Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: It turns out that the Occupy Wall Street movement is MORE POWERFUL than many had realized. Check this out. Might surprise you.

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 10, 2012, 11:05 p.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A lot of agitation is taking place around the nation, much to the consternation of the 1% who benefit from our lopsided hijacked system. There's a great quote that goes something like this::  

"It's the grain of sand in the bottom of the oyster that gives rise to a pearl."

I love that fact. Agitation is productive when leverage is applied in the right amount. . . at the right time. . . in the right place.

Together we, the millions, are greater than the sum of our parts. We can create an unbelievable fulcrum, an unstoppable force that can break these corporate chains and build a new nation based on the original precepts of our founding fathers. Our system can and should serve human beings. The phenomenon of humans being fed upon by the system will clearly no longer be tolerated. The people have awoken and spoken. The pearl is in production in this oyster we call America.

So what is the heart of this movement really about? I would contend that there is one quote from the great Dostoevsky in his masterpiece "The Brothers Karamazov" that sums it all up:

"Today, everyone asserts his own personality and strives to live a full life as an individual.  But these efforts lead not to a full life but to suicide, because instead of realizing his personality, man only slips into total isolation.  For in our age, man has been broken up into self-contained individuals, each of whom retreats into his lair, trying to stay away from the rest, hiding himself and his belongings from the rest of mankind, and finally isolating himself from people and people from him.

And while he accumulates material wealth in his isolation, he thinks with satisfaction how mighty and secure he has become, because he is mad and cannot see that the more goods he accumulates, the deeper he sinks into suicidal impotence.  The reason for this is that he has become accustomed to relying only on himself; he has split off from the whole and become an isolated unit; he has trained his soul not to rely on human help, not to believe in man and mankind, and only to worry that the wealth and privileges he has accumulated may get lost.

Everywhere men today are turning scornfully away from the truth that the security of the individual cannot be achieved by his isolated efforts but only by mankind as a whole.

BUT AN END  to this fearful isolation is bound to come and all men will understand how unnatural it was for them to have isolated themselves from one another.  This will be the spirit of the new era and people will look in amazement at the past when they sat in darkness and refused to see the light. . . 

. . . Until that day, we must keep hope alive, and now and then a man must set an example, even if only an isolated one, by trying to lift his soul out of its isolation and offering it up in an act of brotherly communion, even if he is taken for one of God's fools.  

This is necessary to keep the great idea alive."

But that's kind of unsatisfying isn't it? I mean, what do you do right now, today? How can each of us individuals get involved in something that will really make a difference? How about giving this some consideration? http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/fresh-thread-forum-post-below-received-over-2000-c/

22 Comments

22 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

I love Dostoevsky ... thanks for the great post.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Cheers!

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

"Sooner or later but mus' , the dam is going to bus', and everyone will break out. What can stop them? The force? What force can stop a river of people who know their course?" - - Bongo Jerry, Rastafarian poet

[-] 0 points by Democracy101 (54) 12 years ago

Yes - but is it powerful enough to create revolution? Or is it possible through large scale reform? This this video for further context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se-Nq_rBQHk

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

Yes, in the sense of the industrial revolution, being a revolution.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

This video is definitely worth a look. Good stuff. I think we need to attack nonviolently from the inside and outside at the same time. It's not one or the other. It's both.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

not convinced revolution is necessary for very meaningful and substantial reform.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

I hope you're right, but can you explain how in a nutshell?

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

not much to explain. based upon what i experience and see, i don't think revolution is necessary for the very meaningful and substantial reform that i'd like to see, which is a democracy which is substantially less influenced by money and more influenced by direct exchange between it's citizens and voting by it's citizens. i think a few changes beginning with Citizens gets us started towards very meaningful and substantial reform.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

Completely agree. Revolution is completely unnecessary.

Getting money out of politics will create enormous opportunities. And there are a ton of good things happening on that front to accomplish this. The Get Money Out campaign by Dylan Ratigan with the United Republic group. Also, rootstrikers.org, movetoamend.org and Progressives United. Not to mention the four pieces of legislation that has already been proposed for this purpose.

I saw the other day that Newt Gingrich was complaining about the SuperPac money used against him in Iowa. I found it really hilariousl! Hope this will help bring the issue into the political debate more.

For all of the other obvious problems with money in politics, I think another side affect it that it causes too much dirty and negative campaigning. Loss of civility. The big corporation and big money donors have too much skin in the game, so to speak, which makes the discourse turn really ugly. I hope that by ending money in politics, things will get alot more civil.

[-] 1 points by Democracy101 (54) 12 years ago

what particular impetus is necessary for change. Mr Chomsky in the video gave rational answers and I understand his view that things will happen as they happen given the unknowable constraints of human nature.

Interestingly enough, the portrait drawn (unarguably true) about the power structure we have in place that rewards insatiable greed, is almost ineluctable. To my mind that particular juggernaut will not be stopped by mere reform.

But that's my opinion; which I think given sufficient time and resources could be turned into an argument.

"And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good -- Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"

Plato via Pirsig

Are we inherently good as a species? Or are we (luckily) socialized to be so?

[-] 2 points by 1169 (204) 12 years ago

the change that is needed for the mess this world is in, I guess is going on now with OWS (leverage creating a pearl in an oyster). And it is this younger generation wanting their world back, call it power to the people if you want, something is started and it wont stop

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Damn right!!!

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

the deeper he sinks into suicidal impotence.

Sounds like the repelican party to me . . . . go romney

hehe

  • corporations do not have tongues!

hahaha

BWA hahaha

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

I really hope we can get constitutional amendment to help overturn Citizens United supreme court decision. What are the steps to achieve that? What can we do to help the cause? How about eliminating corporate personhood altogether? Isn't that the deeper problem?

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I think that is the nut of it, not it's sum, it's nucleus. We excise that, and I think we can get to the rest of it.

You've probably already signed the Sanders Petition, but here are the links:

edit

We also have to fundamentally change the economic theory that is the basis of our economy today - If you haven't seen Inside Job I highly recommend it. It outlines the process of installing conservative activist judges - who hold to the theory of a deregulated economy and free markets.

I'm not sure how you overthrow that whole ideology - it's already been disproven, the subprime mess and the wall street collapse demonstrate that in stark terms even to those who don't understand it -

and yet, it hasn't been overturned.

I suspect that even once we end the principle of corporate personhood, there will still be resistance to fundamental economic change - how and why that can happen is something I do not completely understand.

It has to do with systems of belief - who benefits, and how they maintain faulty perceptions among their supporters - I just can't seem to make sense of it.

Assuming we get the money out - there will still be those on the sidelines agitating for free markets and deregulation.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Once movement is successful at getting money out of politics, are there ways we can prevent slide back towards deregulation? Also, I believe in both the carrot and the stick so are there ways to build some type of new incentives into new tweaked system that will ENTICE people to embrace the new approach with money out of politics, regulation, etc.? My point is, if they feel some type of tangible benefit, they might be less likely to slide off the edge again into selfishness.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I think there are at least three pieces to that - legislative, application, and public perception,

In order to manage public perception of regulation, it all has to be credible and functional.

Legislatively there are several aspects - regulatory agencies need to be fully funded, and where they have the authority to produce their own regulation, that regulation needs to be sensible, not too difficult to understand, and implementable. The gas can of today for example, I think is a demonstration of regulation that has shot its own foot. I think it's the EPA - they don't want vapors escaping, but with a small gas can it's completely unavoidable, and the solution simply makes today's gas can practically unusable.

The whole issue of regulation is a tough one.

Here is an interesting forum post on the topic:

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 12 years ago

You are right about this. It gets back to the package deal between the evangelicals and the economic libertarians like the Koch's. The Koch's care nothing about abortion, and benefit from the war on Christmas, but they support those positions (lip service) and actively stir the pot to load the Tea Party bus with evangelicals (who said they were only about debt and the deficit until they got elected, then the first vote they took was on abortion), to cut taxes and gut regulation.

Some would call it a deal with the devil, but that is too cute.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Damn. You're good.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

not really. There are a lot of people whose fundamental grasp of what has happened and how we got to where we are, and what we need to do to straighten it all out, far exceeds mine.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Your recognition of that is what makes you good in my view :)