Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Please don't squander this opportunity!

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 5, 2011, 1:58 p.m. EST by justmyos (8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I'm starting to see cracks in the movement due to lack of focus. Why is there no declaration of concrete practical demands on this web site? How about a list of legislative actions that have a chance of becoming laws such as:

  1. Repeal or revision of the labor exempt laws (which legalizes white collar slavery, and promotes unemployment)
  2. Prohibit short sales of securities. (putting money down for a company to fail isn't "investing", it's gambling)
  3. Reinstate Glass-Steagall regulations. (or draft up a new set of restrictions in the form of a new bill) Instead of beating drums, having sing-alongs or vandalizing property, OWS should be checking out legal books at the library and educating themselves how to really change the system- THROUGH THE COURTS AND AT THE POLLS. Please don't squander this opportunity, or let the actions of the slackers/anarchists become the face of the movement!

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Philpux (643) from Mountain View, AR 12 years ago

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.”

[-] 1 points by justmyos (8) 12 years ago

Totally agree! Make a list of 5 or 10 (at the most) top ideas, take a vote, and then focus, focus, FOCUS on the top 1 to maybe 3 ideas that will help 99% of the population, then funnel all the OWS energy on making the changes happen. Protesting against corporate greed is an IDEA, but not a specific call to ACTION.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

NO WAR

Direct Democracy

Housing and healthcare

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

Yes, Matt, yes, direct democracy. Why won't people consider it? Also, take a look at a Plural Executive on Wikipedia, Federalist No. 70. Why do people shy from such? It is more democratic.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

to post a link

copy the address bar and paste the link in the response box

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70

Hamilton argued against it but maybe the time now is better for it.

Perhaps, one Dem, one Rep and one Independent.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

3 is certainly a better dynamic

[-] 1 points by LiveAndLetLive (79) from Fort Lauderdale, FL 12 years ago

I had a similar thread on "Why is OWS so reluctant to define clear cut goals"...... as soon as it started getting any traction, the thread magically disappeared! I proposed that the moderators could start an online poll with some key agendas and then everybody could vote to prioritize the issues.

[-] 1 points by Daennera (765) from Griffith, IN 12 years ago

Short selling serves as great a function as "normal" purchasing.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

There are of course many problems with the way the mainstream media presents the Occupy movement and that is one of the myriad of things that the Occupy movement will have to deal with. It may well be that at some stage in its development the Occupy movement will hit some kind of brick wall, will begin to slow down and may begin to dwindle. Obviously, should something of that sort occur then the Occupy movement will have to re-evaluate its tactics and strategies if it hopes to move forward and continue to grow. But that moment is not now. Right now the movement continues to grow doing exactly what it is doing. True, according to polling data it has lost some popular support but it still commands the support of a substantial minority of the population even in spite of misinformation in the mainstream media. What is more important though is that it continues to grow as an activist movement. If and when that trend slows down significantly or begins to reverse it will be time enough to revisit tactics and strategies. Meanwhile we need to keep on keeping on to keep on doing what we are doing because in term of movement building that seems to be working just fine.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

I think we must focus on specific goals, but not limit our mission. What is needed is fundamental transformation - something that will not be easy or quick to achieve. Our survival rests in our powers of endurance and resolution. A lot of people think that if they just blink we'll go away, but were not going away, not tomorrow, not ever.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Such "cracks" could be seen in the movement from day one, which is inevitable when a group of revolutionaries takes it upon itself to organize the vast majority, most of whom are nonpolitical and those who are political tend to be reformists. OWS is, by its nature a coalition of reformists and revolutionaries. Any effort to "focus" the movement by for example, getting it behind a particular piece of legislation or set of legislative proposals or political candidates, far from uniting the movement and pushing it forward is bound to split it.

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

This movement refuses to focus and get anything done. Other than collect more coats and blankets for the park. I want the people out there to be warm, don't get me wrong. I don't want anyone to freeze. But lack of focus has been a major issue from the start. You might want to check this group out. It split from OWS a few weeks ago. At least it has some concrete plans to work with and through government to get stuff done!

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I think the movement is extremely focussed, about as focussed as a movement (as opposed to an organization) can be. I think that the Declaration of the Occupation is one of the most coherent and inspiring documents ever produced in America, comparing quite favorably, for example, to MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech.

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

Sure. The Declaration is a great start. The protest is a great start. But at some point there needs to be more actions than making noise in the street. Fine, it has created attention and mobilized people. Next steps need to move beyond noise making. And be translated to affecting change through policies and legislation in Washington. Such as overturning Citizens Untied, enacting serious campaign finance reform, re-enacting Glass-Stegall. And more. There is alot to do. I don't want to just make noise or re-organize society. I want the government to respond to the legitimate issues that needs to be fixed in our country.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I think we are in a much earlier stage of development than you suggest. At best we number in the tens of thousands. When we number in the millions it will be time enough to think about where we go next. Right now we need to knuckle down to the serious and prosaic task of organizing the unorganized. In terms of "just" reorganizing society, reorganizing society, to me, sounds like a much, much, much bigger and more complicated task than "Just" overturning Citizens United or re-enacting Glass Stegall.

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

Agree, re-organizing society is a big task. You said "its up to us.... to reorganize society" in your post, I noticed, below. I didn't mean to suggest it was a "just" thing. The "just" was related to the noise only! Sorry for any confusion. I'm not sure what you mean by re-organize society. Tell me.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

We can't know what a democratic anticorporate reorganization of society from below would look like precisely because so few of us have organized ourselves at this point. When the occupation movement or its heir or equivalent has organized and mobilized several million people, then and only then will the bare outlines of a democratically reorganized society just begin to start becoming visible to us. If you insist on a model now I'd say look at the GAs as the basic organizing unit of a new society, though I expect they will evolve structurally and politically as and if the movement grows.

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

What is happening in the park, the so called pure democratic nature of how they are doing things, is not scaleable. They can barely function now down there. Nothing substantive is getting done. Thank goodness for other peoples generousity and shipments of coats and blankets have arrived! If they had to do it themselves and vote on it , it would take days to get through a working group about it and by the time it would reach the GA, they would surely be frozen already. And you think that it is going to scale up and be usable when there are several million people, that have bigger issues than coats and blankets?

We have already evolved structurally and politcally. Its called a Representative Republic. Why are they trying to re-invent the wheel, when they are going to end up with the same wheel in the end? Because the original wheel is the evolution, and it works. It just needs a little tightening up and fixing.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

This movement is brand new. It is attempting to take on an entire unjust social system including problems with the way in which the state is organized. It is bound to come up against glitches. I'd don't think any of these are insurmountable. To me the greatest threat to OWS is the possibility of being co-opted by the Democratic Party. For all its shortcomings the organization of the GA and the lack of an identifiable leadership provides some insulation against that in the short run. We will have to figure out longer range solutions, but there is time for that. Meanwhile it is important to recognize just how tiny our movement is so far, which means our main job remains: organize, organize, organize.

[-] 1 points by justmyos (8) 12 years ago

The Declaration is a list of grievances. That may be suffice to define a movement, but what's the purpose of a movement other than to create change? To do that you need to focus, organize, then mobilize on practical, ACHIEVABLE, specific, measurable goals.

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

I agree with you just. I don't want to "re-organize" society as RedJazz puts it. I want to fix whats broken. RedJazz's response is an example of exactly what I mean when I say that this movement refuses to focus on anything actionable. It is this kind of response that I have heard over and over in this movement.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Reformists will focus on all kinds of "reasonable" "actionable" and "realizable" demands and they will form organizations to put forward such "reasonable" demands. That is not the function of a social movement. With the situationists I believe in being realistic by demanding the impossible. I believe in making demands on the corporate state that if genuinely finds impossible to fullful precisely to point out just how unjust that way of organizing society is.

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

I suppose that makes me a reformist, because I want to focus on realizable demands. Why is that wrong?

Why is it unjust if the corporate state cannot satisfy an impossible demand? Can you give me an example to help explain this?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I suppose that makes me a reformist, because I want to focus on realizable demands. Why is that wrong? Why is it unjust if the corporate state cannot satisfy an impossible demand? Can you give me an example to help explain this?

Personally I think it is most important that OWS includes both reformists and revolutionaries. To paraphrase the Port Huron Statement "reformists for their relevance and revolutionaries for their vision," but to make that work, to keep that coalition together, that means that neither side in that equation can have dominance. Which is why I think that the grievances of the Occupation Declaration are sufficient. It is in their nature that one can draw either reformist demands or revolutionary conclusions from them, but to do either formally, to force the movement as a whole to make such a decision, to come to such a conclusion, would necessarily split and probably destroy the movement.

It is the very vagueness of the movement that gives it its strength and ability to keep growing. Once it becomes a real mass movement will be time enough to revisit these issues. Right now our job should be to organize, organize, organize.

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

I agree with much of what you are saying. The movement still needs to grow in order to be an effective force. But I still want to understand better what you mean by an impossible demand? Give me an example of what would be impossible. And why does that make the corporate state unjust if it cannot satisfy it?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Any demand that the corporate state will not meet, or cannot meet or even thinks that it cannot meet is an impossible demand. It might be quite simple. Right now, for example, a full employment program in which the federal government would be the employer of last resort is concieved of as impossible by many, including many Democrats for that matter.

Making such demands (impossible demands) necessarily puts the whole corporate state in crisis. Just look at Greece right now for example. To the Greek state (and for that matter virtually every other nation state at this point) the refusal of the Greek people to pay the national debt appears to be an impossible demand. Yet that is clearly what the Greek people want. If not then the idea of a referendum on the debt would never have been recinded. But that is precisely what the people of Iceland did. They refused to pay the national debt and they made the banks criminally responsible for it.

I would completely agree that we are not there yet in the US, but the way to get there is precisely to raise impossible demands. Demands that seem reasonable to the vast majority but which the state feels are impossible to fulfill. We are currently living in a profoundly unjust system. Just look at the unemployment rate. Look at the fact that former students are finding it impossible to pay debts for their education at public univerisities which should be as free as kindergardens in the first place. Look at all the people who are being displaced by foreclosures. Look at stop and frisk. Look at the fact that the United States, alone in the world, maintains military bases all over the world. Look at how social minorities continue to be oppressed and expolted. Look at the errosion of workers rights. Do you call that justice? It is the corporate state that is doing that.

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

Thanks for the example. Now I understand much better what you mean! I need to think about this for a while.

But I was thinking about something else - given that there is a lack a focus in demands, this movement is working on the assumption that it will continue to grow this way. Perhaps it would grow more quickly if people had a better understanding of the goals/demands of the movement. Alot of people are turned off by the vagueness and dissaray, of so many different complaints coming from the protest. It makes it easier for people to think it lacks credibility and dismiss it. It doesn't speak to them because it is saying everything, which is interpretted as saying nothing essentially. The true mainstream, middle of the middle is the target audience in order to reach 99%. Saying nothing is not going to win that group over.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

OWS has managed, fairly early on, to win the support of a signficant sector of organized labor, which is after all, a pretty conservative bunch. And they did this in spite of (or I think because of) the vagueness of their position. What they are clearly for is an ethos of social solidarity, which after all is part of the essential ethos of primitive Christianity, so I think this is a value that most people understand and empathize with once they get over their cynicism. The idea of mutual aid, of helping each other and especially those less fortunate is very compelling after all and something that OWSers across the board, radical or liberal, can agree on.

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

Naturally organized labor jumped on the bandwagon earlier. Direct Action is their bread and butter. They were born of Direct Action. Getting others to "empathize" and get over their "cynicism" is exactly the point. But using organized labor as a PR campaign is not going to do that. Most people I know are angry with unions. Govt employee pension funds are making their States go broke. People paint with a broad brush, and then apply this frustration to all unions. And lets face it, collective bargaining units have their own problems with abuse and corruption.
"Helping others" sounds like an idea that should be able to gather support from the mainstream that are sitting on the sidelines. The only problem with that is mainstream middle America, by definition, listens to the mainstream media. And the MSM is painting this movement as "wealth distribution". I agree with you that the "vagueness" of the position has worked to a degree. But at some point this movement runs the risk of being stuck with no position, numbers will dwindle, and will be stuck with only those supporters who happened to be attracted to the movement from the early stages. We need to take this movement to the next level. There is nothing for the mainstream to grasp on to. Except, sadly, the garbage they hear on Fox news. For many, their first impression of the protest is going to be very difficult to overcome. There needs to be a more clear position in order to get the movement to the next level of supporters.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

The Declaration of the Occupation is not directed toward either the state or to corporations. It is addressed to the people of the world. Generously probably about 200 thousand people have participated in occupations in the United States, a nation of nearly 300 million. That's hardly a sufficient number to effectively make any demands on either the state or corporate power. On the other hand, if the occupation movement does become powerful enough it won't have to make demands on either the state or corporate power. It will be in a position to reorganize society democratically from below. Demands, after all, do put somebody else in charge of your happiness. It's up to us to organize, to build the movement, and to reorganize society democratically from below.

[-] 1 points by justmyos (8) 12 years ago

"That's hardly a sufficient number to effectively make any demands on either the state or corporate power." - Totally disagree with this statement. Sometimes all it takes is one person to make a huge change. "On the other hand, if the occupation movement does become powerful enough it won't have to make demands....." Not clear on the rest of your comments. "Reorganize society"? How, buy doing what specifically? What legislation will support this change? Again FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS and call for a specific action, or else the movement is just a venting session.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

At this moment, the occupation movement in the United States has mobilized, at most, perhaps 200 thousand people. When we have seriously organized several million people it will be time enough to talk about the next stage. The tiny handful of people currently mobilized in the occupation movement can hardly speak democratically for the 99%, which is why our primary activity right now is and should be to organize the unorganized and mobilize the unmobilized. The more people who are organized and mobilized the more that movement will accurately reflect the needs and desires of the 99%.

In terms of a reorganization of society democratically from below, that is my vision, but I do believe it is implied in the whole approach of the Declaration of the Occupation and its list of grievances. There is a clear tension in the movement between the anarcho-syndicalist ethos and values of its originators and most articulate thinkers and the much more reformist perspective of the vast majority of its followers and supporters. Basically, I think that tension is very healthy, a healthy tension between the values of reform and revolution, but it is way, way too early to try to resolve that tension in either direction and I personally think that a real synthesis is impossible.

Demands make somebody else responsible for your happiness. Did the colonists make demands on King George. Of course not except perhaps to say: Leave! Did Lincoln make any demands on Jefferson Davis or did Churchill and Stalin make any demands on Hitler. No, except perhaps to say, Give Up. Ultimately, neither should we have any demands on corporate power or the state which represents it so well.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 12 years ago

1) What exactly do you mean by the labor exempt laws?

2 and 3 are great ideas and we need to start work on them ASAP

[-] 1 points by justmyos (8) 12 years ago

Under currect exempt laws, if you're a manager ( a title that is abused in corp. America) your employer can create conditions that force you to work an 80 hour week and not pay you a nickle in overtime. This allows them to get by hiring any new workers, and creates a workforce that has no life other than working 24/7. http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

[-] 0 points by tsizzle (73) from De Pere, WI 12 years ago

this website spends more time complaining about the police, than anything else these days..its becoming a "screw authority" rally, that is a loser.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 12 years ago

If the OWS dies out (hopefully not, but just in case), then ye are all welcome to join the Teaparty movement on April 15 for our 5th annual protest. Like that Benjamin Franklin poster of the snake -- Unite.

:-) IMHO.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Okay, FOCUS.-----

Focus on gaining the authority to meet demands. Nothing else matters. Article 5 of the constitution has that authority. Accordingly EVERYONE is in the wrong place. They should be at every state capitol working to compel the states to apply to congress for an article 5 OR demanding that congress simply begin convening delegates because congress IS unconstitutional and has been that way for about 100 years with their refusal to call a convention.

If nothing else, share this factual, logical, constitutional message at the (infiltrated) nations capitol on Sunday. Ask people to join this message board and use art5 at the end of their user name to show support for the rule of law under the constitution.

The white house does not care about the constitution or us.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

You never did explain who it is who you think has "infiltrated" the US government?

Which route do you envision, for altering the Constitution? A two-thirds majority in both houses of the "infiltrated" US Congress? Or a national constitutional convention assembled at the request of two-thirds of the legislatures of the states?

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

You never showed you are anything but one of the infiltrators. Pretend your stupid enough to think a congress and senate that has been in violation of the constitution for 100 years would call a convention on its own and your loss of credibility is certified.-------

Pretending that is showing you would not use information to defend the constitution, you work to usurp the constitution.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

How has Congress and the Senate (which is part of Congress, BTW) violated the Constitution for the last 100 years?

What's your plan for your proposed amendment? What amendment are you proposing? What mechanism do you intend for proposing that amendment? You just keep repeating your absolutist mantra that anybody who doesn't agree with your proposal is against the Constitution. But what would I be for, if I were in favor of whatever you're proposing?

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Their record is shameful. http://www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=2

The supreme court is worse. http://www.foa5c.org/file.php/1/Articles/Coleman.htm

You pretend ignorance infiltrator, and do it to usurp the constitution.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

Your citations don't explain anything about how Congress has been violating the Constitution for the last 100 years?

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

An infiltrator would never read the proof that congress was violating the constitution. Congress represents the infiltration of government, you work for them. People are not stupid. Thanks for making your role obvious.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

Responding to my serious question by dismissing me as an "infiltrator" is not a very compelling argument. You're starting to sound like Rain Man. What is it that Congress has been doing for the last 100 years that is unconstitutional? Congress has passed plenty of laws that the courts have ruled unconstitutional afterward. That's a normal part of the constitutional process. I want to know what you mean specifically when you say that Congress has been violating the Constitution for the last 100 years? Article V has been employed as recently as 1992, when the 27th Amendment was ratified. I don't understand what you mean when you say that Congress has been violating the Constitution for the last 100 years?

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Changing the subject from the fact that you have never presented a method by which to defend the constitution from the violations you refuse to note only reinforces the fact you are a cognitive infiltrator here. Your intent is to damage the reputation and standing of this lawful movement or impede its defense of the constitution.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

I feel like I'm having a conversation with a contestant in a Turing contest who is losing.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

Changing the subject and applying weak ridicule only shows you attack those who openy propose to use article 5 to defend the constution.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

It's called "ad hominem", and you still haven't explained how Congress has been violating he Constitution. I seriously think that I could automate you with a Ruby script.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

You do not read that which shows violations of the constitution by congress when you are provided with links and you stand with no law. Your intent is clear, you attack those who seek to defend the constitution and you do it without reason or support of law.

[Removed]