Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Some friendly questions about/for Occupiers.

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 8:17 p.m. EST by sarahd (1) from Brooklyn, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hi - I'm a social work grad student at Hunter College and I've spent a lot of time down at Occupy Wall Street- participating but also interviewing people for a Community Advocacy paper I did for school. I want to focus another of of my papers on the Occupy movement and I had a couple specific questions I'd love to have answered by someone who feels that have strong knowledge of the movement as a whole. While I feel I have a fairly strong grasp of the movement, it would be nice to get some specific answers. I know Occupy is a leaderless movement, so these questions are open to anyone but preferably somebody who is very involved. Questions below. Thank you!

  1. What policy issues/problems does the group address and why?
  2. What type and level of policy or program change is it seeking, if any and why?
  3. What strategies is it using and why?
  4. What problems/constraints/successes/failures has it faced and why?
  5. What is it's next step?
  6. What is it's vision for the future in relation to it's goals?

5 Comments

5 Comments


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

Well, let me just sum it up for you this way. Based on my experience here and observations!

In case you don't know this already, this place is anarchy. This movement was started by an anarchist. Then he got some of his anarchist friends to join in I think. Then they decided that they wanted to promote anarchy by intstituting an anarchy structure (decentralized, no leaders, no heirarchy) and use direct democracy as a way to make decisions (I use the term decision here loosely). Direct Democracy is also associated with anarchy and seems to be the anarchist preferred method of getting things done. Which is kind of silly, because it is completely ineffective and absurd. Then, the anarchists brought along some more friends to help. The Serbian Revolution group - Otpor. I think it was Otpor that helped to coordinate the so-called "spontaneous" uprise of Occupy around the globe. I think that the anarchists believed that they could take advantage of peoples general discontent with the many problems we have today, in order to further their own agenda.

Then there are the regular protesters. Some are aware of the anarchists roots of this movement ( and Otpor), some are not. Some care. Some don't.

Most regular protesters believe that the first "demand" should be to end the corruption of government by getting money out of the political system. There have already been two pieces of legislation as a result of OWS to do this. Lots of people also want the re-instatement of Glass-Steagall and even more financial regulations.

The anarchists are using the Direct Action method of change. This generally does not involve working with government directly. But is meant to cause disruption to put pressure on government to make changes.

Lots of regular protesters want to make change more directly with and through government. Such as electing delegates to run in elections. But so long as the anarchists (yes - there are leaders, for people to imply otherwise is ignorant or a lie) are running this thing, I do not believe OWS would endorse working with government for change.

What is the next step? Probably more anarchy. Unless this movement loses the anarchy and the nonsense of direct democracy, and puts into place an effective structure with real leaders who want to affect change with and through government.

I meant to sum it up. It got a little long! Hope this helps.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCrC6GL7430&feature=youtu.be

[-] 1 points by DemocraticCredit (37) 12 years ago

In the 1930's , a number of countries around the world had hearings (Royal Commissions-BE) re the "power to create credit". All agreed it was a sovereign right. Division of opinion was whether it should be kept in private hands(Corporations) or with politicians. Policiticians having only ever briefly taking control during time of war (Lincoln)

I believe that a new paradgim world wide needs to take place.The power to create needs to revert to individual soverign control. ie. neither government nor private corporations. All trading banks must be owned by individual depositors, under a charter to protect individual rights and not on the basis of larger depositor having majority control via larger shareholding.

The private, individual, democratic sovereign right to create credit shall be

  1. 1/3 for our basic needs a. health b. shelter c. education d. employment

  2. 1/3Community - County,City,State a. hospitals b. schools c.infrustructure d. emploment

  3. 1/3 National - Fedral

I believe that if we apply the safe banking practice of fractionlization to 9-10 times deposits, retain this power in the hands of the individual then we can avoid the extremely destructive practice that is bringing western civilization into question. The ownership of our banking system must become truly Capitalistic, Democratic and serve mankind as we as a species face global challenges never before encountered.

I believe what I propose is easily achieved without " confrontation" to the existing order at this time. By simply (??) applying the will that is presently being shown by the Occuppy Movement Worldwide , but especially the United States, for where you go, we go, the what I propose is emminently possible.

Ask for the "right", legislate for the right to have a licenced "commercially trading bank", with the power to create credit i.e. creat credit. These "people's" banks operate under "charters" that might include the following:

  1. equal ownership by individuals .
  2. ownership via "deposit" and not sharholding.
  3. 0 - 20% interest to be charged dependent on human dignity. i.e : education loans 0-1%, first home 1% (?) flat screen TV 20%, second home 10%
  4. car ? 10% I hope you get the drift

So easy, in a country like the mighty United States, a country that has been a beacon to the world for 200 years.

Will it become this once again.

Today we see it as a nation that has lost its human heart and given corporations the right to be humans and given them the roll of feeding your people from cradle to grave.

[-] 1 points by DemocraticCredit (37) 12 years ago

Do you know that no bank lends money deposited with it?

Do you know that when a bank lends money it CREATES it out of nothing?

Do you know that bank loans are merely pen and ink entries in the credit columns of a bank's ledger? They have no other existence.

Do you know that practically all the money in the community comes into circulation as a debt to the banks?

Do you know that money loaned by a Government bank is just as much a debt to the people as if it were loaned from a private bank?

Do you know that “fixed deposits” are a plausible screen to hide the creation of credit?

Did it ever occur to you that the banks enjoy this unique facility of creating credit and putting the nation progressively into debt-bondage because they create FINANCIAL credit against the REAL credit created by the people?

Do you realize that every time a Government borrows money for a public work, the people are debited with the liability (in perpetuity), but are never credited with the value of the asset?

Do you know that every repayment of a bank loan cancels the amount of the loan out of existence?

Do you know that Treasury Notes are Government I.O.U.'s — national pawn tickets for pledging the assets of the country to the banks for the loan of OUR OWN financial credit?

Do you know that banks purchase bank sites, build premises, and acquire assets at no real cost whatever to themselves — by the simple process of honoring their own checks?

You may dismiss these affirmations as “incredible”, or “absurd”, but if you will read on, each one will be proved beyond all shadow of doubt.

Most of us have grown up with only the vaguest notions of money. We are fairly certain that it is the Government's right to print notes and mint coins. For the rest, our knowledge is distinctly foggy.

Most people, for example, labor under the impression that the only money in the community is notes, silver, and copper. But this is a very, very small part of the community's money.

In fact, notes, silver, and copper — legal tender — is used for less than five per cent of the total purchases made. Over 95 per cent of all business is done by checks.

This check currency is really bank-created money — bank credit — but it functions exactly the same as legal tender money. Banking authorities of world-wide repute state that banks can and do create credit up to nine or ten times their cash resources.

Banks go to great pains to perpetuate the fiction that they are merely “the custodians of their customers' deposits” — that they lend these deposits, and that their profit consists of the difference in the rate of interest which they pay to depositors, and the interest they receive from borrowers. Such an idea is quite wrong, and it is the popular acceptance of this major monetary fallacy which gives rise to most of the false notions upon the subject of money.

The facts about money are as follows: —

(1) Banks do not lend money deposited with them.

(2) Every bank loan or overdraft is a creation of entirely new money (credit), and is a clear addition to the amount of money in the community.

(3) No depositor's money is used when a bank lends money.

(4) Practically all the money in the community begins its life as an interest-bearing debt to the banks.

The technique of a bank loan

All that a bank does in lending anybody, say $1,000, is to open an account in the borrower's name — if he hasn't already got an account — and write Limit: $1,000, across the top of the ledger. The borrower is now free to operate and overdraw on this account to the limit indicated.

When the account is drawn on the check, and in turn the check is lodged in another account at the same or another bank, a “deposit” is thus created, and the supply of money increased. Thus bank loans create “deposits”, which plainly are not the source of loan money but, rather, the other way around, they are the outcome of loans.

[-] 1 points by sarahd (1) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

Please do not feel like you have to answer ALL the questions though I'd be happy if you did! Also, if you'd be willing to give me a brief sentence about who you are and what you consider your role in the movement I would so appreciate it. It would be great to get answers to different ones from different occupiers.

[Removed]