Forum Post: Still confused: corporate money bad, union money good?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 8:37 a.m. EST by Confusedoldguy
(260)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many thanks to the folks who have attempted to ease my confusion about the goals of OWS over the last few days. I have been told that it is a response to the financial corruption of the political system. On that point we are on the same page. I now see that the next big event is the shutting down of the West Coast ports next month. A couple of questions come to mind:
1) How exactly will this keep money out of the political system? It looks to me like it will more effectively take money from the cities involved, and the workers who depend on that free flow of commerce. I know, they will just be seen as collateral damage, "small price to pay," yada yada yada. But that suffering will come from an action that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the stated goals of the movement. The port shutdown looks much more like OWS saying to the 1%, "look what we can do! We matter! Fear us!". Lots of people and cities suffering so the movement can feel good about itself.
2) The rationale given for the shut-down comes down to solidarity with a threatened union in the northwest. Which means that a movement opposing the corrupting influence of money in politics is now openly aligning itself with unions. Huh? In my state, unions pour more money into politics than anybody. They are masters at it! Geez, they're so good they found a way to legally use money from "voluntary donors" who don't support the political causes they are forced to give to! If corporate money in politics is bad, how could union money be good? Looks to me like the "leaderless movement" is now being led by organizations that are historically more corrupt than the government and businesses that OWS is so angry at.
If I am wrong, please enlighten me. I'm listening.
I came to seek more about the OWS movement, because I am what I consider a 99%er. I'm a mechanic of many years and my body is about worn-out. I quickly learned that my thought is NOT OWS approved and while I am just a blue-collar, non-union worker, the movement is clearly unconcerned about the worker, as long as the "master" that gives me checks is destroyed. The OWS response to my concerns of what they want to do and how it will directly affect my humble job was, "sucks to be you". I will say that my time here has given me a new understanding of the motive and intent of the OWS movement.
Sorry that people here are so rude! I think many of the OWSers are extreme radicals and as you say, bent on getting rid of the "master" without any thought for the average working guy. They believe that the economic system we have is out of control and the only way to fix it, is to collapse it.
You are right. The people who are running OWS do not more fairness and less corruption in the government. They want to destroy the government, destroy all business and capital and create some impossible marxists Utopia. They play the protesters like pawns. The leaders of OWS want nothing more than the total destruction of our way of life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
It's rather simple actually; corporate donors are seen as the Republican base (regardless of evidence showing that they are buying off both parties) and union donors are seen as the Democratic base. Since this is a left wing movement, why would they be against anything that helps the Dems? It is sad really, this movement had such potential at the beginning, but has quickly become just another partisan movement set to divide us even further.
Agreed, jay. It's interesting to read the many voices in these forums who are wondering what happened to the movement they supported at first. I wasn't a big fan of the bailouts, but the movement has wandered far from that topic. A leaderless movement is by definition a movement without leadership, free for the taking by people with the loudest voices, or in this case the ability to camp in a park for extended periods of time. Sad.
I had a debate with an "Occupier" and the subject was whether this was becoming a left wing movement and my argument was the same as yours; without a leader, a face or a single voice to speak for the movement, then all voices carry the same weight which makes every demand or grievance equal in value which, in turn makes this just as much a communist or socialist or anarchist movement as much as it was supposed to be a "get money out of politics" movement. The lack of open leadership hurts this cause more than anything else, but many are too blind to see that.
@Confusedoldguy You have to understand it in the context of corporatism i.e. the merging of government and business. In more decent countries, corporatism is decreased by letting union members sit on the board of directors of companies. In the USA we don't have that check against imbalance, so yes letting unions have more say is reasonable.
Thanks for the input, var. But I'm still confused how a movement supposedly opposed to the purchasing of politicians is blind to the ways unions do the very thing they are opposed to. Have unions co-opted the movement? Looks like it to me.
OK. So you're in favor of corporatism then. You're in favor of Mussolini's solution of letting businessmen control politics.
Nope. I'm just trying to understand OWS, and figure out the truth hidden behind the rhetoric. They're not opposed to the influence of money in politics, they're just opposed to it going toward causes they disagree with. They support money in politics when it goes toward causes they like. Which makes them in the end no different from the corporations they are protesting. I think transparency is a good thing - just trying to encourage it.
Opinions vary widely at OWS, so your argument falls apart.
I am in favor of unions having more say. That is all you know at this point.
The varying opinions in OWS are what confused me in the first place. But thanks for the dialogue.
There you have it. The OSI Soros revolution in spades. This site is unrepresentative of the 99, yet by allowing this flypaper operation to have your words and thoughts, we teach the criminals what they need to know so they can use our weight against us. Soros spawned this-directs it, and it's best to take your ideas where they can't be used against you. Where? Not sure-but do take time to learn how this all works. http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM
Regarding the title, all donations should be limited. It's hypocritical to say that union money is good while corporate donations are bad. There is potential for corruption for all donors.