Forum Post: The 99 Percent Declaration
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 9:24 a.m. EST by thepistolet
(28)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I just read on FB that OWS is not supporting The 99 Percent Declaration financially. Why not?
Because an ELECTED National General Assembly would end the NYCGA ego/power trip? Because infiltrators want to hand OWS to the Dems to counter the TP? Because the NGA is the RepubliCrats worst nightmare?
It surely isn't about the money that got donated to OWS because on Wall Street, that's just lunch money.
Forget NYC, Philadelphia is the place to be. OCCUPY the Liberty Bell !
NGA NGA NGA NGA
I endorse the NGA as well. This is just one forum, please shop around. The 99% Declaration is the best agenda I've seen to date, please google it, and send the link to everyone you can think of. It's a document that deserves to be read. The only way it'll get serious media exposure is if it goes viral, and that takes YOUR effort to make it happen. It isn't a perfect list, I'm not 100% behind every item, but it is by far the most legitimate effort I've seen to use the protocols put forth in the Constitution to redress our grievances to the government. These are big issues, they deserve to be debated. Our representatives have proven time and again that they are simply not going to discuss them, let alone address them-- they are not paid by their campaign funders to do so. Please, read it, and forward it to everyone you know, because it is a document that the public should be aware of. If something comes along that is more concise, which seeks to reform the system without tearing it all apart? I'll happily read it too. This is the best agenda I've seen, please be active members of our democracy and disseminate to everyone you can think of.
i agree... pretty good starting points, but massively in need of editing and better writing if it is to betaken seriously... i know it was probably the work of many rushed people. in the end, whomever pushes that, if it's not OWS, is getting my full support.
Every occupation group I've seen has a slightly different flavor. One of the critical messages to get out to the public is that there really is an agenda, and there are organized groups trying to accomplish more than create trouble-- or tear the system apart. Nobody is going to rally behind chaos, or a radical change to the way our country operates. This is the agenda that pushes progressive reform. It's what we've got, it's time to unite the people. This is the best chance we've got to get our grievances addressed.
April, you give credit to the 'anarchists' for helping to start this movement, yet now you wish to ditch these principles of direct democracy for something more 'effective'. Yet I would say to you that in a few short months this movement has already achieved more than anyone could ever have dreamed of. Our methods are working. Let us evolve with a mind towards what it is that makes this movement so effective and unique.
It seems to me that some folks are succumbing to greed here, just like the bankers - greed for more 'results', greed for more power for the movement. Surely we should know by now what a path of greed leads us to, and what happens when we decide that the end does justify the means after all? If we follow a traditional political path of action, soon enough it will be back to business as usual for the elite, and we will, quite literally, be nothing more than another version of the Tea Party.
Search for further excerpts of the booklet: www.Michael Journal - Articles - Social Credit
It's time they knew! by Colin Barclay-Smith 1955
It's time the people knew the alarming facts. Test your own knowledge of these facts by the following questions:
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.(safe banking practice)
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
In my humble opinion, The 99 Percent Declaration is the only PRACTICAL way forward for Americans!
Maybe its because no has a job. Or because the can't practice what they preach.
We are supporting them, I am the president of OWS and I am supporting it. So whoever says this is lying I am sitting for an interview with Anderson Cooper.
The 99% Declaration used to be a working group within OWS. It was scrubbed by OWS. 99%Decl split off on their own, with the goal of working with and through government for change. OWS does not believe in working with and through government. "we don't need politicians".
April, I didn't know OWS generally had anarchist principles. Can you point me to a place where I can read more about how OWS doesn't believe in working with and through the government?
OWS doesn't have anarchist principles. We have practical principles. We work through government by protest action. We keep protesting until they get it right. We are protesting against the banks as present, as they are criminal thieves and are laughing at the 99%
Welcome to the anarchy. It's every where here.
On the news page - "Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement". It used to say "direct action" movement. It got revised to say "resistance" for some reason. I think its because of Otpor's involvement (revolutionary resistance fighters). Anyway, the movement basically follows direct action principles - so far. But now that it's a "resistance" I suppose that could change. If you research direct action, it is generally associated with anarchy.
The GA's use direct democracy. Direct democracy is the favored form of government by anarchists. Those anarchists that believe in government anyway. There are many discussions here about changing our form of government from a Representative Republic to a Direct Democracy.
There are no leaders (sort of). Anarchists do not believe in leadership or heirarchy. The most basic definition of anarchy is lack of heirarchy. The structure of OWS is non-heirarchical, which is anarchy.
"leaderless" - this is a lie. Pure anarchy with no leadership is impossible to achieve. There certainly are leaders. Somewhere behind the scenes., people that are guideing this movement, to suit their agenda. They are anarchists.
There are plenty of regular protesters here, calling for leadership, organization and focus - for this movement to address lots of important issues like campaign reform, financial reform.
My view, the number one demand of campaign reform is the right thing to protest for. But unless this movement gets some "new" leadership and an effective organizational structure, lose the anarchists and the direct democracy nonsense - this movement will continue to be anarchy.
Just in case, don't get the wrong idea. I'm no anarchist and I don't want to change our form of government. I've just been here a while, to see what's going on. : )
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
You're deploying alot of fallacies. Anarchy is the lack of a ruler. It is also a pejorative state of disorder. You can easily make arguments that seem valid, like the parts of a whole share the qualities of the whole (division fallacy), and then apply ambiguity to the quality (fallacy of ambiguity). This is one way people spread ideology.
You say "This movement is anarchy. Based on anarchist principles.. The leaders are anarchists. The majority of people are not anarchists ( I don't think so anyway!). But form shapes content. Not the other way around. The form is anarchistic. So the results will be anarchy."
If someone is lead to believe that lacking a ruler, who owns the means of state repression, the movement creates a pejorative state of disorder, you are to blame for convincing them of this AS IF it were logically necessary.
Likewise, the kind of leadership you are describing is not inconsistent with anarchy. And insofar as it is, why would you want that?
"What we really need are laws and enforceable state repression, lead by people who ensure us they will represent our best interests!"
You are correct. The most basic definition of anarchy is "lack of a ruler". Thanks for adding that. There are also some broader interpretations if you'd like to read more about anarchy.
http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionA1 This article talks about how anarchy is lack of heirarchy. Heirarchy, being a bit broader than ruler or authority.
I don't think I've deployed any fallacies. What is ambiguous? I said the form of this movement (the foundation even) is anarchistic. What ideology do you suggest I'm spreading? I've shared information. I was answering a question.
Just like everything else on this forum. A person can take what I say, assimilate it, form their own opinion, draw their own conclusions from it. Keep it or discard it.
Most of this, what I have described, is information and discussion that is scattered all over this forum. Rather chaotically. Perhaps you like chaos. No matter. To each his own.
I'm to blame for convincing "them" that this movement creates a state of disorder? I don't see how that's possible. Whatever the state of disorder here, it certainly isn't my doing. I doubt I have that much power.
Maybe you just don't like that fact that I am pointing out the anarchy of this movement? Does anarchy make you uncomfortable?
You said about anarchy " why would you want that?" I never said I did. I am saying this movement is based on anarchy, that’s all. I didn't say I wanted that. It clearly doesn't matter what I want. I don't have that much power. : )
Hierarchy is priest-rule, which establishes an order of objects ruled under others. It's one form of rule, of which anarchy is the negation.
What's ambiguous is your use of "anarchy". I stated you used a division fallacy, and compounded it with an ambiguity.
So, formally... I could say "the universe is indestructible (defenition one: not destructible). Therefore its parts are indestructible. So the people on earth, as parts of the universe, are indestructible (defenition two: are all-powerful)" This argument is not only invalid and untrue, it's ideological: purporting a science of ideas, which spreads unchecked.
Again, a "lack of a ruler" doesn't make me uncomfortable... though "a pejorative state of disorder" does, and it should for most, so I don't appreciate it when you uncritically re-use the ambiguities I'm calling into question to discredit what I've said clearly enough already.
And to clarify what you, again, missed, I asked "why would you want that"... being the kind of leadership that IS inconsistent with anarchy? That is, why do you think rulers with the ability to enforce state repression are necessary or at all helpful?
There are principled reasons for that position. You could cite Hobbes. But come out and defend that position instead of convoluting the anarchist project AS IF it were internally inconsistent and untenable.
Oh, I see now. I think that you think that I think that the practice of anarchy must always lead to disorder.
That’s not what I think at all really. But I see what you mean. That others could be left with that impression because a secondary definition of anarchy is disorder.
You have a great point. I do not believe that anarchy necessarily leads to disorder. I think that anarchy can be very structured and orderly. However, I think it would take an extra-ordinary amount of time and effort to maintain order in an anarchistic non-hierarchical structure.
Thanks for making me think about Hobbes. Hobbes believed that people are basically driven by greed and it was necessary to have a strong government in order to protect people from themselves, or their worst impluses, and something that would result in chaos. He was sort of the anti-anarchist I guess!
i wondered what happened to that thing--i read it and made comments. it had some good ideas. methinks OWS should support it.
Methinks so too. OWS ptb will not allow that to happen. It does not adhere to their anarchy principles.
I think it should be voted on at the GA, even using the direct democracy nonsense. But OWS ptb would never allow that.
OWS eventually needs to be highly organized and have clear purposes to push for, it cannot be anarchist, as that accomplishes little of what it set out to do.
It set out to be anarchy. That is the goal. See my comment above. The regular protesters are either going to have to get past the anarchists to take over, or split off, like the 99%Decl.
ahhh... didn't know that. saw alot of signs pushing for specific changes and thought that the purpose was to cause legislative change, real change (ha! not just "change you can believe in").
Don't get me wrong. There are lots of regular protesters pushing for real changes like campaign finance reform, re-instating Glass-Steagall, more financial reforms. And lots of other good important stuff. And there has been some legislation as a result of the pressure from the protest. Legislation to overturn Citizens United. Probably would not have happened without this movement. So there has been some measure of movement in the right direction, in spite of the anarchy.
But personally, I think the anarchy is holding this movement back from being alot bigger, and accomplishing alot more.
yes,,, indeed those pieces of legislation are unheralded victories for OWS. my rep. just proposed HB433 which shields corporations from shareholder liability for executing strategies that may have public benefit to the detriment of shareholders in response.... he's kind of picking up on the corporate greed point--as current corporate law stands, corporations owe only a duty to their shareholders to make as much money as possible. in fact, there was a ruling about 3-4 years ago in a hershey foods case that permitted the same result (community harm could be considered in corporate decisions)--it was monumental. but to codify it is important, because no lawyer is going to bless a board doing something good based on that one case--too risky.
The legislation, Senate Bill 433, would create a new class of business that would provide for the recognition of Benefit Corporations (B-Corps) -- businesses that have the ability to more positively impact their communities and create a new incentive structure to encourage corporate activism.
from senatorleach.com/media/press/2011/Oct26.htm
NO Thank You! This confusing and convenient intertwining of business and government or charity is exactly what I oppose. Yet, according to that article, it passed unanimously.
I suggest that we separate business from government and charity, not continue integrating it. As it is now, these anti-global warming think tanks, fake women's rights organizations, pro-business groups, etc., are all businesses doing 'charity.' Please be careful here.
wow, that's sounds awesome! You should create a post for that and share that information. So lots of people here can be aware of it and write to their own representives to support it!
how do i do that april? can you help? oops, the bill is SB (senate bill) 433--and it's sponsored by Daylin Leach of the PA legislature, called the "B Corps" legislation. Not to pop a bubble, but I would be very surprised if it accomplishes it's purposes because it allows corporations to opt. in to become a B corp. the management will say "how does that affect my bonus, if we do something beneficial... will I make 5 or 10 million" and the answer may very well be negative. What he should do, is just codify the damn thing, rather than allowing corps to convert, but then again whoever said government guys are perfect or smart. BTW: corporate law is a creature of the state, not federal government. the most important state to enact this would be Delaware, where something like 90% of public corporations are incorporated--they're the big ones.
@April. Absolutely correct. We don't need politicians. We are a protest movement, and we just need to know what we are protesting against - the banks. Lets go out, protest anyway we can. Sure we can tell politicians, but they are generally the least important people to communicate with, sitting as they do in the egoist ivory towers. Incidentally, I have yet to meet a politician who does not have a big ego, or even one who is a good person. Let us get egoless and good people on our side. They are the 99%.
Where does it say OWS is a "protest" movement? This is a "resistance" movement. Using direct action tactics. And there are anarchists running this thing.
Anarchy is impossible. It is a ridiculous notion, unachievable and it doesn't work. Did you do any research on Otpor? The entire structure of the working groups is to make people feel busy, give them something to do. It is not meant to produce any substantive results. And it can't because it is premised on a flawed structure, non-heirarchical.
I would like to see this be a protest movement, with real leadership, an effective organization structure that is designed for success. Not anarchy.
You have yet to meet a politician who is a good person? How many politicians have you met?
A resistance movement? We are not exactly the Maquis. :) We are leaderless and non political. Why would we need leaders. The idea that one person is superior to another just sucks. Everyone has different strengths and weakness. We are not anarchists. Most members support a political party as individuals. As a group, we don't care what they support or who gets into "power". In that way everyone can work together. In a traditional movement, say the Tea Party, you will not be welcome if you said you voted Democrat. In the Occupy Movement, Democrat voters are welcome, as are people who vote for the party, Republican.
As for good people, I have never met Mandella, whom I think is a politician and a good person. Every politician I have met was concerned with his or her ego.
I can't help it it's a duck.
Yes, a resistance movement. That's what OWS calls itself. It says so on the News tab of this website. Further, the Otpor group involved with OWS is a revolution resistance group (see my links below if you haven't already). So if it says resistance, it uses resistance fighters, walks like a duck, talks likes a duck, I can't help it if its a duck.
Leaderless is lie. There certainly are leaders. Anarchists. It is impossible to achieve pure anarchy, lack of heirarchy. There are leaders guideing this movement. Any other notion is ridiculous and impossible. You need leaders, because it is impossible to achieve a completely balanced and perfectly equal group of people. A leader will always emerge. So you might as well set out to choose your leader rather than one be dictated to you. In the case of this movement, the anarchists started this thing, took the lead. Nobody really had a choice.
There are people that are superior to others. In lots of different ways, shapes and forms. Everyone is different. Superior does not mean one is more or less valuable. Every person has equal value.
You say "we are not anarchists". Who is "we"? Who are you speaking for? All of OWS?? Now I'm really confused! Who are you to speak for everyone else? Are you one of the OWS leaders behind the scenes? OWS is based on anarchy principles. I have explained it in item detail to thepistolet in the post below.
I don't doubt most OWS protesters support a politcal party. Because most protesters are not anarchists. My point is this movement is about anarchy because that is the way the initial founders, David Graeber and other anarchists, set it up.
A movement can be inclusive without being leaderless. Leaderless is a ridiculous notion.
A traditional protest would not have anarchists running it and Serbian Revolution fighters helping out.
You have not answered my question from earlier. How many politicians have you met? Just curious. An estimate is fine, I don't expect an exact number.
I think anyone can see through your play on words. Read through what you have said. It is not reasonable, is it. The term "we" is the entire Global Occupy Movement. Any member of that global movement can speak for the entire movement, as we know what we stand for, what we want to achieve. There may be people that call themselves "anarchists" or "leaders", but they are talking about themselves as individuals. To say the movement has a "leader" is not correct. We are not like the banks, whose employees have to follow orders from the leader, the CEO.
Leaderless is not a ridiculous notion. I do not need a leader to do stuff. Neither do you. I don't need to lead anyone else either. That is the difference between the Movement and places like banks. We help each other. We a not a group that are coerced into doing things we don't want to do by a harsh leader, like so often happens in the banks.
You say that "there are people who are superior to others". Not in this Movement there aint.
As for the number of politicians I have met - probably around 80 or so. I met some of them before they were politicians. They were never the same after.
I admit, I probably took the "we" too literally. I don't think you meant to speak for everyone, but were referring to the whole of the group in a general manner of speaking. My mistake.
You're right. When you are doing stuff by yourself, you do not need a leader, because you are by yourself. However, my point referred to the movement, a "group" of people. In a group of people a leader will always emerge. Do some research on anarchy concepts and principles , non-heirarchical and heirarchical organizational concepts. Google it. There is lots of good information to educate yourself about.
You say "we help each other" and we don't want to be coerced by a "leader". Are you suggesting that in an organization that has a leader, people cannot help eachother? Besides, a leader will always emerge in a group, and people can always help each other.
Definition I was using for superior:
4.Being greater or better than average
I think the definition you were using: 1.Higher in rank or authority
My mistake, I misunderstood. I agree, the movement treats all members as equals. But, there are still leaders. : )
I've only ever met a few politicians myself. Not nearly so many as you have. However, my opinion is that most politicians are good and honorable people with good intentions. Many of them get caught up in the corruption of the political system and do not always make the best decisions. But I think the problem is the money in the political system that is causing the corruption. Not the people. It's my hope, that by getting money out of the political process, our elected officials will make better decisions for their constituents, without being unfairly influenced by money.
My point still stands. This movement is anarchy. Based on anarchist principles. I described them all below to pistolet The leaders are anarchists. The majority of people are not anarchists ( I don't think so anyway!). But form shapes content. Not the other way around. The form is anarchistic. So the results will be anarchy.
Hi April. Thanks for your reply. I can see that you are thinking about this a lot. All words have to be taken in context, and of course people can get the wrong idea when they are communicating in writing. I agree with much of what you are saying. I think that many people have trouble with the concept that they are all equal in the eyes of the movement. Some people have huge egos as you know. By the way, from your way of writing, I woud not class you as having a big ego, and therefore you are a great asset to the Movement. I think by not having an ego, you can empower other people, get them doing great work for the Movement.
I find that in many traditional firms, the army etc., leaders are arrogant, full of their own importance, and most of all proud. They want to take all the glory, and shove any bad decisions they make onto someone else.
As for anarchistic, I did have a look at what this is. I guess the Movement is quite like this. "Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations". (from Wikipedia)
Anarchy has been given a bad image in the media. I guess it is because journalists don't quite understand it. The fact that it doesn't have state hierarchies would mean that "leaders" would lose their power, and I can see resistance from them also to that concept.
I think we're understanding each other better now. I'm glad!
It sounds like you have had some bad experiences with leadership.
I don't disagree that there can and have been many bad leaders (Hitler) . But there are also many good ones (Abraham Lincoln)!
I wouldn't condemn leadership and heirarchy as organizational concepts because some leaders are bad. Be careful not to through the baby out with the soap and water.
Lots of people don't really understand what anarchy is. I'm no expert for sure. I know just a bit. And since I've been doing some research on it, it really isn't anything like my initial vague impressions. The more I know about it, the less I like it.
Theoretically it can be made to sound appealing with alot of flowery rhetoric. Putting it into practice, on any large scale, is an entirely different matter. That is why many real life examples of anarchism are basically small societies or communes.
April, you seem to have very educated opinions. Bravo. I am a current supporter of The 99 Percent Declaration as well and I think they are the only practical way forward for Americans. I think OWS should work with The 99D, after all its their baby more than anyone else's. The key thing is the people behind 99D are sincere, thats what matters.
No. I think 99D is better off on it's own. They would just be held back by OWS. The two groups have fundamental differences. Even though it was OWS that kicked them out, it's really for the best.
So, April, do you think the 99 Percent Declaration type of approach is more productive?
I'm signed up and support 99%Decl. It is the most legit means I have found so far for addressing the issues coming out of this movement - with the goal of working through government. I hope it will be productive. It's still small, but it's growing.
I like the OWS forum because its big and there is lots of good discussion here. I learn alot of stuff from people! It's like a giant town hall. I'm not a fan of the OWS approach. But this is better than nothing. And this is the only game in town, so to speak, so we all play it (99%Decl does not have a forum yet). I do hope 99%Decl will grow. When I am here, if I sense that a person is interested, I tell them about it, to spread the word around.
I give credit to the anarchists for starting this movement and helping it grow to what its become. But I think for OWS to get to the next level of support, it will need to lose the anarchy and get some effective leadership. I think the anarchy is holding it back from becoming even bigger and accomplishing alot more.