Forum Post: Tea Party = OWS
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 27, 2011, 11:52 a.m. EST by interestedobserver
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Given that there is no coherent message coming out of OWS I am forced to draw my own conclusions on your movement and what you stand for. I get that you are protesting Wall Street and everything they stand for/have done. I really don't get what you want done. I read on here that people want student loans forgiven, all debts to be wiped out, no interest on loans, etc.
What I find interesting is that you are not protesting all of the corporations that use these investment banks day in day out and pay them millions in fees. If you want the banks gone stop the corporations from using them.
I see you embracing Russel Simmons and other celebrities. I see you using Apple products and taking moments of silence for the passing of Steve Jobs, yet these figures, in particular Steve Jobs and Apple used Wall Street and what it has to offer to increase his net worth to over 5 Billion +. Apple uses investment banks ALL the time as do 99% of corporations. How else are they going to raise debt to pay for new buildings and buy new companies.
I just get the sense that a lot of you don't get it. There are a lot of things to be angry about but some of the things you say and do just show you to be ignorant. If you really want to make an impact do some research...understand that as much as you hate capitalism you embrace the fruits of it. While you it there using wifi on you Macbook and check you cell phone for facebook updates while searching google for directions you are embracing capitalism. Think of the tremendous increase in the standard of living over the last 100 years, yes even for the poor and destitute. It is unfathomable to think that we would have had the same amount of progress under any other system. In fact history will attest to this.
Take some time to think about how hypocritical you are being and start making some real demands.
Actually there are a multitude of viewpoints, and deep down MOST OWS do not oppose capitalism, and see capitalism as helping man progress over past 200 years.
But most OWS people oppose CORPRATISM of past 10-12 years that has broken the economy, ruined peoples savings, and enriched the top 1% at the exspence of the 99%.
It's also about holding those accountable that have broken the law and then hide behind corps,banks or gov't.
It's about getting rid of the rampent corruption in the system, that has only produced debt & disallusion
First, where did the groups take time out for a moment of silence for Steve Jobs?
Second I think that your sense of whether we get it is incorrect. The occupy movements are opposed to the behavior of banks notably their willingness to break laws and their dependence upon taxpayer funded bailouts. This is not being against capitalism but against those who lie, cheat, and expect the rest of us to foot their bill even as they get us laid off en-masse. We are also angry at our elected officials for playing along with this and serving the companies rather than us.
As to using Macbooks and cameras where else can you buy them these days except from large companies? I might well ask why members of the Tea Party, for example, are content to have social security or drive on publicly funded roads using Gas that is in fact subsidized.
But ultimately, as we know, both groups are more complex and the basis of OWS is not, as Fox or others would have you believe, a hippie opposition to all goods and services but a clear levelheaded opposition to the unbalanced society we have in which the upper 1% are screwing us all over.
So in general principles I think there is much that OWS and the Tea Party can share. However I think that there are crucial differences in both tactics and in targets.
The Tea Party has, by and large, been willing to become a faction of the Republican Party this is a tactical decision that, as much as it may mean chancing the early electoral math, still perpetuatesae the existing two-party oligarchy. It means that the tea party will never really change that part of the equation that allows the national parties to tax local candidates and to filter who is allowed to run. Yes the Tea Party has had some success in getting candidates put forward within the party but even those candidates who have been elected are still being compelled to join with and pay some fealty to the national party.
The second is much more philosophical. As you noted the target for OWS is the banks and the FED, the people who not only broke the law but who enable this with their 0% 'loans' and bailouts. The Tea Party by contrast has focused their anger on Obama and the Democrats believing that it is Washington that is to blame and that the businesses, if left to their own devices would be honest or "checked by the market."
As a Philosophical point, speaking only for myself, I disagree. I think that attacking one party for enabling what their handlers want means focusing on the sucker punch not the boxer throwing it. It also means ignoring the hook coming in from the left. Consider the problem of donations. In 2000 Bush was a massive recipient of Wall St. donations and, when push came to shove, Paulsen bailed out Wall Street and the rest of the Republicans followed along. In 2008 Obama got that money and Geither did what Wall Street wanted. Now much of the early donation cash is flowing to Romney who is, incidentally, gaining ground in the primaries against more Tea-Party candidates like Ron Lawl.
The problem, at least in my view, are the banks and their corrupt practices as well as the regulatory capture that has allowed them to get away with it. Why, after all, isn't the FBI teeing off on MERS? Both parties are simply willing to play along with this and their dominance means that they keep anyone else who might be more honest out. As such I prefer to call attention to the source of the problem not the fakes who stand in front of it.
One big difference. The Tea Party actually did something and got people who believe in the same ideals elected.
Not quite equal, but a foil to. The similarities are disturbing though.