Forum Post: So what would supporters of OWS create?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 19, 2011, 8:30 p.m. EST by MVSN
(768)
from Stockton, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Rarely have I read any real solutions for the awful shape of my country. Many times I have asked specific questions about what your kind would change to make this a better country and all I get are platitudes, cliches or insults. What needs to change and how would you change it?
So, I'll give you my stump speech.
I want strong local government, and liberal national government. I want open government, where we can all see what is going on, and track the flow of money and encourage the flow of ideas.
Ideas can not flow at the National level. They have to flow and be acted on locally. But, local governments can never be strong if National taxes take all the funds, and leave nothing home. Thus, reverse national taxes with local taxes, where 90% stays local and 10% goes National.
Welfare reform should also go local. Local people are providing the services, the people being helped are local. And, the money should stay local. In all cases? Maybe not, but I see no reason why the poorer neighborhoods need the money to take a round trip through Washington.
After Welfare reform, and Education reform is needed. Again, why does the money need to funnel through Washington? Why not tax local, and spend local, and keep things close to home where you can watch them...
A liberal National Government also means that if you want things different in your town, you can make them that way....
that's my 2 cents...
-Jimi
I agree with much of what you say.government at the local level is best able to take care of problems.
Most importantly Corporations should not be allowed to fund campaigns and lobbyist’s should not exist!!!
Politicians are human and as such they are greedy, therefore they should not be tempted by corporations and their lobbyists
I do not believe it is the responsibility of the people themselves to achieve comprehensible solutions of economic and governing systems. It is, however, the right of the people to employ their republican (not the party) voice of satisfaction or dissatisfaction equally.
That being said, I would suggest that the primary action of the Representatives should revolve around a redress of the Banking and Currency of the Unites States, especially those which altered in the Banking Act of 1935 onward, originating as a response to pressing issues of the depression era of America.
In league with this consideration, a readdress of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, with a mind on the previous considerations of the function of centralized banking legislation in both the First Bank of the United States and the Second Bank of the United States prior to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act under President Wilson.
And to conduct both of these committees with a direct responsibility to the average citizen's mean degree of opportunity to attain financial liberty; if in lending, reliant yet only upon the exchange of short term discounted American dollars for the trade of lent dollars alone. By discounted it is implied that there is a forgiveness to the age of debt in which the financial institution has that is marginally greater than the individual citizen, so to facilitate the order of lending and earning accordingly and reasonably for both parties involved.
In effect, this is a change of perspective from asking how to solve the Federal debt crises to asking how to solve the Public debt crises.
I can absolutely agree with #3! I've always thought that a lawyer being a lawmaker is a conflict of interest.
Create a country where the government controls the banks, all manufacturing and education. A country where the government subsidizes the citizens by their need. A country where medical and educational opportunities are free. A country where everybody is the same, regardless of your position.
Thank you for your honesty.
Read the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. It is really the only political statement that OWS has ever produced. It contains no demands, but a list of more than 20 grievances. It is not addressed to any government or corporation, but rather to the people of the world. As such it is an organizing document. OWS is quite cognizant of the fact that while it is part of the 99% it is hardly representative of it. To do that it will have to become much, much, much larger. Right now there are generously maybe 200 thousand OWS activists nationwide. When we have a force of 30 or 40 million activist then we will be in a position to begin to talk seriously with each other about how to change things. But at that point these proposals will not be formulated as demands because we will be on the verge of being able to reorganize society democratically from below.
And what does "reorganize democratically from below" mean?
Well, I'll admit that besides being somewhat vague, the notion of reorganizing society democratically from below is redundant. But look at the top of this list. Right under where it says Occupy Wall Street. It says "The revolution continues world wide." That's what reorganizing society democratically from below is about. It's not about violence but it is about a fundamental change in the social order. It's hard to say at this point exactly what that would look like because it will take a genuine majoritarian movement to do that and right now OWS is a tiny, tiny minority, generously not more than 200 thousand or so in a nation of nearly 300 million. We need to organized expodentially more people before we can even begin to talk about how a new society will be organized and what it will look like. But we can say what it will not look like and that is what the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City is all about, which is on this website and why I urge you to read it. It lists more than 20 grievances. I can tell you what a democratically reorganized society will not look like. It will be free of all the grievances listed in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. If the 1% can figure out how to free us of all those grievances without a fundamental reorganization of society, mazel tov.
I've no doubt that many in your movement talk specifics. Some espouse a Marxist/ socialist view though they are short on specifics.
The Declaration of the Occupation, which is available at this website and which I've urged you to read is very short but it does contain more than 20 very specific grievances and it is really the only "official" political document that OWS has yet to produce. Marxism and socialism are just labels that don't mean much. They are basically swear words to use against somebody you disagree with, more or less like calling somebody a son of a bitch.
Are you saying there are no people within your movement that espouse those ideals? Really? And I know some that don't consider those "swear words". Those words mean something and it is not wise to dismiss them out of hand.
What I am saying is that abstractions like socialism or fascism or Marxism and even democracy are contested terms. They mean different things to different people, and so are not necessarily particularly useful or even instructive. It is much more useful to say concretely what you think somebody is for and once you do that anybody can call it anything they like. But you might have one definition of a contested term any somebody else might have quite another defintion. So if you are not just employing a cuss word, what is it exactly that you mean?
The post by Steven2002 is a good example of what I was talking about.
Seems pretty statist to me, which are views shared by many OWSers, perhaps most, but not a consensus. The evidence does suggest that there is enough real wealth in this nation (and I'm not talking about money) to provide all of the basics for everyone, though I would take issue that the state is the best mechanism to do that. Our main job now is not all these various notions, of which there are as many as there are OWS supporters, but to build the movement. We are still a tiny, tiny movement. When we are in to the tens of millions then we can begin to talk about how we will go about reorganizing society.
Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I do appreciate it.
What I mean is Marxism as in the Communist Manifesto. And a European style socialism. Or a Venezualeon socialism. I read the list of demands and much of it reminds me of both of those isms.
First, I don't know what you read, but OWS has no demands nor has it made any demands. The only political document that OWS has produced is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City which very specifically contains no demands, much to the chagrin of many OWS supporters who think we should have demands. The Declaration does have a list of more than 20 grievances but none of these are formulated as demands. I've read that it is true that many of the initiators of OWS are strongly influenced by the intellectual traditions of anarchism, but that is quite distinct from the intellectual traditions of Marxism, European social democracy or Latin American socialism all of which are quite distinct from each other for that matter.
Bad choice choice of words on my part. You are right they are grievances.
[Removed]
Hardly anyone dares to even suggest the radical things that we need to do to fix our country, otherwise you would already know. But there are people that have proposed all sorts of things, from finance reform to calls for new banking systems to new currencies and everything in between. Why don't we hear them? Because too many people no longer can think outside of the box. What we truly need is to get control of our economy. What that actually means is that we mainly need STRICT control of mostly trade policies. Eliminate free trade. At that point, we can throw all sorts of money at our problems without worry of it floating out of the country. That's what I personally want. People really have called for this kind of stuff, so you just need to look for it. I doubt anything will happen about it though, since our problems exist without a face. No one can hardly even claim responsibility for the problems or the way the system works, since they happened long ago, so no one wants to stand up. I think the best option might still be to occupy congress, but they are bought out. So good luck.
I can agree about much of free trade. Tariffs erected on most foreign made goods would be a start.
LMAO
YOU have the gumption to talk of "platitudes, cliches or insults"???
::::: TROLL ::::::
So says the only "person" to not answer the original question so far. Go away stupid.
BYE BYE little muppets... happy trolling!!! LMAO