Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS: A Basis for Change

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 9:08 a.m. EST by rchoetzlein (3)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As a supporter of the OWS, I would like to ask a simple question: How long should we ‘occupy’ the streets of our major cities? Next year? Indefinitely? Some may say, “We will be here as long as it takes!” As long as it takes for what? This immediately raises the issue of what the OWS demands are. What I hope to point out is, having demands are an essential part of a final resolution. Otherwise, we will simply be here forever.

Consider this another way: OWS is not about freedom of speech. That already took place in the 1960s as the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. The message was a unified one: We have the right to speak publicly on any topic. The movement was entirely structured around the simple, focused goal of the right to speak. The message was “Let us speak, on any topic, or we will not leave this campus!”

Ultimately, the wealthy WANT to make this about speech. Why? Because it detracts from the real issue: wealth. If we complain the police aren’t letting us camp in the park, if the police try to remove us, we aren’t making any real demands – we’re just revisiting speech again. If we are pushed around, sprayed, we aren’t making any real demands – we are fighting for speech. Something we already have, mostly. By making this about speech, we avoid finding solutions to the real issue: wall street corruption.

How long should we occupy the streets? Until they let us stay on the streets indefinitely? Let’s not forget the whole purpose of the movement is wealth disparity. But what can we reasonably demand? Certainly, as others point out, the right to a job is not a civil right – the government cannot guarantee jobs. As one writer said, “I knew a girl who dropped six figures in loans for a degree in Women’s Studies, and now complains she can’t find a job. What did she expect? That it would be easy?”

We have to accept that times are changing, globally. A freely available study, “Research on Future Skill Demands”, by the National Research Council (2008), reports that by 2030 up to 60% of our current workforce could be displaced by technology. Manufacturing has already seen a 40% decline in the past 5 years. Can we reasonably demand that jobs are created in –your- area of expertise?

Others claim that we have a right to a share of our country’s wealthy. This is not a reasonable civil right, either. The vast majority of the world is 20x worse off that even the poorest American. Most people in the world have no access to public toilets or clean water. Can we really expect the wealthy to give us a share of America’s money based solely on the idea that we deserve it? The American middle class may have labored hard, only to have the economy drop out, but as a commenter said “You were paid for your work. Your employer has no other obligations to you. You’re welcome to get another job.” The world is changing. Instead of pointing fingers, the question should be, what specific things were done which –should be- illegal?

How long should we occupy the streets? I suggest the answer is actually quite clear. We are unified because of very specific things: bank bailouts, foreclosure, and wall street greed. But we can’t make laws against greed itself. What kind of laws can we demand?

Here are three to start with: 1) Lobbying should be illegal.. The constitution introduced lobbying as means to advocate for the public. Now, the primary use of lobbying is the opposite – it is an advocation against the public interest. We must demand specific reform to lobbying, perhaps outlawing it altogether.

2) It should be illegal for CEOs of major companies to serve on government regulatory bodies in the same field. Some examples are the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), NCI (National Cancer Institute), DOE (Department of Energy), and EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) other. How can a group of people regulate an industry with whom it has a hidden financial interest?

3) Congress must be legally required to pass national debt reform, or be forced out of office. The process of perpetually delaying hard decisions must end.

We can continue to disagree on demographics: 56%, 99%, 1%, Republican, Democrat, Tea party. Everyone is different. That’s what makes this country great. But at the very least, we already know some specific reasons why we are here.

More to the point, if we make OWS about freedom of speech, our goals will never be met. OWS will become a perpetual, never ending occupation of our cities – hardly the kind of future we hope for.. There are perhaps some who would like to live in the park forever. I am not one of them. I would like to go home, and see our country changed for the good. I don’t care about “being heard”, or even about being shoved around by police. Now is our chance for change, what specific things do we want to change?

10 Comments

10 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Gibbons (3) 12 years ago

OWS. Here's the plan: SHMITA (מיטה), in the Year of the Jubilee, as referenced in the Torah; Relieve all debt, neither purchase nor sell any product of service for one year and let the poor have free access to food. All old contracts are void, any new contracts shall not be made until after one year of rest and any new agreements made after the sabbatical year shall only be valid for six years. Simple economics. God as the economist. Look it up

[-] 1 points by mikedenis (49) 12 years ago

Boycott Wal-Mart

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

I disagree with the author that this is not about freedom of speech. It is not ONLY about it, but we cannot and should not ignore the attack on our constitutional rights because when we agree that they make the rules to define what peaceful assembly is and where and when it can happen, as well as who gets to give permission for it, we are lost as a nation.

[-] 1 points by rchoetzlein (3) 12 years ago

OWS is only about freedom of speech? According to your statement, so long as speech is allowed, it doesn't matter what the wealthy do.

UPDATE: Let's assume you can say whatever you want, which you can here on the internet. What would you like to say? What message do you feel strongly enough to protest for?

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 12 years ago

I dont know what you are talking about. Please reread my first post.

[-] 1 points by MisguidedYouth2 (165) 12 years ago

You can't simply demand things. Someone who takes prisoners or hijacks a plane makes demands. Someone who wants change drafts "proposals", builds consensus through thoughtful public discourse, creates petitions that can be signed, brought to Washington where our "representatives" (those we elect to represent us and a major pillar of our Republicj) can introduce bills that address our grievances and get the bills enacted into law.

Unfortunately for OWS, they know much of their agenda would not pass such scrutiny, hence the constant drum beat on this site and it's real financial supporters such as Soros, for the collapse of Capitalism, our Republic in favor of a more Socialist/Marxist/Communist approach under which the state, not its people have all the power.

That's what OWS really is all about and your support for them is support for the demise of the USA. Read the bottom right of your screen where it says who this site is brought to you by: radicals, not reformers.

[-] 1 points by toomuchmisunderstanding (17) 12 years ago

I get really tired of people saying "that's what OWS really is all about". Why would you think it is about anything more (or less) than what they (frontliners and supporters) say it is about? So many people think they can interpret it to their own skewed justifications. The one, unifying theme is corporate greed and its interference in our lives. To come to any other conclusion (i.e. collapse of capitalism, demise of the USA), is a sign of your own paranoia and narrow mindedness.

[-] 1 points by rchoetzlein (3) 12 years ago

The point of this movement is that those "representatives" are corrupt. They no longer represent our interests. Even the simplest of bills are not able to pass congress now, so you are hardly in a position to claim the system of grievances is working. The laws we need are not getting made.

Let me be very clear on what I advocate: Non-violent civil disobedience, which includes the disruption of public services, for specific legal change - under the implicit assumption that those in power will never enact such laws.

[-] 1 points by MisguidedYouth2 (165) 12 years ago

If they fail to represent you, simply vote them out. Your approach is simply not viable. Look at what the tea-party has accomplished. Three years ago nobody cared about our debt and deficits, and today it's the only thing being discussed. Change comes to those who follow the rules of our Republic, and not to those who try to circumvent them.

[-] 1 points by rchoetzlein (3) 12 years ago

You assume our "leaders" have the ability to change this system. Politics does not lead this country. The true drivers of this nation are corporations. They write the laws to serve themselves, they taylor the politicians to serve them. I will not follow their rules.

There in lies our difference: You believe change can come from "following the rules" as usual.. I do not.