Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: OccuCentres - A Way To Revitalize The Movement

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 2, 2014, 2:35 a.m. EST by donOld (134)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The occupy movement is not dissolving, it is hibernating. It’s been a terrific fight so far, but even a bear needs to rest. With winter fast approaching, who wouldn’t want to come in from the cold?

Now is the time to get smart. The public’s attention around the world has been startled. That in itself is a historically significant feat. So how do we broaden our appeal and focus our messages while building public knowledge and awareness of the truth about this artificial nightmare that the 1% calls “reality”?

How bout starting a network of locally-run OccuCentres (for lack of a better word) that are warm and friendly for the winter. They could be cafes, bars (I’m not sure about how well alcohol and politics mix), bistros, cinemas or any combination of the above. They could also function as social meeting & discussion places, seminar & conference spaces and organizing centres. If set-up properly, they might even make some money to support local activists.

Here’s a description I’ve been using locally to feel out the idea.

I am currently investigating the feasibility of opening a film cafe that is focused solely on our most pressing social issues. The intent of the cafe is to reach people who would not be motivated to seek out this information on their own. By making it publicly available, as part of the background ambience of an attractive, social destination and discussion space, it will draw new people into the issues.

The revenue of the cafe will be generated entirely from the menu. Nothing will ever be charged for the movies. If after seeing a film, a customer wishes to purchase a dvd copy of their own, we would have a supply on hand to sell to them on your behalf.

I envision the cafe to be a totally engaging, community level experience. With a continuous rotation of films playing all day long, there will be time enough in between the films for a discussion period for those who wish to participate. We may also designate certain days of the week for certain subjects, thereby allowing our customers to plan ahead for the topics that interest them the most.

My hope is to transform the inspiration the films generate into positive local action. The cafe would become a public gathering place to harness the voices of the concerned and spread the word to a wider audience. These cafe's could also be used as a meeting place and base for local community activists. Perhaps a larger backroom cinema/ conference room could also be included.

what do you think?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3084) from Waterville, NY 7 years ago

We need a website for #OWS listings.Such as resources available for donation,workers who are available,workers who are needed,proposed co-op startups,and collaborators wanted.We need this urgently.Craigslist is already a fully developed Thing.I've heard that Craigslist had a meeting with Corporate and told them to go take a flying fuck with a rolling donut because "we're Marxists." The ideas described in this post are excellent.Scaleable,for sure.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1756) 7 years ago

Interesting idea.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 7 years ago

sorry about the bold at the end of this post... I didn't put it there and it won't edit out.

[-] 0 points by spinoza34 (400) 7 years ago

Reaching out more is a great idea, and as you have implied, you do not need a special Occupy event to do that. There are plenty of opportunities to do that in our everyday lives. And when you do start the conversation, you may find like me, that the discontent in this country crosses demograhics on age in particular.

Gathering in Starbucks is a bad idea IMO, although admittedly they have made some positive differences for the 99%. There is a nation-wide boycott that was initiated by the singer, Neil Young that has ben going on fairly recently, and somewhere I read that it was going viral. I hope that''s true.

Starbucks belongs to the Grocery Manufacure's Association (GMA) as do many other businesses, including the BIGGIE...Monsanto. The GMA is currently suing Vermont for having passed a GMO labeling law which is supposed to take affect in 2016. There are several web sites where you can go and verify this for yourself.

By boycotting /Starbucks, the feeling is that it is easier to make a difference for the better with a retail operation as oppoosed to one that is more aloof in our daily lives.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 7 years ago

I never suggested using Starbucks. I only mentioned them as an example of a cafe with a nation-wide presence. OWS needs to build its own "brand" of locally-run cafes to achieve a nation-wide presence.

[-] 2 points by spinoza34 (400) 7 years ago

My apologies if I misrepresented your writing in any way. I saw your mention of Starbucks and took it as an opportunity to bring to light what I regard as a much more important issue, the boycott of that cafe and it belonging to the GMA, the group that is suing Vermont for its proposed GMO labeling laws.

As much as I love Occupy, I don't know if it is important for Occupy to come back to it's former prominence, or not. Already many in Occupy have joined kindred groups, and some of those people at least will always consider Occupy home.

If you have the dream though, and it is good for the cause...go for it.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 7 years ago

Gee what a shock. Of all the commercial entities you could have chosen to suggest for boycott, you just happen to chose one where non-conservatives gather.

Your poser transparency is crystal clear. You're a fiscal conservative posing as a disgruntled liberal hoping to discourage as many non-conservative voters as possible.

[-] 2 points by pigeonlady (284) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Um, dude, most Starbucks I've seen are snob central, where rich kids work and sometimes traffick and hookup in between shoving people out the door. Usually they're haters, go after minorities and disabled and even no tippers. Starbucks doesn't care. The executive level is separate, refuses contact or to acknowledge store employees' misconduct and hold their ears. On the other hand to the right person they're usable idiots. Just the ones I've been in. ....why are you so defensive of a huge company with sugar and chemical ridden food and drinks, and another expansion agenda to run smaller coffee shops out of business? I may like a good frap but that can be made anywhere including home. Have a good one, SMC.

[-] -1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

I'm not defending Starbucks. In fact, I would like to see them fall with every other wealth concentrating chain.

My one and only point was that of all the entities spinoza34, a known poser, could have chosen to single out, he chose one where non-conservatives are known to gather.



[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

hey man - not sure what interaction you have had with the spinoza man but he is not a poser. he is out doing real work - in the streets. i am not - are you? we need people like that - those who are willing to do more than sit at a computer and type. he - like you and me is against the concentration of wealth and power that is ruining this country and the world. we need to pull together as much as possible. we need to emphasize our common goals not the few things that divide us. seems to me that there are some here who want us to become an arm of the dems - that is not an ows goal for sure. there are some here who want to argue against us and for the right wing in this country. those should be fought against - in my opinion anyway.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

How can you not be sure after all those pages and the long running debate we were involved in?

By the way, I may as well confirm the obvious.

Spiniza34, DNCheadquarters, and SerfingUSA were all one in the same. They cost me over 500 points in five days. Most of those points were restored the same day spinoza34, DNCheadquarters, and SerfingUSA stopped posting.

They were nothing but poser troublemakers. Actually, one poser troublemaker.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i do not read too much of what is written here - mostly those things that are directed towards me or what i post. sorry but i don't have much time and most of this is redundant or worse. i doubt that they are all the same but i do not know how anyone can know who is who here. not very tech savy. as far as down voting i cannot be bothered. that is not why we are here is it? come on let's keep our eye on the ball. i know too much of spinoza to tear him down. you and i have had unpleasant discussions - i think we are past that - i hope we are. we are on the same side - we must keep that in mind. we are on the side of the working class - the middle and lower classes and against the 1% or more correctly the.1% and even the .01% - the ruling class or the power elite or what ever you would like to call them. i will fight with anyone who does not include obama and clinton and the dnc in that group. i think we must recognize that both parties are beholden to the ruling class. other than that it is all details - there will be issues that divide us but they are minor compared to real democracy for the masses. agree or no?

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that wealth is concentrated too heavily among the top 5%. I'm not convinced and I am very reluctant on persecuting the upper class in general. But I'll be damned if I'm going to excuse the 1% in order to focus on a much smaller group.

The Clintons are certainly worth tens of millions. Damn right they are in the top 1% but not the top .1% and certainly not the top .01%.

Yes, they are too rich but they are nowhere near as rich as Romney.

More later. No time.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

i don't think you are aware of the type of money it takes to make the top 1% and .1% for income and net worth. first i would like to say that i was referring to those whole rule the country when i mentioned the top .01% - the top 1% have too much income but they do not have the kind of power that is required to get into the ruling class. i did a little digging and here are some numbers - Until recently, most studies just broke out the top 1% as a group. Data on net worth distributions within the top 1% indicate that one enters the top 0.5% with about $1.8M, the top 0.25% with $3.1M, the top 0.10% with $5.5M and the top 0.01% with $24.4M. Wealth distribution is highly skewed towards the top 0.01%, increasing the overall average for this group.

Bill and Hillary Clinton spent the final years of the Clinton presidency cash-strapped and buried in legal debts. But they weren't hurting for long: In her final days as first lady, Hillary landed a near-record $8 million advance for her memoir Living History, and by the time her 2008 presidential campaign was in full swing, the Clintons were flush, together having earned $109 million in the previous seven years.................The former secretary of state has earned at least $12 million since leaving the Obama administration 16 months ago, according to an accounting Monday by Bloomberg News.................The top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000 with 146,000 households, the top 0.12%, having incomes exceeding $1,600,000 annually. Households may also be differentiated among each other, depending on whether or not they have one or multiple income earners. Affluence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

I've done the research also. $9 million in net worth to enter the top 1%. Their average net worth is $16 million. It skyrockets from there.

With no straight answers from the Clintons, we only have estimates to go by. Those estimates range in the deca-millions but all well under $100 million.

The entry level household income for the 1% is around $350,000. The average income is $1.8 million. It skyrockets from there.

By the way, Romney is worth $250 million and counting.

I'm not going to get into all the other labels. My issue is with wealth concentration.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

Come on man. What are we arguing about here. The Clinton's are part of the power elite (c wright mills term for the ruling class). Money is not the only way they are defined. There are rock stars worth 100's of million but have no power. The Clinton's are above the 1% but that is not really the issue is it. We are fighting against the powerful and the rich no? Those who decide the issues of war and peace and who will get rich and who will starve.

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

I'm going to repeat something for you that I have already repeated for others literally thousands of times. Something that I vowed in August of 2005. Something that may save you some effort over the next two years.

The US 1% are too rich period. Every single one of them. They all stand for an obscene level of wealth concentration proven to cause hardship, poverty, and economic instability. Nothing short of death, coma or a massive redistribution of wealth will alter my focus.

So you can take your .10%, your .01%, your 'power elite', your 'ruling class', and whatever crafty diversions you have up your sleeve and stick 'em.

By the way, I challenge you to explain why you've been all over Hillary like a fly on crap but have nothing to say about Romney and his $250,000,000.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

because the gop is obvious - ted cruz and sarah palin all the fake tea party nut jobs are literally insane. let them go on denying evolution and climate change. let them try to privatize social security etc - they are up front with their attack on the working class. i doubt they will put up much of a candidate in 2016. hard to find a sane republican - the dems however pretend to be on our side but are not. i can explain more but shouldn't need to. is that what you want to fight about - that we should rail against the 1% and not the .01% - why not the 2% they are very rich also. there are those who rule the country - they are the problem. how you want to define them is a bit of a question. and really - after such a short truce you want me to back off the dems. i have said many times that the gop is worse but they are both parties of the rich - they are both parties of the ruling class. it is money and power we are figthing against - not just money. lenin, stalin and hitler - do we complain about their net worth - do we even know

[-] -1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 6 years ago

You can stop your whining too !!! Butting heads at this time of year gives everyone a headache !! So how about calming TF down and trying to accept that all here these days are mostly here because they care about The 99% ?! The good wishes of the season to you and yours & here's what's important maybe ...

fiat justitia et pacem in terris ...

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago


[-] -1 points by ShadzSixtySix (1936) 6 years ago

Ok numpty. By Noam Chomsky and per the OP, perhaps try this :

'C ya' but wouldn't want to 'B ya'. Merry Xmas anyway grumpy, lol.

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 6 years ago

Merry Christmas.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The only way to save OWS is to get the f'n Greens out of it.

[-] 1 points by donOld (134) 7 years ago

I think that there is huge support for OWS but the general public is only getting messages that have been filtered through the established news media. Although there's plenty of ways for them to get more information, they won't take the time out to do so. So the cafes would bring the important news and information to them directly, locally and powerfully using the best films available. Imagine if Starbucks showed "inside Job" and had a discussion room to harness the outrage that it generated. The cafes would make it easy for people to find and share good info, and get involved, in a social, friendly atmosphere.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

There is huge support for doing something about wealth inequality, however the Greens have infected OWS with their ego driven bullshit so most who are fighting for change stay away from OWS to avoid the stink of the Greens.

[-] 2 points by donOld (134) 7 years ago

interesting point of view... I had never thought of it before. I would imagine that "Greens" encompass a broad range of people, from the very wealthy to the very poor. Obviously the very wealthy sector will scorn any suggestions to redistribute incomes. As with most issues, it is reasonable to expect that the very wealthy will try to co-opt and control the discussion. However, I don't know if it is wise to reject all people who are worried about the environment just because their mouthpieces are full of shit. I haven't had any experience with "Greens" so I can't really say.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 7 years ago

this is complete bullshit by the factless boy. he hates the greens because he loves the dems. he can smell the "stink" of the greens but thinks obama and hillary smell sweet. what a crock of shit. my advice is to run away from him - ok so you didn't ask for advice.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

Now the political hacks chime in, you still drunk from your celebration party running them damn Dems out of Washington?

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

do you ever get tired of saying the same thing? we know your (childish) opinion on the 2014 election and the part you think i played in it. can we now think of something else to say

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

it seems you never tire of criticizing the Dems, so your victory will ring as long as you do....

of course as the new session of congress comes in there will be many chances to check in with you and see what you think about how your guys are doing now that the evil Dems aren't running the Senate

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

so can we once again make it clear that just because one criticizes one party doesn't mean they like the other. can we make that clear - please. just because i attack obama's policy towards the russia - ukraine problem doesn't mean i love putin. can your little mind handle that. just because i attack obama's policy of drones and kill list - doesn't mean i like isis. the fact that i think obama's policy of "all options are on the table" when dealing with iran (you do realize that means a nuclear attack is possible - you do don't you) does not mean i like the ayatollah. can you answer this directly - don't be like grapes and spin. can you answer directly

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

How many times have you claimed that I defend the Dems because I hate the GOP and want them to lose? When the GOP whom I hate and post many times saying so lose you may congratulate me and I won't complain, the Dems who you hate and post and comment to that effect often have just lost so congrats to you, whether you love the GOP or not, whether I love the Dems or not something you often accuse me of, the Dems have lost so you have won so congrats to you.

Now we will see how long your honest discussion last....

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

it seems logic is not your strong suit

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

It seems memory is not yours, still all I said is true but your willingness to have a serious discussion was merely a ruge you have only one goal to co-opt OWS for your Green Party ego whores.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

oh god

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 6 years ago

"oh god" how logical of you

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago

trying to stay on the level of those i communicate with

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

I believe that flip and spin are better related than grapes and spin. Two flips make a spin, nyet?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 6 years ago


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

Two flips make a spin, nyet?

Well . . . . at least - will make - a dizzy flip?

[-] 0 points by grapes (5232) 6 years ago

Spin makes grapes ditzy and flippant, two. Damn the evil tween.


[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8300) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

you should visit a camp, if there are any left, there are lots of Greens there, the defining characteristic of the Greens is their criticism of the Dems they need to tear the Dems down so they can build their party this desire to speak ill of Dems holds the Greens together like the desire to make rich people richer holds the Republicans together, both groups may encompass many views but they all hold to their respective core beliefs, and of course it is the Greens willingness to accept GOP rule in order to hurt the Dems that make them an enemy to all who care about the environment or wealth inequality, the Greens are only friends to their own ego driven interest and dreams of power.