end, one side needs to take the higher road.

Why shouldn't OWS be that change and take the higher road? Instead of lowering ourselves to the conduct of the very thing you say you are against.

If you don't believe in the wars and violence the government has gotten the country involved in, yet you would use war and violence to end war and violence?

So wars and violence is ok if it's something you believe in. Not ok for things you don't believe in. That's what everyone says. That's why we are involved in wars. Because some people believed it was necessary. Same as you do in this case. You're no different than what you claim to be against.

Violence, I just don't think we need to go there. Except as a last resort. I don't happen to believe we're at the last resort stage. I would prefer to see a really really huge peaceful protest first. See if that works. We haven't even tried that yet. We should at least try.

[-] 2 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Listen I'm not advocating violence, I'm just telling you how it is. When massive numbers of people are driven into desperation by the corrupt and powerful and the government refuses to hold them accountable, violent insurrection is inevitable. When governments refuse to make peaceful change possible, violent revolution is inevitable.

The whole reason I devoted my life to this movement since July 15th is because occupying is an effective tactic for undermining power without hurting people or engaging in terribly risky behavior. I hate violence and like you, I view it as a last resort. But I would never tell a person they can't defend themself because it would hurt the movement, or treat nonviolence as though it were an absolute ideal. I also believe that refusing to engage in violence isn't enough, we must actively stop violence using the least harmful method possible.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

jart, can we do something about banning the use of bots on this forum? One poster's grudge is effectively censoring some of the commentators on this site.

[-] -1 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

JFK would agree with jart:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962 35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Jart, with the overthrow and defeat of libya's brutal dictator, were you for or against the support given by the United States Air Force ?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

So the other thing I'm trying to figure, which I asked jart about too - option a) implies that the movement will have to get violent. And I'm thinking only a small minority of people will participate in that. Which seems really unfair that a small minority of people do all of the dirty work for the rest of us.

How come OWS wouldn't instead want a really really huge peaceful protest, which alot of people would participate in to make some really important changes that could address wealth inequality and government corruption?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

You hope OWS succeeds in what? Terrifying the government, creating violence and destruction, with me in my LBD waiting to be bailed out of jail? Or overthrowing the government completely?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Just in making the American Empire fall! Oh thats all.

In that case, you make an outstanding point. I've always loved Canada. They have the best hockey ever and they are so polite there. I think the NHL fans in Canada are a little too polite and quiet. From what it looks like on tv anyway. I get really crazy at hockey games. Never razz your own goalie like the Philly fans do though. Philly fans are the worst. I've only been to a few games in Canada, Toronto. Vancouver fans seem pretty rowdy. I'd like to see Montreal next season maybe. I love the new Winnepeg team, I like alot of the players there. But I'm not sure Winnepeg is someplace I'd want to visit. Sounds very remote.

I've skated on small lakes. Never anything large though.

Aren't you worried about all of us really sickening Americans invading your country though? We'd totally ruin it. Not everyone would appreciate Canada like I would.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I agree with more occupations, worldwide general strikes, massive shows of resistance, and the use of direct action. How can our PR help awaken the masses to understand our need for direct action instead of misinformation causing them to be against us? The government being terrified of the possibility of mass insurrection is a fantastic goal. We need the numbers of people that understand to grow, probably by focusing on a popular issue such as, "Money is not Speech".

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I do not want the American Empire to fall. They are the only good thing on this planet.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22236) 2 years ago

Do you mean America or the American Empire? Two different things.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Both. I love them both.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22236) 2 years ago

Okay. Just wondering. I can see the empire ending, but I love my country too, though I want it to change for the better. Are you not American, FriendlyObserverB?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

beautifulworld , I am your friendlyneighbor to the north.

You have a beautiful nation. Protect her with all your heart.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22236) 2 years ago

I love Canada. I left a part of my heart up there long ago.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It is here waiting for you ..

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22236) 2 years ago

I visit often.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Are you being sarcastic?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Strangely enough, I'm going to have to agree with FriendlyObserver here. This is disturbing.

Setting aside option b) for the moment - terrifying the government implies violence to me. Clashes with authority at a minimum. Bad things will happen. I'm not sure enough people will be on board for that. I'm picturing Oakland, Blackbloc, maybe worse.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

terrifying the government implies violence to me

Governments aren't people. If frightening someone into thinking they might lose their grip on power is violence then I must be a very bad person.

Bad things will happen. I'm not sure enough people will be on board for that. I'm picturing Oakland, Blackbloc, maybe worse.

Then blame the police / state and stop blaming the victim.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I plan on wearing my LBD. I can't do karate in heels though. I can't run very fast in them either. So I'll probably be one of the first batch rounded up and taken to jail. Send bail. I won't last long in there!!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

That makes me feel better. I'll make sure to accessorize with a weapon. It won't be loaded though. I don't know anything about guns! I just want a cute one to go with my dress.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I am being sincere. I like the Americans and what they have done and stand for . They are not what their enemies say they are . Americans are the worlds best and possibly only hope . Why would you want to bring them down ? The very thought I find disturbs me.

[-] 2 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I love Americans. It's the people who rule them that I hate.

This is how perverse our society has trained us to think. We can't even think about human beings as a separate entity from government anymore without clarifying.

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

We can be blinded by hate. Hate is a powerful evil. Hate can break your own heart.

[-] 1 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 2 years ago

I think for a long time American's could argue they did not know what their rulers/government did in their name.

That said, for two generations American's didn't protest much about economics, while they enjoyed being 5% of world population and enjoying consuming 25% of world resource.

Slowly over the past 40 years the US Dollar has lost 94% of its value ( 1970 oil 25 cents, now $4 )

It's no wonder that the frog is boiled and dead, it was a slow process, but albeit complete.

Today the USA suddenly wakes up and its middle-class is gone. The oil war's continue, but the 25 cent gas is gone, ... now we're close to paying that of the real-world.

Having been a world-citizen most of my life, I can say long ago people used to say, "I love americans', but hate your government, but today I see more like post Nazi Germany.

Today the world is saying, you knew about the gas-chambers, but did nothing, for long US citizens could deny, but no longer.

Today virtually everyone knows the IRAN WAR is not about Iran 'maybe' having Nukes, its about OIL, the oil war's of today aren't even being passed to the US public in the form of cheap oil.

So the US public is up in arm's and protesting.

But is the American people essentially good? For 40 years they were a minority people that consumed the majority of the worlds resources, they plead ignorance for years, but now with the internet nobody can plead ignorance, and virtually everybody knows for real what is going on.

I dare say the US public has ran out of excuses in the game of denial.

I would love such as you a nation of people that care's more about the people than its cares about business, but sadly the USA is a nation of business. The right-wing likes to talk about 'family', but we all know they mean their family.

Today the USA is what it is, has the most people in prison and most expensive medical, and has destroyed its middle class.

Looking at what the USA has done to the world in the past 50 years its very difficult to say "They are the worlds best", ... certainly nobody outside of the USA is ever told such a thing.

The USA really can't fix any of its problem's until it has had a good look in the mirror.

Like the comic used to say "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Lastly, the US leadership, after all is elected by 'we the people'. Limited choice I would concur, but good men/women are rarely elected.

Our government is a 'Kleptocracy', and our People are a 'cargo cult'.

[-] 1 points by jart (1145) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm going to be proud to tell my grandkids in 50 years that I was one of the people who actually did something.

n/m I forgot I can't have kids ._.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 2 years ago

We have a saying we call it 'Speak Up', I'll find and post. Every American Must Speak Up, before its too late.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/niempix/NiemollerQuoteMonmouthNJ200pxw.JPG

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/niempix/NiemollerQuoteMonmouthNJ200pxw.JPG

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That may be true, but I'd like that to be stated clearly by an official OWS body. I'm not holding my breath, but a lot of people are hoping for what I asked for.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Here's hoping that changes.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

jart, thanks for honest response.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

There are a lot of implicit assumptions in that statement.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Please elaborate.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

If a preacher says that he's fighting back against the forces of evil, there are a lot of implicit assumptions in his statement, right?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thanks for elaborating. The point is moot, though, since Jart was kind enough to respond to my question.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

One of the implicit assumptions in her response was, "Wall Street's grip on power."

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

That's not an assumption, but a demonstrated fact. Wall street (and many corporations) is currently writing regulations in the Dodd/Frank bill. Industry capture of regulatory agencies has been exposed in a number of cases, most dramatically lately was the Gulf Oil spill last year. Halliburton's connections with Dick Cheney are well known. Lawrence Summers, et al, was enlisted from Wall Street by two administrations, and slowed down the economic recovery. K Street is far better funded and far better represented in the halls of power that the electorate. How many lunches have you hosted with senators, how many junkets have you put together for congressmen?

Those who control the capital control the power. With so much evidence to support that, it is, at best, naive to believe otherwise.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

There are other groups who insist that it's the Jews who control the power. There are even conspiracy theorists who believe that Soviet communists went underground as a fifth-column conspiracy within the United States federal government who secretly control everything. Everybody is entitled to their own unique world view...

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

There is no secret of corporate capture in Government, It has been reported on by The NY Times, Business Week, and even by government itsef: I myself watched Congressional hearing on regulatory capture, The very phrase "regulatory capture" has entered to public lexicon.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

...and I can provide plenty of examples of corporate "power" being thwarted by our democratic system. Here's one:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sopa-hollywood-gop-piracy-286648

If the evil corporations represented by the RIAA and MPAA control the country, then why did the Republican party turn away from SOPA? It wasn't because of Google. It was because of people.

Once you accept certain assumptions, you see everything through that lens. For example, "The Jews are our misfortune." Occupy is about seeing the world through an "us versus them" lens, where "them" is rich people, and "us" is everybody else. That kind of scapegoating dichotomy didn't serve the Nazis well. In this case it's just a rationalization for un-focused, anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian behavior.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

First of all, one single piece of legislation, temporarily tabled, does not mean a thing in this context. Don't you understand that industry capture is ubiquitous, and effects virtually ever single law that's written? (Also, you're wrong about Google, et al, not being responsible for tabling the legislation. It was an industry led protest, not simply a man-in-the-street one, representing a great deal of money. It was simply one industry's demands versus another's and internet commerce is far bigger than the RIAA.)

Do you know that the provisions of Frank/Dodd, supposedly a bill ensuring the banks behave in the future, are being written by the banks themselves, and that was it's intention? Do you realize that the Affordable Care Act was written largely by the very insurance companies it was supposed to regulate (Max Baucus's chief of staff was the insurance industry's chief lobbyist prior to her working in the Senate). Don't you remember how Lieberman held everything up in the Senate because his constituents, the insurance industry headquartered in Hartford (as opposed to the people who elected him), wanted even more?

Do you remember how the last administration formulated its energy policies? How Dick Cheney brought in all the major oil executives and had them write it?

Do you know who Larry Summers is, or Ben Bernanke? Have you ever heard of the phrase "the fox guarding the hen house"?

The government is no longer your representative. It is a corporate bitch.

OWS is about indeed anti-establishment. It is against the establishment of corruption, of the undermining, buying and selling, of democracy. It is against the authority of plutocracy and corporate oligarchy. Becuse that problems extend to so many areas of our lives, from health care to jobs to millions being kick out of their homes, OWS is multi focussed in its actions. But it is singularly focussed on re-establishing democracy in its mission.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

It's a funny thing how the web allows you to forget there are real people on the ground protesting things like paying to bail out the bank while nobody bails them out and the banks broke the law but we have to pay for it. Then to try and attach the idea of overthrowing the government to those people. To say if you exercise your first amendment rights that you are a traitor. Sometimes you need to pull back from the screen and breath some non-digital air to remember there are people being paid to discredit other Americans and they are the real traitors.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Everything listed in that article is legal and achievable within our constitutional rights. The right to assemble covers most of your complaint. What do you have against people exercising their rights? It may be new and strange to you but that doesn't make it illegal or any of the other things you imply with little evidence to back. I think you're being a little melodramatic about the whole thing. I'm tired of posting the definition of revolution on this forum so you'll need to look that up lest you continue to look ill prepared for the debate you're engaging in.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

So then you could show me where they declared with the same level of authority that they are calling for an end to the United States government? I hear you repeating the same article and the same lines but have yet to go any further into making your point. Nobody is going to make it for you and I would say by the responses, you have yet to make that point. Even by omitting the parts of the same page you got that few lines from, you still don't have a compelling argument.


in·san·i·ty/inˈsanitē/

Noun:

1.The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.

2.Extreme foolishness or irrationality.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

What exactly isn't transparent? Everything you complain about comes from a GA or working group.The names and activities of every single one of these groups are available, here for example and some of the working groups have separate google sites with more information and shared web documents with real-time data. Have you tried to contact any of them with your concerns? Do you expect nobody will look for this information and see that your complaints are invalid?


2.Extreme foolishness or irrationality.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

and you can't be bother to post a link? I looked but didn't see anything like what you mentioned. You'll need to give a link or something.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Like I said, nobody is going to make your argument for you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, anyone intelligent will do the work required to make your point for you even though you don't have the motivation to put forward the information to make your argument. Anyone not in agreement is because they don't understand, right? Anyone not in agreement just isn't listening or reading, right? riiiiiiiggghhhtt....... well keep waiting, maybe it will happen for you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The only time to, "work with politicians", is when the politicians recognize that we have the right cause, a cause they should also join. Maybe all out revolution won't be necessary.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

I believe everything should be clear and transparent, including a non violent revolution, if necessary. The time is now to insist that unless changes are made, we will revolt. Hopefully, this would lead to having the necessary respect to "work with politicians", for the good of everyone.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I certainly hope that is pure propaganda. The movement is focused on (or better be) economic reform that provides for a more equal playing field. If it thinks it can overthrow the US Government/MIC then it is composed of people who have lost their grip on reality.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Well, people have the right to wear whatever clothing they want. They also have the right not to be photographed in public if they don't want to. But they don't have the right to conceal their identity/faces, like outlaws in the old west or crooks robbing a convenience store, in the commission of crimes.

If they want to wear black to reduce police violence on them fine. If they want to wear black so they can pillage and plunder, that is another matter entirely.

[Removed]

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

I've bee pulled and had my car confiscated and vandalized by the police because the computer told them I was a criminal

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Unfortunately, small acts of violence/property damage may occur. Lamentably, large-scale riots could even take place. Both destroy the credibility of the movement. But violent overthrow of the US government and it's military is impossible, --- period.

I really hope the majority of Occupy members realize this.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

FriendlyObserverB made such a great point below and said it so well: "The idea of the American government , was for the people by the people . I am sure they would not want to overthrow that one very important principle.

The people overthrew the principles of monarchy, but parts still remain in the form of capitalism . The government is a capitalists worst enemy , and capitalists are always trying to infiltrate and overthrow the government , with bribery, coerscion and what ever method necessary to gain power over the people. And many have become confused thinking it is the government that is the enemy .. but this is propoganda spread by the wealthy capitalist and his media henchmen. Government is our only voice .. we lose that we lose everything."

I would personally add the following: The reason the slickest of the 1% were able to perpetrate the 2008 financial crisis heist is that the government had been hijacked by corporate interests and the government lacked the power to do anything. SEC was down to tiny staff with very little inclination or power to investigate. Government is NOT the enemy. THOSE THAT HIJACKED THE GREAT AMERICAN SYSTEM ARE THE ENEMY. And we must fight that enemy the only effective way possible: by love and monviolent tactical action.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

For the most part government is humble and tries to please everyone, but they to can be manipulated.

Thanks therising , it is good to recognize who is the enemy.

[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

It does not really matter what OWS wants. What matters is what most* people want.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

The purpose of the protest is the same as the purpose of an inflammation on the body.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Good god man, haven't you been watching the news? And I don't mean on your prime time, Fox, NBC, CBS stations!!
Do you read, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA times, Washington Post, Business News? Are you that oblivious to what is taking place in this country, around the world? If you don't know OWS purpose, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum and should go back to bed!

Why do you hecklers believe OWS needs to defend itself for you all? So, what is Wall Streets purpose then?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

YES !!! Its the only way, but we shall try to take back the country civilly first, but like a prophet I predict it will come down to what you said, overthrow the government "which is allowed according to the declarance of independance when a government no longer represents the people" / or create a civil war.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

you're right .. I forgot about that .. was it the declaration, or constitution ?

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

I'm not so sure that supporters, if they are truly supporters, are bewildered. I would be more bewildered by the current events taking place with the economy of this world market. If individuals are bewildered, then they should read the OWS forums "worldwide" link. Keep up with the news that is being posted here and stop taking the Corporate owned media's word which glosses over the truth. Watch Bill Moyer's, PBS and the news that is on the national public channels,. There should be no reason for anyone to be "bewildered" by anything that is taking place world wide, other than the fact that what corporate greed, national money market manipulations have done to destroy the basic sustenance of existence here in America and around the globe! The only parties who should have bewilderment are the corporations who created this mess in the first damn place!

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I agree. It is not only America that is having problems with greedy capitalists, it's a world wide problem.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

[-] 3 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

The idea of the American government , was for the people by the people . I am sure they would not want to overthrow that one very important principle.

The people overthrew the principles of monarchy, but parts still remain in the form of capitalism . The government is a capitalists worst enemy , and capitalists are always trying to infiltrate and overthrow the government , with bribery, coerscion and what ever method necessary to gain power over the people. And many have become confused thinking it is the government that is the enemy .. but this is propoganda spread by the wealthy capitalist and his media henchmen. Government is our only voice .. we lose that we lose everything.

[-] 2 points by therising (6643) 2 years ago

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

We are the government - the body of the people. There is a cancer on the body of the people and we know we need to cut that cancer out of that body. The question is this: do we need a scalpel or a bone saw? Great news for the cancer - it can choose how it wants to be removed.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

usually the patient dies .. poor analagy / metaphor.

If we are the government than to overthrow the government would be to overthrow ourselves .. do you see the falacy in this ..

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Some (the few) are acting in a manner that's perceived as detrimental to the others (in this case,the many). What then would you say needs to be done?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

OWS needs to stop the demonstrations, clean up the parks /campgrounds, pack up their belongings, and walk away peacefully.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

OWS is a protest against Wall Street fraud and Wall Street's influence over the government. As well as a protest against the GREED that has created the warfare against the middle class and the poor.

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

If an open internet voting source is founded,

there is no need for revolution

if the peoples voice can be verified

[Removed]

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

the voting of the people with or with out government power cannot be ignored

[Removed]

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

if people vote with their names,

anyone and everyone can verify and count the vote

public recognition will not be deniable

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

A classic principle of voting is that it be private so people cannot be penalized for the way they vote. Such as employers. As it is, your facebook and your political views are being analyzed by employers, I don't see how giving them more of this power will fix corruption.

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

the employers practices should also be public

that way their corruption and coercion of the vote will be apparent

the real problem is getting the public to speak out

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2950) 2 years ago

To re-strike a balance between socialism and capitalism and end the monetary take-over of the United States that suppresses the rights of the people - especially the little guys

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Jjons, is just trying to spark discussion

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hmmm.... good point.... maybe;

it's needs reflect more...

They just use direct action in the hope that they can force a "non violent" civil war.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

oh... I do also believe that if things don't change violent up-rising is coming... how-ever I also believe that that is what the OWS movement is all about... trying to make the changes necessary to stop it.... maybe

They just use direct action in the hope that they can force a "non violent" civil war before it becomes a violent one.....

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hmmm... I hope that is not an accurate projection

it might appear like it at times though...

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

"some of us are anarchists, some marxists, and some liberals."

" the American Empire will fall"

Hmmm.........where have we heard this before?

[-] 0 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

Fortunately, The Founders left us with a government that the people can choose to replace lawfully and peacefully. It will require the creation of new political parties, however, because both the ruling parties in this country are beholden to corporate interests.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

Direct democracy is not a workable concept. In history, it has never worked and will never work. People cannot find consensus without moderators (e.g., political representatives) to help them find consensus. However, I do agree that representatives should be held strictly accountable to the people, meaning that the people can throw them out of office more easily, and can vote "no confidence."

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by Algernon (26) 2 years ago

Direct democratic action may be necessary to achieve the goal of a new and revitalized republic; let us hope that the OWS organizers are astute enough to recognize the need for a republic.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

as they should... yet as long as we have government we do need to send someone to "represent" our voice .... not be our voice

[Removed]

[Removed]