Forum Post: Make DECISIONS from a position of unified strength rather than making DEMANDS from a position of divided weakness."
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 22, 2011, 8:20 a.m. EST by therising
(6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm on your side. I think making demands right now would be a bad idea. I used to be one of those folks thinking we need demands right away. Now, thanks to many patient and wise people posting on this site, I realize that right now is a time for discussion, a time for discovering what we, the 99% have in common. We, the 99% have been divided for so long, carping at each other.
I now see that this discord was deliberate. It was manufactured by the media machine owned by the 1%. Having that level of discord among the people, the 99%, is the only way the 1% could rule over and exploit the 99%. Because, when you get right down to it, it is absolutely absurd that the 1% be ruling the 99%, especially in a system where each person gets a vote.
So, yes, we can and should discuss goals. We should discuss everything. Now is a time for talking about the new society we want to build. Now is the time to discover how many things we have in common. For once we realize we are the 99%, once we realize that we have more things in common than we have differences, we will be in a position to make DECISIONS from a position of unified strength rather than making DEMANDS from a position of divided weakness.
One last point. Obviously we, the 99%, will want to be very careful how we phrase things. The language we use must be as inclusive as the message. And, if we're advocating democracy, we should avoid having our language or message sound shadowy or authoritarian.
I personally think, no matter what our pure motive and how good our hearts are (really good I think), we should avoid talking about "controlling the message" or "requiring permission" etc. Or, of we do, choose softer terms and, more importantly, give reference to WHO would be giving permission to speak with the press etc. Even though you might know it's the General Assembly, others might not know that if you don't reference it and it can sound like a Dick Cheney operation.
This is not intended to be a harsh criticism. Who am I to criticize people who are giving up their time away from friends and family to fight on our behalf to build a better nation? I have spent time in the park and love you all. Sincerely. I'm just speaking with a voice of love and support saying that I want this to succeed and I'm trying to point out a spot where we may need to tighten up.
Agree. The reason why the media keeps insisting that you have goals is because the population has been trained by the racist right to look for simple, three word phrases, like "tax and spend liberal." Ignore these people. Keep doing what you are doing.
Offer choices. Choices are much better than demands
eg: Big Businesses, do you want more regulations or do you want the death penalty for corporate crimes against society?
Congress, do you want term limits or do you want pay for performance?
Funny i see the Democrats calling Herman Cain an oreo and an Uncle Tom and you claim the right is racists? LOL Racism is when 95% of one race votes for a President because of the color of his skin.
One question, since you brought up the issue of race: If the 99% are truly going to wake up and realize how much we have in common and gain strength, serious power, from that realization, then shouldn't we be getting about the business of making this a diverse movement? And, what means are available to do that in an authentic way?
My point, of course, is that the 1% love the factions of the 99% dividing it up into 99 little groups. That's what led the analysts who authored the infamous 2005 Citibank memo to its largest clients to say they weren't worried about any threats to the plutocracy because the whole 1 person, 1 vote thing is only a tool of revolution if the 99% recognize their commonality. But here we are with a real chance to gather unity. And we know that the economic oppression, the economic chains cross cultural, racial and religious boundaries. It would seem to me that we need to find a way to speak through our own outlets and the press in such a way that more people from all backgrounds (who in some ways share a common oppressor) join in and support the movement.
Agreed.
If this movement is truly successful, it will represent a major change in the economic and political systems of the US.
One major factor in keeping the population under control are the artificial class and race barriers that have been erected by the ruling class. (Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the US has the best explanation of this.) By the way, I include union leadership in the 1% ruling class.
OWS tries to be a classless, raceless movement. This frightens the ruling class to no end. Thus, one of their major social control mechanisms has failed.
To counter this in the short term, they have encouraged hatemongers to post on this forum, and to express sympathy with OWS. The racist right has been insistent on denying OWS any cooperation. These forces of hate have felt threatened since Obama's election, anyway, and they sense the power of this movement. Without an artificial racial and economic divide, many of these groups would have no reason to exist.
Many poor whites make up the bulk of these hate groups, but others, specifically recent immigrants (East Indians, Russians, etc.), belong, too. Poor whites are beginning to realize they have been negatively impacted by the financial crisis. They are beginning to support OWS, so the risk to the ruling class is two fold:
Hatemongers might just wake up and realize they have been played by the 1%, and actually join the movement. This would be a nightmare for the ruling class.
Many of the exploited poor white folks who are hate group members or sympathizers are also members of unions and the police/armed forces. Without a reason to protect the 1%, the 1% would suddenly become quite vulnerable physically.
If the ruling class can paint this movement as racist and antisemitic, they can lower the attractiveness of OWS to the bulk of Americans, who believe in fair play above all else. I suggest occupiers remain peaceful and positive.
That is a fantastic description of the lay of the land. You know what this reminds me of? Shortly before Martin Luther King, Jr. Was shot (no coincidence as far as I am concerned), he had begun speaking out against the war in Vietnam, linking the civil rights movement to the peace movement. Talk about threatening to the power structure. I recall that the FBI files later released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that King's wife was surveilled by the FBI for two years after King's assassination to ensure that she did not make statements that linked the peace movement to the civil rights movement.
It has been said that when they start shooting arrows at you, you must be striking a cord getting to the heart of the matter. You must be hitting one of those tender underbelly or Achilles heel spots. Clearly King hit one of those. Others have too and got all kinds of pushback.
"Where is that Achilles heel now?" is the question, I suppose. What would be your top 5 list for actions to take that would join people together that would be threatening to the establishment. I'm not just asking which groups you'd encourage to join up. Also asking (just a sentence or two for each) how you might join them. I'm sorry to be bothering you with so many questions but I'd really like to get to the heart of the matter here.