Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Proposal for OWS 2.0 -- Don't Occupy - Engage

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 7:17 a.m. EST by Meesa (173) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hurrah for taking this to DC! I propose it is time for OWS 2.0 -- a revised model concentrating on Washington and shaping/reshaping policies and processes that will result in real, tangible felt change for all Americans.

I also propose re-branding this movement, from "Occupy" to "Engage." The word Occupy has bugged me from Day 1. I'm looking for real change, not the usual "demonizing" and dividing rhetoric of revolutions past. I want to see people not "occupying" -- that is too static for me, the often-quoted "people just standing around." Rather, I want to see, feel, hear, smell and taste ENGAGEMENT. People being engaged with their families, their neighbors, their communities. Engaging in innovative relationships with businesses and civic groups. Engaging in the development of alternative fuels, alternative food systems, alternative ways of being and thinking. Engagement seems to me closer to what "Occupy" has been about, too -- engaging people to think "outside the box," engaging the media and onlookers in new ways.

Do you see what I mean? "Engage" is positive change and personal empowerment. It is movement, conversation, curiosity, being aware. "Occupy" is hostile, stationary, oppressive. If all this rebranding is too complicated, maybe we can re-imagine "Occupy" to be defined as "mindfulness" -- to mentally -- as well as physically -- "occupy" one's life. In this case, get rid of that clenched fist, already! Replace this with an image closer to the end goal.

I've posted this before but it bears reposting. I propose the "Occupy" philosophy shift to something closer to this model: The Plenitude Economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR-YrD_KB0M

Seriously. I'm thinking of starting a working group called Engage: OWS 2.0

What do you think?

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

RECLAIM

I've no desire to be engaged to or with treasonous criminals.

[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 7 years ago

You need to understand OWS 1.0 ... at the heart, the spirit. Prior to Adbusters and the new left's attempt to co-opt us.

"How to cook a pacific #revolution"

http://takethesquare.net/2011/07/15/how-to-cook-a-pacific-revolution/

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 7 years ago

You are absolutely right. OWS 2.0 and replace the fist. This movement is going to die if it doesn't move to the next level, and time is quickly running out.

I'm trying to reconcile three realistic approaches. The first approach I found was The 99% Declaration https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ Holding a National General Assembly in Philadelphia July 4th 2012 and using the Committees of Correspondence model that proved successful in 1774, well, it just doesn't get more American!

Then I found http://thedeclarationofdesperation.wordpress.com/ The Declaration Of Desperation. WOW! but theghostofthomasjefferson said to me: "I wrote the Declaration of Desperation. I believe the 99% Declaration is an ineffective document. The Occupy Movement will fail if it is adopted. For it will alienate the American People. This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued."

And then bensdad informs me of his Amendment idea. I love his approach too.

I think "OWS: Moving Forward" leads to a meeting in Philly, not DC. Declare the occupation over today 11/11/11

Philadelphia would be a perfect place to launch your Plenitude Economy working group. It's excellent too.

sign me up : )

[-] 1 points by Cocreator (306) 7 years ago

How bout Impeach Them All

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

Engage & ACT

meet us - Nov 12 6PM 60 Wall St - "WE ARE THE 83%"

We have a large number of great, well thought out, COMPLICATED ideas that will require a huge amount of "selling" and “explanation" and will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple – and that is popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on -
that 76% of Republicans already agree on -
that 56% of TP already agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.


THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just 99 days.)


If they could tie the left and right into a success -
If Ohio won. If Arizona won. If Maine won. If Mississippi won - WHY CAN'T WE ??????????


I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.


Ohio won. Arizona won. Maine won. Mississippi won -
I feel that using their tactics, and the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.

[-] -1 points by justaguy (91) 7 years ago

So the NRA, AARP and TP have only a minority goal? I think that (sorry no proof just my gut feeling), that a majority of Americans support at least one of those three organizations or the goals they have.

Selling the OWS as something that all people need to get on board with using a catchy slogan might work for awhile for some people, but the more and more bad press OWS gets, along with the calls for bringing down the capitalist system, our banking system, and our political system, people will not only not join in, but will actively fight against.

I for one totally support the NRA. Without them, we would have no right to bear arms (well we would have the right, but the political class would strip it down to nothing), and the 2nd amendment is going to become as important as the 1st if things keep going on the path they are on.

Ohio was won by Unions from out of state pouring better than 30 million dollars. Talk about money in politics.

[-] 1 points by owstag (508) 7 years ago

Taking it to DC makes a lot of sense (though there has been a DC occupy movement all along). However, there's something about this 'march of 12' people from NYC to DC which smacks of 'hey look at me!', ya know? 1200, even 120 is s 'march', but 12-24 people is more like fishing for 15 minutes of fame. Probably an unfair criticism but it's definitely s thought which came immediately to mind; I can already imagine the 60 Minutes special now, as I suspect can those 'marching' to DC. [Maybe that's a good thing...]

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 7 years ago

I completely agree. "Engage" is the right word and I've been telling everyone in these forums that Washington is the place where that engagement needs to happen. It's the political system that writes the rules allowing GE to pay no corporate income tax.

You can occupy Wall Street, take over all the offices and trash the place all you want - it's not going to change a damn thing. This group just seems to be venting. When this group starts it's work in Washington, I'll drive down there and join you!

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

Occupying is a strategy that has been used by anarchists since anarchy was born. Punks use to squat, we occupy. The only thing we shouldn't occupy for too long are public toilets near Zuccotti. Protesters need them to start their revolution.

[-] 1 points by Meesa (173) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Point taken re the toilets. I'm proposing moving beyond the anarchy strategy. Or combining it with this idea of engagement. What do you think of the Plenitude Economy video and imagery employed within? The March to DC is one example of OWS 2.0 -- not so much about "occupying" as "engaging" towns/cities.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

I don't think anarchists want to move past anarchy. The fact that you use the word "past" is also problematic because you assume that your proposal is a step above, a step better than anarchy. This won't be seem as a good thing by occupiers.

Why not make your own party?

[-] 0 points by jayp74 (195) 7 years ago

So you're an anarchist? Brilliant. Stay in Quebec. They need you there.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 7 years ago

I am not an anarchist. I explained their strategy. I believe if you want to vanquish an opponent you must first learn how they wield their sword.