Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Spring is Coming will Occupy survive?

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 20, 2012, 12:33 a.m. EST by go99ers (31)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Spring is nearing and it will tell either the beginning or the end of occupy. If the movement can't get the attention and support of the real 99% it will fail. How do you think occupy will garner this necessary support?



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ClearView (73) 6 years ago

The word would be Thrive! Knock em down in one place, they'll pop up in ten more. etc etc etc........untill the voices are heard and the actions help heal the sick body of humanity and awaken the spirit that connects us all!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33487) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

I believe thrive is proper.

People are becoming more and more aware.

Thanks to contributions like yours and many others.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

This movement has legs and is only going to get stronger. The people are waking up. I think the danger lies when the government declares martial law, in order to quiet our voice. The executive orders that the last few presidents have made, throws the Constitution, right out the window.


[-] 1 points by godsbestjoke (122) 6 years ago

I and OTHERS are packing to leave right now! This spring will be the beginning of a very educational summer.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

No, I think "It will be reborn," would be a better way of putting it.

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

Reborn would be nice. Hopefully it will be reborn with organizational skills

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

I think it will.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

To gain more support it needs a total overhaul. But gaining more support is not the goal. The goal is to keep it's direct democracy nonsense in existance. It's about spreading anarchist philosopy. It's not about solving problems in government. It's about ending government.

OWS ptb is counting on taking advantage of people that are discontented enough to come out and participate in actions to cause clashes with authority. It doesn't take many people to do that. A hundred or so will do. Look at Oakland.

Get with the program. This is a revolution. That the rest of the 99% don't want this, well, that's the media's fault of course.

Don't ask questions. Just do what you're told. You need to accept the anarchists notions of a leaderless movement and direct democracy because that's what they say. If you don't, well, you're just not acting in "solidarity".

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 6 years ago

April, you continually rail against "anarchy", and attribute your misconceptions of what that word means to the OWS movement. We get it you do not understand the value of consensus process, and are therefore fully against it. Enough already, if you are not in support of this basic idea, for people to organize themselves on an egalitarian basses perhaps this is not the movement for you.

"Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. It is not for sale.

We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence. We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy." - from 'About' section of this site.

No one is telling you want to do, you are the one calling on the rest of us to adopt your faith in partisan corporate run democracy. We simply do not support that obviously broken system, that lead to the current disaster. It seems you are missing the point of a movement, it is not about the ends, it is about continuous the movement towards them.

[-] 0 points by ImaDreamer (82) 6 years ago

OWS was started by anarchists, but only a tiny fraction of the population believes anarchy can work. The popularity of the movement comes from the fact that vast numbers want to change how things are done and OWS is at least doing something to express that discontent. As the weather improves this spring I expect huge numbers to demonstrate in support of change, but those masses will not be out to support anarchy. I think the movement will evolve to support large numbers of specific policy changes, such as those proposed at thedreamers.org.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

This is an inherently conflicting argument. Most people do not believe in the principles of anarchy. The movement is based on anarchist form and structure. Leaderless, non-hiearchical structure and direct democracy. All anarchy principles. It is anarchistic in form.

You expect huge numbers to come out and support something that they do not support? That makes no sense. There won't be huge numbers in it's present form. As if the messages are more important than the methods. Are there huge numbers in Oakland, LA, Miami? Oh yeah- that's all the media's fault. And the authorities fault. And the 1%ers fault.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 6 years ago

Masses will turn out to demand changes which have nothing to do with anarchy. What OWS has done is make all those non-anarchists aware that a lot of people are willing to step up and demand change. They know they aren't alone now, and that is why they will be willing to act. All they need are specific policies to support. When someone feels strongly about wanting to see a specific policy changed, and they know lots of others feel the same way about it, that is what creates the motivation to organize.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

Right, anarchy is a tenuous idea, with very few real world examples in history (and the few that did exist, were very short lived, albeit they were short lived because they were crushed by tyrants, such as Franco, but still, there's no evidence this idea could work long term). It sounds romantic, it has an appeal similar to libertarianism, but it departs from conventional libertarian ideology by blending in an aspect of socialism; and if you read some of the more prominent anarchist thinkers, they view ideas like anarcho syndicalism as a bridge to some sort of anarcho communism (and we all heard that line before).

State socialism was unable to transition to communism, but of course anarchism proposes we start out in a place much closer to communism to begin with (yet at the same time, they endorse everything connected to the state, with the exception of military spending and our prison system). And so it doesn't seem like a very cohesive idea; and in fact, following on from your point, I don't think most supporters of OWS are truly anarchists (in the intellectual sense). I mean, I like guys like Chomskey (he's very interesting to listen to and read), and if anarchists were simply proposing the dissolution of the state (without the added caveat that they also want "state run" social programs at the same time), then they might at least make sense (although I don't agree with the contention that a stateless society will be a utopia, but having as your ultimate goal a stateless society, while at the same time endorsing expansion of the state, is simply a logical contradiction).

In fairness, in pre-Franco Spain, it did have remarkable short term success (so it's not an unworthy theory, the only thing sort of nonsensical about the discussion these days, is the idea that the state can somehow enable or compliment the emergence of this idea). I think it would ultimately prove to be a substandard system for the same reasons uber-forms of socialism failed, after the energy and intellectual capital of its founders dissipates, there's no incentives for achievement (although I've heard some interesting counterarguments to my contention here, so I have to concede that it's debatable). But one thing that strikes me as particularly problematic, is the idea relies on the very controversial proposition that people are somehow endowed with a sort of natural inclination to strive for excellence (and in this sense, it's almost a religious idea, with very little evidentiary support). However, while incentives for achievement are a vital precondition to human progress, capitalism can also manifest in ways that chill human progress and innovation, and that's our real problem today.

People act as if banksters and other exploiters are something that we can avoid through having the right kind of system (or perhaps no system at all). But I think history, biology, and psychology tells a different story. It seems to be true that an adversarial system, with as many competing interests as possible, is a better guarantor of human liberty compared to either mob rule or dictatorial government power. Competition is an evolutionary reality, something nature selected for in all life forms. In many cases cooperation was more of a concession than a natural disposition.

[-] 0 points by ImaDreamer (82) 6 years ago

I think the main goal of anarchists is freedom, and the problem they run into is believing freedom can't exist when a government is in power. It's actually the other way around, IMO. Without the force of law bad guys can emerge and use force over everyone, whereas a government which insures freedom can prevent that from happening. The info at www.thedreamers.org describes a form of government which seems to maximize personal freedoms while at the same time taking advantage of opportunities only government can provide -- including ways to reduce the unfair distribution of wealth, which anarchy has no way to prevent.

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 6 years ago

I stopped reading when the web site proposed a single world wide government. I mean, talk about "not gonna happen" (why would anyone waste their time on something so far fetched). How would this giant world government work exactly? Where would its headquarters be? How would they handle local grievances? I can go on and on here, but at least most of the ideas put forth by OWS are serious ideas, a worldwide government is not a serious idea.

Plus I'm not really sure how committed all at OWS is to anarchism, or at least all its aspects (I'm getting the impression that this hasn't been thoroughly thought through), but when I see signs like restore Glass Steagall, overturn Citizens United, etc., these are REAL issues for the REAL world, and thus I like the movement and will continue to support it, notwithstanding the lack of cohesiveness I find in anarchist thinking (which I don't think is extremely important, but I do think through discussion and "thought experiments" we can sort of put ideas to the test, and refine them).

[-] 0 points by ImaDreamer (82) 6 years ago

It's too bad you stopped reading because you were turned off by the idea of a single worldwide government, which, if you think about it, is the only way we can prevent wars between nations and nuclear war altogether, as well as being required to insure justice everywhere. 6 proposed constitutional amendments have just been posted at www.thedreamers.org which would solve the most significant problems in the US and also other countries which could adopt similar policies. The specific solutions you seek have been reduced to 6 brief statements which can literally change the world -- at least in countries where these policies are adopted.

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

You're a dreamer alright.




[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

Funny lysol. Do you think that any new occupations will be even moderately successful?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Probably depends on the economy... if things stay on course, it would appear that 2012 is shaping up to be a lot crazier than 2011. Enough people lose their homes, and lose their jobs, and have trouble feeding their children, they are gonna be in the streets. Just like they are in Greece, and Greece is just lucky its small enough to be bailed out 5 times.

I think the better question is what is going to be left in the wake, a utopia of freedom, or a totalitarian police state.

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

I agree that more people will likely take the streets if the economy continues as it has. I don't know how much occupy will continue though, I really feel like the movement is dying. I doubt we see Utopia in our lives.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

I'm still cautiously optimistic, I think we're pretty much guaranteed some kind of mass uprising... but what form its gonna take I'm not so sure. Political divisions are so sharp that its hard to imagine either of the two parties actually holding this big mess together for much longer.

[-] -1 points by thewalrus (5) 6 years ago

successful in self aggrandizement and clamming that even the most extraneous thing was proof they are right.

Obummer wins? well thank OWS

Obummer loses? why it had to be OWS

it's the biggest collection of simplistic minded leftists

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

I have to agree that I've seen a lot of that on the website, taking credit for things that are obviously not a direct result of OWS action. Such as breaking bank of america etc.

[-] 0 points by thewalrus (5) 6 years ago

yeah, pretty sad really, like a crazy aunt walking in circles, convinced that she makes the sun rise.(and that it won't rise if she doesn't walk in circles)

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

What will that get the movement, I don't think it will help the agenda

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 6 years ago

Depends on who's agenda you're talking about. This is not your neo-hippie's OWS anymore.

[-] 2 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

So what is OWS now?


[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

So you really believe that ows has lost patience with the system and has decided violence is the answer?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 6 years ago

Most of the OWS idealists have gone because so many radical groups are now using the OWS brand for cover. The usefulness of the original members is no longer needed. Only the true radicals remain.




[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 6 years ago

Expect a major increase in violence from OWS v2.0.


[-] -1 points by thewalrus (5) 6 years ago

expect sales of lysol to go up as well

[-] -1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 6 years ago

The next step is at the polls in November. Begin getting with your neighbors to discuss who you are going to vote for.

[-] 1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

Don't know who I'll vote for. What choice do we really have?


[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 6 years ago

They will keep telling themselves they matter. The anarchist trash will keep claiming the leadership. The liberal media will keep treating the movement like a retarded relative. The conservative media will keep treating the movement like Satan incarnent and a threat to Israel.


[-] -1 points by go99ers (31) 6 years ago

I'm really split on my opinion and support for OWS. On the one hand I support the idea that it's time to reign in corporate and government corruption, on the other it seems to me that OWS is remarkably ineffective especially considering how many has supported the movement at it's peak.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

It's been really effective actually. Everything in the occupy protests is now topic of mainstream media.

Wall Street fraud Mortgage Fraud Corporatism (look at the attacks on Romney) and several other topics

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 6 years ago

Saying that Occupy is remarkably ineffective kinda gives the conclusion that Corporations and the Government would just roll over and die when people started to protest.

I believe it was effective, just not as effective as mainstream anti-occupy propaganda.

Occupy was Hijacked with big money and set astray without proper media coverage.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I agree it's been helpful in raising awareness of many important issues. Enough talk. Now that these issues are part of the national consciousness, it's time to move beyond the talking. To more concrete actions to make change.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

I'm curious as to what your next step is?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

Now that the awareness is out there, OWS should be focusing on a few specific ideals that have broad support and could help the most people. And capitalize on the awareness with actions that would work seek to with and through government. Narrow it's focus to those things with the most support, like campaign finance reform and wealth inequality. That will make the most difference for the most people.

Example - campaign finance reform. Educate and inform people about the damaging effects of Citizens United and money in politics. With News Articles and specific actions, like lobby and protest the Courts and Congress. The awareness is there to some degree. But we need to keep hammering away at it.

Inform and educate about candidates that do and don't support this issue, and what their views are - public financing or transparency. Lobby and support candidates that support campaign finance reform. This would pressure even more candidates to support it or risk being on the wrong side of the issue. Every day there should be a News Article highlighting a different politician or candidate for office that either does or does not support campaign finance, explaining his views, quotes, voting record, big money donors etc.

Help to coordinate voter registration drives. More voter registration and higher voter turn out can only be a good thing.

Stop talking and complaining about everything under the sun. We are not going to solve all the problems of the world by talking about them. What is the point of the recent News Articles about Greece's austerity program and National Occupation Day in Support of Prisoner's? Really?! This makes no sense.

Talking about everything just dilutes the messages of campaign finance reform and wealth inequality that have the most broad support. It does nothing to solve the problems that will help the most people.

By trying to be all things to all people it is likely that OWS will be nothing to anybody. When you try to satisfy everyone, you usually wind up satisfying no one. Campaign reform has like 80% approval with the general public. This is a no brainer. OWS would be completely foolish, stubborn and selfish not to capitalize on the awareness of this, that it helped to bring about. And use it's power to push and support this.

[-] 2 points by ClearView (73) 6 years ago

The occupy movement is a many spoked wheel. There are many aspects to the consequences of a system that looks to "capitalize" on everything. The many varied areas of focus are relevant to the GA that voted on a particular focus and action.

In time, when you step back, you will find a unifying theme that both deconstructs/ interrupts and envisions and creates. We've had many hundreds of years of self-centered corruption that has to put something down to lift itself up, it will take some time to recover from this mass hypnosis, to the point where we will naturally extend a helping hand and invite a brother/sister to stand in awe of the abundant life all around us.

There is soil to prepare, a garden to plant, and a meal to share together. The Occupy Movement will assuredly mature and bear fruit. This is to what purpose I was born: to participate in a great awakening.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 6 years ago

Some people don't seem to believe in the possibility of a new human awakening, even though it has happened before. This is what the world needs. but we must get there one concrete step at a time, until they can begin to see the light.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

Agreed. Very good post. It's time to find things that we can all agree on, that can win a broad base of support.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I'm afraid that pursuing campaign reform, this would conflict with OWS long term goals to re-organize society in an egalitarian way.

For this OWS long term goal to be achieved will require as much discontent in society as possible. 20, 30, 40% unemployment even. Achieving success for something like campaign reform will improve the lives of too many people. OWS would likely no longer be necessary. Because people would then have the ability to solve more problems through government. The unemployment level might come down. Serious tax reform might happen. Peoples lives would improve. OWS would become irrelevant. Long term goal of egalitarian society is no more.

For OWS to push campaign reform, this is the last thing it would ever do. It would success itself out of existance. OWS will only selfishly pursue it's own long term goals. It's in OWS best interest that government remains corrupted by the few and unresponsive to the many.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 6 years ago

That was really sad. "Success itself out of existence" is a pretty funny phrase, though.

For that scenario to play out, Occupy would have to focus on the one long-term goal of wealth redistribution. I don't see that kind of discipline as realistic.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

It's true. All Occupy has to do is focus on the goal of having no goals. It doesn't need discipline for this. The structure for this is already in place. And the structure prevents change. It is already geared toward maintaining the status quo of the movement. So no discipline is necessary.

Really the short term goal is to promote anarcho principles. Which is evidenced in the GA's using direct democracy decision making, lack of leadership, non-hierarchical structure. It's just about promoting these egalitarian ideals. That's the only goal. To keep it's direct democracy in existance to spread the principles of anarchy. That it spreads this around and the ideas take root and spread in the long run.

Any improvement in the lives of most people, will be to the detriment of Occupy. The worst thing that could happen, and is the most likely that could happen, in the most near term, is unemployment coming down. Better for Occupy that the unemployment rate stay as high as possible. This is their proof that capitalism doesn't work. All the better to promote their ideas of anarcho-syndicalism as a replacement.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 6 years ago

April, I love your thoughtful post. So many amazing points. Stop talking about everything under the sun is well said! So much time wasted here (I admit, I do it too) bringing up irrelevant topics.

I love your ideas about campaign finance reform being a #1 focus. But what about something much simpler? I'm trying to persuade forum members here that in November, all incumbents must be voted out. ONE simple rule... if an elected official, no matter what branch of office, city, state, federal, served last year, VOTE THEM OUT. All incumbents out.

I understand we'll get rid of many 'good ones' along with the bad. But here's what it will accomplish. It will show the government we are not sheep, but we can organize. It will show we do have a voice.

If this were to happen, it would send the message to all branches of government that if you think you'll get anything out of running for office other than the just compensation for serving your country, YOU ARE MISTAKEN! If you are in it for the money, the people have the organizational skills to kick you out.

I believe a very simple message that is simple to execute would be the most effective way to shake up our political system.

Your thoughts?

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I Iike the idea, and I've used this strategy myself. But I think it's worth providing some exceptions.

For example, my current US Senator is a supporter of the Fair Elections Now Act. Some may criticise that it's rhetoric (actually, I don't think so, based on his history) and of little consequence since this bill has just been sitting collecting dust. I happen to like this Senator anyway, and even if it is rhetoric, it's at least moving in the right direction.

So I absolutely plan to vote for him. Short of there being a challenger with a stronger stance on election reform.

As far as my US Representative goes, there's a challenger who has election reform as part of his platform. I'm doing volunteer work for his campaign. I hope to help unseat the incumbent, who I don't like anyway for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is he doesn't support election reform as I would like to see it.

At the local and state level, I've always tended to favor non-incumbents anyway. Short of there being an issue or particular person that I felt really strongly about. Truth is, I don't really follow local and state politics very closely. I should do a better job of this. That needs to go on my "to do" list. I just need to develop a system for myself to keep better informed.

So yeah - I like the idea, with exceptions.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 6 years ago

April, I hope you consider your post above campaign work as well. I do. Talking to the members who read these posts is not an easy task. Not in the clear and concise manner with which you write.

It's so disheartening to read so many of the posts here, and realizing that one person accusing a tea bagger of snorting Koch with the bros. is no different than a conservative complaining about Obama.

Our country is a sinking ship. We are on the Titanic, and the majority of the country are listening to the band play as we drown. Jersey Shore, the Kardashians and sports are held in higher regard than who our politicians are. It's sickening.

I completely agree with you that voting out all incumbents would get rid of many good ones. I see the idiocy in this action. However, I believe it's a simple, MINDLESS idea that has the hootzpa to maybe catch on with the masses who are sick of our corrupt 1-party system.

That's all I got right now. Keep talking sense and logic. Keep up the good fight!

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 6 years ago

I see what you're saying. I still think it's worth having exceptions. But pushing the idea full boat is absolutely worth the effort.

However, I think for people to be sufficiently moved to vote out their incumbents, will take alot of education and information. Part of it is the devil you know is better than the devil you don't mentality. To overcome this, there has to be a serious "will", a deeper understanding of the problems in society. Awareness is great. But I don't think awareness is going to "move" people to make serious changes.

For example - wealth inequality - I've seen multiple studies/surveys that show that many people "think" they're doing ok. When in fact, they rank below the level of an indicator then where they think they do. They "think" they are doing much better than statistics would indicate. This is a serious misconception. Mostly by the middle class population. Further, they have the misconception that they will achieve higher levels of income/wealth and do better over time. When statistics show that is not the case, 30 years of stagnation, and there is no indication that the trajectory is going to change.

But people are irrationally optimistic. They aren't considering the facts. They seem to be operating on the notion of the American dream that each generation does better than the last. Unless they are more informed and educated on the damages of wealth inequality, and get a more accurate factual sense of where they really are statistically, what the history shows and the real trajectory that they are on, they have little motivation to make serious change.

Same thing with government corruption. While there is some awareness of Citizens United and SuperPacs, I don't think people have a sufficient understanding of the affects of the overall degradation of campaign finance over time. And just how powerful corporations and special interests have become in driving elections and affecting policy.

Campaign finance, as it is currently, private donations, is such an ingrained part of the culture. People don't give it much thought. I think there is/has been some level of understanding that there is some degree of corruption in government. But, I think the mentality is - it's always been done this way, so it must somehow work. So while there is an awareness of SuperPacs out there, I don't get the sense that there is the deeper level of understanding that would move people to make serious changes at the polls.

People need to be moved, need the will, to adopt a serious effort of voting out incumbents. I think information and education is really necessary to do that. Your idea is good, but people need a reason to do it. That's why I wish OWS would use more of it's energy to focus on one, or a few key issues like this, to inform and educate.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 6 years ago

soros and the unions will pay plenty to bring about civil unrest and violence through ows.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Sure they will....

...............I'm Batman!

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 6 years ago

Batman,watch what goes on in the months leading up to the election as the ows people get violent.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

You can't reverse the Batman prophecy

Batman: This city just showed you that it's full of people ready to believe in good.

The Joker: Until their spirit breaks completely. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done. You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fistfight with you? No. You need an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey.

Batman: What did you do?

The Joker: I took Gotham's white knight and I brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. You see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push!

- You're playing the Joker's angle here.

[-] 0 points by skylar (-441) 6 years ago

about 700 republicans won out over democrats in the 20210 election.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Exactly. Just like in Batman. Harvey was the last good guy.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 6 years ago

I wouldn't say they were ineffective. Mainly because they had no clear goals to measure their effectiveness against. With the TP, it was very clear cut. Get incumbents out of office. And we did, the largest shift in more than 30 years! It will be written in history books about the change that occured in the Government effected by the TP.

I love the basic idea of OWS. Get the money out of politics. Unfortunately, the media and the democrats are one in the same, and Occupy thrives on media coverage. This is a big reason I believe that Occupy appear pro-democrat.

If all else fails, VOTE OUT ALL elected officials who served the previous year.

I realize we'll get rid of many 'good ones'. But the message must be sent to the government, that we are sick of the corruption. That if you go into politics for money, you will not be able to make a career out of it. You'll be kicked the fuck out.