Forum Post: OWS Greatest Victory!
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 1:07 p.m. EST by Philpux
(643)
from Mountain View, AR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OWS greatest victory could be to force one single issue into the upcoming presidential election.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
All of the successful protest movements of the 20th century in the U.S. had a very clear and concise goal. The civil rights movement had integration. The counter culture movement of the 60's wanted to end the Vietnam War. The Women's Suffrage movement wanted women to vote. The Anti-Saloon league wanted prohibition of alcohol.
Wayne Wheeler of the Anti-Saloon league, was known for insisting on a very clear and singular goal to the exclusion of all else, a constitutional amendment prohibiting the sale of alcohol. His model for political influence through demonstration has been replicated over, and again. The prohibition movement might have been misguided, but no one could argue that it wasn't successful.
Could it be, that it is time for OWS to focus? I believe many more people would become active, if a singular goal could be devised.
Campaign Finance Reform!
Many Americans could line up behind getting the big money out of politics, I think.
What I am saying is that, imho, OWS needs a clear goal, complete with a kick ass sound bite! Americans only respond to sound bites.
Any good sound bite is concise, crunchy, and tastes good with ketchup. “BUY BACK the VOTE.”
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
There is still time to salvage some dignity for OWS. Adopt a single issue as our demand, and we could drive it into the presidential election debate. That could give us a second wind.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
It could happen. It could be a tangible achievement.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
Campaign Finance Reform? ARE YOU CRAZY? The issue of what OWS needs to accomplish is MUCH LARGER! .............................................. The Federal Reserve needs to be demolished! Pulling money out of campaigns won't stop inflation, the Fed will just keep printing money for shit that is already going on!......................................................................... DONT BE SHEEP!
Campaign Finance Reform? ARE YOU CRAZY? The issue of what OWS needs to accomplish is MUCH LARGER! The Federal Reserve needs to be demolished! Pulling money out of campaigns won't stop inflation, the Fed will just keep printing money for shit that is already going on! DONT BE SHEEP!
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
Well, we have to start somewhere.
[Deleted]
Awesome. Very well said.
OWSs greatest victory is undoubtedly its continued existence and growth. Next to that undoubtedly the fact that OWS has changed the national political discourse and put the issue of jobs, debt, and foreclosures on the national stage, though the liberals do seem to be very conveniently forgetting our opposition to colonialism. Nostrums like campaign finance reform really pale by comparision.
You have changed nothing.These are all things that have been being talked about for a few years.It is election time the campaigns are heating up and that is the only reason some of these issuses are being talked about more.You want real change you have to make all the thiefs in washington know that are on their way out the door.How many times have we seen it posted or in videos people say that they voted for Obama and he has faild them yet they are going to vote for him again anyway.As long as the man knows he has no reason to worry about being sent packing he has no reall reason to to bring about change.You say get the money out.Why would any of them get the money out when they know you are going to vote for them anyway.And that goes for both the democrats and republicans.What do you think is going to happen.So you are able to get the money out.When you leave the same people in power who wrote the laws that allowed money in they will just write new laws.You want change you need to change the way the game is played and the only real way to do that is to change the players.
OWS is a revolutionary movement. It is not interested in pathetic liberal nostrums like changing the people in office, legislative changes, or even Constitutional amendments. The essence of the movement is a fundamental social transformation from below, which is precisely why the movement makes no demands. It has no demands of those in power. It just wants them to leave. And of course that may take a long time. The American revolution took over a decade. More realistically the transition from feudalism to capitalism took a millenium. Patience is a revolutionary virtue.
OWS survival is definitely an accomplishment. I hope that they manage to get some notice during the presidential election campaigns. I don't think that OWS can claim responsibility for jobs, debt, and foreclosures being on the national stage as issues. Those issues were firmly entrenched in the debate anyway. Do you know what is not in the debate...
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
Since you are referring to OWS in the second person it sounds like you do not especially identify with it, so I suppose my rather inadequate and pathetic organizing skills have to start right here. Most of the news media that bothers to talk about it at all does give OWS credit for shifting the national political debate away from the phoney debt crisis and toward the issue of unemployment, debt and foreclosure. But then, they could be wrong too.
The worst thing that could befall OWS would be for it to become deflected by something as trivial to it (compared to what it actually seeks) as a mere presidential campaign.
I am not proposing that OWS adopt a platform. I simply wish that some of the GA's would get together and put forth a set of key issues for the MSM to digest during the election. I'm not the only one asking for this. The GA's are the closest thing the movement has to a clear voice. When I say "they," the GA's are to whom I am referring.
I'm pretty sure that jobs, debt, and unemployment have been strong topics in the media since November of 2008. If you will recall, it was a bad year for the economy.
What if OWS could design one piece of legislation for consideration in congress? What would that legislation look like?
I don't think it likely that, given their structure, the GAs will move in a direction toward any kind of electoral activity, including a conscious effort to influence candidates. It just doesn't seem to me that is what GAs or OWS is all about. I would agree that there is a signficant minority in many Occupations that would like to move OWS in that direction, but large as that tendency is, I do not think it strong enough to achieve a consensus and as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing.
I think what OWS is doing right now is just fine and what it needs to do for the forseeable future is more of the same.
Regarding jobs and personal debt, certainly much of the media was on it early on, but who wasn't on it was the political establishment, much to the chagrin of the media. And it is the media that credits OWS for putting jobs and personal debt on the political agenda and helping to displace the phoney issue of the national debt which is just another corporate scheme to steal yet more money from the 99%.
I really think OWS has much bigger fish to fry, like for example a total transformation of the social system. That is, if its revolutionary rhetoric is to be taken seriously and is not mere rhetoric. I understand that there is a tension between the revolutionary and reformist wings of OWS, but the survival of OWS depends very much on the maintenance of that tension and not its resolution in one direction or another.
Well, as far as I can tell, officially the GA's have not expressed any kind of specific rhetoric at all. Placing an issue in the election cycle is hardly electoral activity, or influencing particular candidates. Unless, of course, a candidate decides to take your issue on. In that case you have achieved something.
The initiators of OWS were very clearly and consciously out of an anarcho-syndicalist intellectual tradition. While it is certainly true that a great many people with a much more moderate perspective have subsequently joined onto the movement and become outstanding activists within it, it is still the case, especially at the NYC GA that an anarcho-syndicalist ethos remains intellectually dominant.
At the same time the radicals are extremely respectful of people who do not share their views. Indeed such an ethos is an inherent part of their particular radicalism. Nevertheless, not only is there an inherent tension between revolutionary and reformist elements, but that very tension is a major source of the movements strength and to resolve it in either direction would necessarily weaken the movement. I'm looking at issue number one of the Occupied Wall Street Journal and the lead article above the fold is entitled "The Revolution Begins At Home." Now if that is not hyperbole, what in the world could it mean, except exactly what it says and to my mind, the notion of revolution is considerably more profound and sweeping than the mere passage of particular legislation, the election of particular personalities or even the passage of particular Constitutional amendments. To my mind and I think any objective understanding of the word would agree, the notion of revolution conjures up a much more sweeping and fundamental social and political transformation. What it will look like exactly it is much too early to tell, especially because we mean it to be a democratic revolution of the vast majority and they have yet to speak. But that doesn't make it any less real as a goal.
It appears that you see the goal as revolution. I think that the revolutionary rhetoric is hyperbole. I see it as a reformist movement, because what we are asking for is only reasonably accomplished through the political system. Things will have to get much, much worse for Americans to start thinking of revolution in the classic sense. Main stream America will not accept the OWS movement without some sign of reason. I don't believe that Americans understand the term revolution in the same way that the Spanish understood it in the 1920's.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
No. I think there are different tendencies, some at odds with each other, at play within OWS. Broadly speaking I think the two dominant tendencies are a consciously revolutionary tendency and a much more moderate tendency. These two dominant tendencies are more or less in balance and neither has absolute hegemony within the movement. I see that as a good and healthy thing for movement building because it brings together reformers for their relevance and revolutionaries for their vision, but if either tendency gained dominance I don't think that would be especially healthy for the movement and in either case I think that would tend to marginalize them movement, either by making it irrelevant to reformers on the one hand or captive of the Democratic Party on the other.
It is interesting to me how people actually do understand the notion of revolution and what they mean by it, though it is an actual fact that the initators of the movement were very consciously out of a classical anarcho-syndicalist revolutionary intellectual tradition and though they are a numerical minority they remain a very powerful intellectual force in the movement.
Interesting.
I really do not understand why people insist that OWS needs to remain free of goals or specific issues. I think that if we do not focus at least a little bit, we will lose all credibility. Not any specific platform or anything, but at least a few key issues that could be important talking points for the election. Our inability to focus in any way reinforces the stereo types that the MSM places on us. We are not all college kids. We do not all play the bongos. We are not all rapists, or anarchists. We have opinions. We're not just loafers looking for a handout. These are serious issues.
OWS has really clear goals. Its primary goal is embedded in the very name of the movement, Occupy Wall Street, which it has yet to accomplish. It's primary political document is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, which is very short but which has a list of more than 22 greivances. That seems pretty specific to me. It has made it clear that it believes that the problems we face are far too vast to be reduced to a set of demands, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have goals. Clearly its goal is the dismantling of corporate power and the democratic reorganization of society from below by the 99% and in the interest of the 99%. Now that's a big goal and it may take years, decades or even several lifetimes, but you can't say that it isn't specific. The point is we are at the very beginning of this struggle and we need to organize, organize, organize until we have an active movement numbering in the tens of millions. Then it will be time enough and we will be in a position to begin to discuss how we need to go about reorganizing society and dismantling corporate power.
I think everybody in OWS is fully cognizant of the fact that the vast majority of Americans are not revolutionaries or even think in any political terms at all which is precisely why this project may take years, decades or even lifetimes. Part of what OWS is telling the world is that there are no viable get rich quick schemes, that the one percent have screwed thing up so badly that no simple nostrums will get us out of it. We need to organize, organize, organize until we really are the 99%
BTW, I'm 68 years old and definitely not a bongo playing hippy an anarchist or a rapist.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
The movement is waning. Could it be for lack of a message?
I like the "Boom". It's like Emeril.
ty. Emeril is Bam! I got Boom from Chaz Michael Michaels. That was the character that WIll Ferrell played in the movie "Blades of Glory." That movie cracks me up.
I fully agree about the importance of getting money out of the election process. But I don't see the value of simply demanding that those currently holding or running for elected government offices support this idea, or any of the other excellent proposals of OWS groups. With few exceptions, these people are, in effect, agents of the 1%, and aren't going to pay serious attention to people who are going to vote for major party candidates--or stay home on election day. This holds for both Republicans and Democrats.
I don't see how we can get changes actually implemented without building a strong political party that answers to the 99%.
I agree with the third party idea. That's a tough one, but eventually I think it will happen. I would simply like to see OWS use it's popularity to push a good issue into the election cycle that many could embrace. I believe that campaign finance reform is an issue that fits that. I am speaking of right now. Tomorrow. Something OWS could do tomorrow.
What I am gathering, is that you are against laws in general. That is a whole different conversation. The U.S. does not have the most complicated labor laws in the world. Indeed most of the European nations have much more complicated labor regulations. As far as campaign laws, I don't necessarily think reform means only that we add to a bad system. I want a whole new way of handling political campaigns, free of corporate interest. To me that is reform. As far as specific demands are concerned. All of the successful grass roots movements in American history have had a specific goal. Civil rights, Prohibition, the Peace Movement, etc.
No I am most certainly not against laws. Clearly we need laws to protect citizens against antisocial elements (which IMHO would include corporations). And it is certainly true that many western European nations have provisions built into their constitutions which create work place based work councils and similar institutions, but what they do not have and what the US has way too much of is the vast body of administrative labor law which has contributed to the bureacratization of the labor movement and which has made it less and less easy and possible for ordinary working people to actually control their own movement without hiring a lawyer to help guide them through that maze. What I object to is not laws as such, but the huge body of laws which circumscribe the capacity of ordinary people to control the very movements they seek to build, be they labor unions or political parties. To an ever greater extent, the corporate state is even trying to circumscribe the freedom of action of people's organizations that exist outside the work process or electoral process, which is precisely what the police repression of the Occupy movement is all about.
It is true that ORGANIZATIONS within social movements have almost always had specific demands, but that was almost never true of social movements as a whole the SCLC or COFO had demands, but the civil rights movement as such, no. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee had demands, but not the CIO. The Populist Party had demands, but not the Populist movement. I would argue that OWS is a movement, not an organization. If you want to start an organization, knock yourself out, but IMHO to try to transform OWS as a whole into an organization would effectively destroy it.
I don't want to organize anything. I simply want to reform our political system, and rid it of corporate influence. I think that the quickest way to do that is to force it into the national conscience. OWS could do that. I don't think we will accomplish much else until we do that. I fear that if OWS does not find a way to move forward, it will quickly become irrelevant.
So, you are against campaign finance reform. You honestly believe that we need to begin by dismantling corporations and seizing their assets? That is what you think the immediate goal should be?
Movements need a goal even more so than organizations. Labor unions have a built in goal. Most organizations do. You mentioned the Populist Movement. Which one are you talking about?
I don't consider myself a particularly good organizer. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) that is the hand that has been dealt us. That is what we are up against. We can't do anything, be it the passage of this or that reform or a more fundamental reordering of the social system as a whole unless we are much, much better organized. Michael Moore is correct when he points out that the great sleeping giant of the 99% has begun to awaken, but it has only just begun and we are among the first elements of that awakening. That being the case it falls to us to awaken the rest of the body regardless of our personal desires or our skills in that regard. This is very elemental and a precondition for whatever any of us may want as individuals.
OWS is not an organization. It is a social movement. No doubt organizations are necessary, but I don't think it would help OWS to try and transform it into an organization. I suspect that any such efforts are bound to fail particularly because of how the General Assemblies are organized. Right now I think any effort to transform existing GAs into more formal organizations is not only bound to fail, but ultimately is a fool's errand because the effort to try to turn a GA into a more formal organization would be better expended elsewhere.
OWS could disappear tomorrow, but I don't think so because the issues that gave rise to it are quite objective and exist out there in society. Unemployment, student debt, foreclosesures, the continued oppression of poor blacks and the economic drain of American colonialism are real issues that will not go away. The energy of OWS is driven by those issues and OWS continues to grow in small communities incrementally throughout the nation, That growth may well be leveling off, but I don't quite see that yet. Certainly when it does OWS will need to seek a new path forward. But for the stability of the movement that path will undoubtedly continue to include reformists for their relevance and revolutionaries for their vision. Whether that will be reduced to specific demands remains to be seen, but not yet. It's not happening and if you attend any GA I think you would see it is unlikely to happen in the immediate future, though external circumstances, such as the movement stagnating in terms of growth, might drive it forward in that direction.
I think we are a very, very long way from being able to seriously raise a demand to dismantle corporations, which is why I would not particularly favor raising such a demand. But if anybody asks me what I am personally for, I have no problem telling them. Likewise, if you are for campaign finance reform, I think that's what you should tell people. I just don't think OWS as a movement should raise that as a demand, nor do I think there is any immediate likelihood that it will, though I would acknowledge that a very great number of OWS activists would be fairly enthusiastic about such a demand.
OWS has a built in goal. It's built in goal is built into its name Occupy Wall Street. It has yet to do that. Once it actually accomplishes that goal will be time enough to figure out where to go next. Re the Populist movement I was talking about the mass Populist movement of the 1880s and 90s, which was the last real mass movement which arose in this nation. One of the main reasons nothing like it has arisen since is precisely because of all the various election laws that have been subsequently passed making the development of such a mass movement all but impossible.
I agree with everything you said. I really do. I just hope that at least one good, lasting thing comes out of the movement. I really do believe that campaign finance reform could be an issue that more people could endorse. It could help with the momentum of the movement. I do agree that trying to form an organization would be detrimental to the cause at this point. Endorsing a few select issues would, I think, not make it an organization.
I almost hate to bring it up, but the American Populist movement, as well as the Populist Party of the late 1800's was largely unsuccessful. They did have specific goals, not the least of which was free silver trade. Their general concerns were very similar to OWS, actually. They formed and fell in the span of about 12 years. What brought them down was indecision, and trying to form a third political party. They were co-opted by the Democrats. William Jennings Bryant sold them out. Bastard.
Also, that was not the last real mass movement in our history. The Prohibition movement of the early 20th century was actually larger than that particular populist movement. The Prohibition movement had a very specific objective. Although misguided, it was very successful. Indeed the KKK of the early 20th century was the largest social movement in U.S. history. That is a little known fact.
Actually you don't agree with everything I said, which is fine. That's the nature of a real social movement. It has to have room for a wide variety of view points. That said, and for the record, I personally think that it would be a disaster for OWS to endorse the idea of campaign finance reform a disaster just short of campaign finance reform actually becoming the rule of law. There is already far too much state intervention in the electoral process. We don't need any more. If an opposition movement is going to be at all successful in the electoral arena, if anything we need a lot fewer election laws. IMHO the entire body of both election law and administrative labor law should be thrown out. That would be a real accomplishment and give popular movements considerably more latitude and freedom to organize.
The Populist movement of the late 19th century was not only the biggest mass popular movement in American history. It was also the most successful. At its peak there were Populist Sunday schools, Populist men's clubs, Populist women's clubs, Populist youth clubs, Populist consumer cooperatives, Populist producer cooperatives, Populist restaurants, populist taverns, Populist rooming houses, Populist newspapers and Populist encampments. At its peak it was possible to live one's entire life inside the populist movement. Read Larry Goodwyn's books on the subject. On top of that there were literally thousands of Populist elected officials. It had an organization of very nearly 3 million people in a society of under 100 million. It was the last really serious mass popular movement, much greater in its consequence than the CIO which was the next largest movement. The greatest impediment to building a similar movement is the great body of election law developed since then, which at every turn inhibits the development of a mass party in the electoral arena because of its very existence. After the Populist movement was effectively co-opted by the Democratic Party (the first popular movement to fall to that fate--the Democratic Party from then to now being the place where all popular mass movements go to die)--the remnants of the Populist Party left wing went on to form the Socialist Party which was in turn basically smashed for its opposition to World War I.
The Temperance movement was a curious phenomenon in that it was always a minority movement, never really a popular movement in the sense of being a movement of the people. Widespread drunkeness certainly was a problem within the 19th century working class. Benjamin Franklin writes of it being an issue for urban workers even in the 18th century. That said, the notion of Prohibition never really had popular support. After it passed even Warren Harding had a boot legger for the White House. It's passage is a testament to the organizational skills of its advocates, not its popular appeal. The KKK was big for sure, but never as big as the Populists and it was hardly while it may have approached being a mass movement, it was never a popular movement which the Populist movement was by definition.
Well, it seems that you are an anarchist. I can't respond to that. You also seem to have a different set of historical facts than I do. I don't know how to respond to that either. I wish you well. I hope you find what you are looking for. Take care.
Personally, I eschew labels as Americans generally use labels as cuss words rather than investing them with any particular content. That is, calling somebody a socialist is more or less like calling them a son of a bitch. It doesn't mean a whole lot except that perhaps you don't like them, or you don't like the way they think or more accurately you don't like the way you think they think.
Re the historical facts, again read Goodwyn's stuff on the Populist movement. Most of the left, the tiny real left not Nancy Pelosi who no one outside of America could seriously consider a leftist, has for generations been trying to recapture the strength and breath of what the Populist movement was. OWS is the smallest whisper of that and a hope for the future. Evidence that Prohibition was never really a popular movement is found in the fact of how wide spread it was violated beginning from the moment it was passed.
In terms of what I am looking for frankly I'm amazed at the development of OWS. Like the fall of the Berlin Wall or the collapse of Communism, I always analytically believed it was coming, but now that it's actually here I can hardly believe it.
I'm an American and I don't respond to sound bites.
You just did. I don't mean to sound facetious, but you did. Honestly.
Oh god so you're making the argument that "Americans only respond to sound bites" is a sound bite in itself, and that by somebody countering that statement they have ironically proven the very statement they have attempted to deny? Ugh come on that is sophomoric.
But.....you did. The fact that you devoted time to defend and justify it is solid proof of what you did.
Well, I am not really trying to make the argument that all Americans respond to soundbites. That is beside the point. I wasn't aware that this was a court of law. What I am trying to argue is that OWS needs a core issue. I believe that issue should be real....
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
You've got to admit, though. You fell into your own trap by pointing it out. I will admit that it was sophomoric.
I totally agree with cfr.
YAY! ty Cheers!
OMG I'm heading back to the grown ups table.
Ok.
DKAtoday 1 points 1 hour ago
Create sign and send petitions.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/create-sign-and-send-petitions/ reply permalink edit delete ↥ ↧ DKAtoday 1 points 44 minutes ago
See also lobbydemocracy:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-have-spent-1000-hours-on-this-solution-please-ta/
Site for collection, collation and submission.
Wow. Thanks!
Protesting banks and moving your money to a smaller bank will do nothing to improve somebodies life or get them a job. Your time would be better spent on protesting companies to bring there manufacturing of products back to THIS country and retailers to sell only USA made products!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Protesting banks simply makes a statement. That is good. Protesting companies over off-shoring is also a very good idea, and would make a great statement as well. I am proposing a core message to insert into next year's election cycle.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
We could not afford those products!
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. July 4, 1776.
Right on, Man! Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
I know campaign finance reform is a very popular idea among OWS supporters and activists. I am an OWS supporter and I happen to think campaign finance reform is a very, very bad idea. Our election system, the election system of this corporate state, is already the most regulated of any industrialized democracy in the world. This amount of regulation by the corporate state is a major factor in undermining democracy.
Certainly corporations have far, far too much power in our economy, in our culture and in our politics to the extent that we live in what is essentially a corporate state. But campaign finance reform will only give that state, that corporate state, more power, which is to say it will give corporations ever more power. Every attempt to regulate corporate power for the last 100 years has failed. They have always found a way around it and typically they have turned efforts to regulate them to their advantage.
The only realistic approach is not to attempt to regulate corporations but rather to challenge their very existence, to call for the seizure of all corporate assets and to reorganize them democratically from below in the interest of everyone rather than in the interest of a tiny handful of stock holders.
I like the idea of taking power from the corporations. That is a great idea. If the people can get the power, I think that could be accomplished. I think that your statement about corporate regulation having never been effective, is inaccurate. Glass-Stigall and The Sherman Anti-Trust Act were both effective regulations. Indeed, many other regulations have been effective. Child labor laws come to mind. I do not believe that regulating campaign finance would give corporations more power. I think we can take power back from the corporations, but in small steps. Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
Regulation, by definition is ultimately ineffective. If regulation was effective then we wouldn't be concerned about corporate power today. The only really effective way to control corporate power is to dismantle corporations as institutions, seize all their assets and reorganize them democratically from below in the interests of everyone. Every effort to merely regulate corporations has only succeeded in giving corporations ever more power and creating a corporate state and now you want to give that corporate state even more power over the election process. No thanks.
Again, I think that dismantling corporations and seizing their assets may be a little ambitious at this point. Perhaps later on it will be feasible. The problem has not been too much regulation, it has been non-enforcement, and deregulation. We have been deregulating and privatizing our arses off for the last 30 years. Here we are. Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
Again, I think that dismantling corporations and seizing their assets may be a little ambitious at this point. Perhaps later on it will be feasible. The problem has not been too much regulation, it has been non-enforcement, and deregulation. We have been deregulating and privatizing our arses off for the last 30 years. Here we are. Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
It is not a question of being too ambitious or even what is possible. It is a matter of what will actually work. I certainly don't think that we are at this point sufficently well organized to seriously demand the seizure of corporate assets, which is one reason why I am basically opposed to raising any demands at this point. But the point is, at the point when we are sufficently well organized to be taken seriously what should we demand, what will actually work to address the problems we face. Certainly not giving a state, which we admit is run by the corporations still more power. In the mean time, maintaining a stance of intransigent opposition to corporate power as such will not only keep us on the moral high ground and remind us constantly who we are and what we are for, but undoubtedly the moderates will come up with all kinds of "reforms" to try and buy us off, but that shouldn't be our job. Our job should be to organize, organize, organize.
I think that there is a momentum curve to anything like this grass roots movement. I feel that if we don't form a consensus message we will become irrelevant. I think that dismantling corporations is a little too much for people right now.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
I think that dismantling corporations is a little too much for people right now.
Of course it is, but so, for that matter is the whole occupation movement. It's our job to organize people and bring them into the movement. But giving more power to a state that we acknowledge is owned lock, stock and barrel by the corporations not only doesn't make any sense to me, it would seem to go in exactly the opposite direction from that in which we want to go.
Yes, OWS is too much for people, perhaps. Let's give them something they can wrap their brains around.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom.
Yes, OWS is too much for people, perhaps. Let's give them something they can wrap their brains around. Campaign Finance Reform.
What precisely, regarding OWS is "too much"? And if we agree that the state is already owned lock, stock and barrell by the corporations and it can be empirically proved that existing American election laws are already the most complicated of any industrialized democracy, why in the world give that corporate state even more power over a election system that it already has far too much control over. Anybody who ever tried to run for office, or organize a election campaign or campaign committee can attest to how over regulated it already is.
I was responding to what you said. "Of course it is, but so, for that matter is the whole occupation movement. It's our job to organize people and bring them into the movement." I agree that it is our job to bring people into the movement. I think we can attract more people with campaign finance reform than with "let's dismantle the entire corporate structure."
You've got me wondering. Can you describe an example of how campaign funding regulations have given more power to corporations?
I don't take issue with individuals in OWS using all manner of proposed demands in an effort to recruit people to the movement. What I take issue with is making particular demands (really any demands at this point) the "official" position of OWS. I think any such effort would be very divisive and as such tend to undermine the movement.
Regarding any kind of election law reform (which is exactly what campaign finance reform would be) already the United States has the most complicated set of election laws of any industrialized democracy. All of this tends to put more and more power in the hands of the state rather than in the hands of the people, and a corporate dominated state at that. It is also the case that the United States has the most complicated set of labor laws of any industrialized democracy. These two sets of laws are not unrelated. They are part and parcel of the effort of the corporate state's effort to control and dominate popular movements. So far, one of the reasons the corporate state has not been able to control OWS is because it stays very consciously outside the prerogatives of the state, even to the extent of refusing to acknowledge that the state has the right to oversee our right to protest and demonstrate through the issuance of parade permits, the specifics of which the state controls.
One of the major reason why it has been so difficult for a mass opposition party to get off the ground in the United States is precisely because of all the hoops that existing election law makes "official" parties jump though. Campaign finance reform, while it looks good on the surface, is in fact just one more nail in that coffin, just one more set of rules that the corporations will undoubtedly find their way around while in the mean time they will make it ever more difficult for ordinary people and their organizations to put together a serious legal opposition. Anybody who ever tried to run for office can tell you how difficult all this is. Even for relatively minor offices, office seekers need to hire legal experts to negotiate their way through existing election law. Another law will most certainly not make that any easier.
What I am gathering, is that you are against laws in general. That is a whole different conversation. The U.S. does not have the most complicated labor laws in the world. Indeed most of the European nations have much more complicated labor regulations. As far as campaign laws, I don't necessarily think reform means only that we add to a bad system. I want a whole new way of handling political campaigns, free of corporate interest. To me that is reform. As far as specific demands are concerned. All of the successful grass roots movements in American history have had a specific goal. Civil rights, Prohibition, the Peace Movement, etc.
Also a very good issue but I think we already have an unbeatable banner/cause. Check it out.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-only-ever-send-out-one-message-to-governmen/
I love it. A new beginning. That really is what we need. I should have qualified my statement of "Greatest Victory" with the words "This Year." I am only looking forward to the immediate future, and how to start our beginning. OWS will have many future victories, of that I am sure.
Campaign Finance Reform. Boom!
What makes anyone think. just one concise goal is such a victory?? I am so sorry but that just sounds like settle for crumbs, there are too many things wrong with this government and it is time we say no more and fix it. Case in point is this question that someone asked on the net, not me, but...........:
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. ...Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.
On Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will post it on their wall, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."
What makes anyone think. just one concise goal is such a victory?? I am so sorry but that just sounds like settle for crumbs, there are too many things wrong with this government and it is time we say no more and fix it. Case in point is this question that someone asked on the net, not me, but...........:
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. ...Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does not make any sense.
On Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will post it on their wall, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .."
I agree with everything that you have posted here. In so far as a measurable victory for OWS, I think it's greatest accomplishment this year may be to powerfully inject one of these crucial issues into the debate for the presidential election. It could create awareness of a very crucial issue, if nothing else. I think that issue should be campaign finance reform. What do you think it should be?
If we are persistent enough, we can fill the vacuum, that is OWS platform, with campaign finance reform. Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Agreed and point made.
Let's start by asking the President to give up all his special interest money. He is going to raise $1B for his election alone! Think about how many people could be fed on that...
I completely agree.
I completely support election reform however, I know for a fact that nothing short of an Article 5 convention has the authority to make it real.
Article five rocks. I hope it works it's arse off.
We need to demonstrate in our states demanding an article 5 be enforcement of the constitution for it to be invoked. It was unconstitutionally denied perhaps 100 years ago.------
Check this out Phil, gotta' live pair of coginfils.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/woman-cried-do-to-violence-towards-her-store/#comment-293973
Agreed. ty, I'll check it out.
This is so old and so lame and so unconstitutional.
And so funny. All these idiots in their drumming circles, and they are not even sure why they are there!
Why did the morons gather in Zoocatti? Why do bugs gather round a light?
Bugs gather around a light to get warmth. Morons gather in Zucotti Park to keep the demonstrators from getting in the street. Old and lame? Perhaps. Unconstitutional? Since when is peaceable assembly unconstitutional? By the way, do you know what is cooler than a drum circle?