Forum Post: Tired of being told that I don't get it
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 12:29 p.m. EST by Confusedoldguy
(260)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I've had multiple conversations with OWS supporters, and frankly am getting very tired of that phrase. If I don't "get" the movement after two months of paying close attention to multiple news sources and making regular visits to the official web site and forums, that's not my fault, it's the fault of a movement that is scattered all over the map.
The official (and somewhat huffy) denials from movement spokespeople are wearing thin. Attention OWSers! If you march behind a street-wide banner that says "Death to Capitalism!" (as happened in Oakland) the rest of us are going to assume that you are...oh, I dunno...anti-capitalist. If you use Soviet-era graphics in your official posters and toss around the word "comrade," the rest of us are going to assume that you have communist leanings.
Enough talking out of both sides of your mouth already. Get hold of your message, make it clear, and if you don't succeed (in a leaderless, including movement that will be a tall order), quit blaming the rest of us for your failure.
I'm tired of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.
You don't get it.
Not productive.
Thanks. "Blaming the rest of us for your failure" and another of other comments are simply trolling.
When I first discovered this movement 2 months ago, I didn't know what it was about. Then I examined it for five minutes and realized it was a protest against the purchasing of politicians. I don't know why this is still some big mystery for you, comrade.
2 months ago, that's what i clearly saw too. But now there's a plan afoot calling all comrades to 'shut down the ports' in oakland and all along the west coast which doesn't fit 'get the money out' agenda. And that 'west coast port shutdown' is not a fringe effort within OWS given its position on the front page. Also what is up with the front page fascination with Eqypt?
Has the strategy been to "bait" people with the get money out campaign, and then try to "switch" to some other agenda? That's how its looking to me now.
Good point, michael4. The port shutdown does nothing to get money out of politics, but does feed the anti-capitalism message. And if the who movement is about money and politics, why is so little attention going toward politicians? Still confused.
So where does the death of capitalism fit into that?
Are you going allow one banner that expressed a protestors anger toward a government that sold their future to Wall Street as a reason to close off your mind?
You are not confused - you are dead set against understanding. With that I won't waste my time in this discussion any longer.
Go watch the documentary an Inside Job (2010) to learn: http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/
Thanks for chiming in, fishp. But it's not just the banner. Connecting the dots between the banner, the official posters, and the communist-era terminology makes people of my generation wonder where this thing is going. We grew up with monthly minders of the threat of nuclear war with Communist Russia when we dove under our desks to duck and cover. Now, after 30 years of assuming that threat was over, we are seeing and hearing the same kind of stuff from people who claim to speak for us. Not exactly a recipe for winning our support.
People are doing something other than complaining. If you want graphics that support your age range then create and upload them. My grandfather who lived through the depression believes in this movement focus on him instead of banners and graphics that speak to the younger generation.
The message is too important to squabble over something like that. Those who created those graphics were expressing how they perceive this movement. I don't claim to speak for them, but may just maybe they view communism as an ideal that became corrupted, but was rooted in a grass roots movement aimed at taking care of the community at large. The latter sentiments I see in many OWS supporters.
In all honesty, those who have the most experience and wisdom in this area have a moral responsibility to help guide the way toward successful change.
Again if you want to see other types of signs then you need to make them.
Sorry, I like to know what I'm involved in before I take a step like that. I've got grave doubts about this movement now, and I'm not alone. It's changed from what it was at the beginning, as dozens of voices on this forum and falling poll numbers would show. It doesn't speak for me, and I have no desire to try to change it.
As with most things - it is what you make of it.
confusedoldguy...I, like you are, confused ...this thing started and is supposedly to,in simple terms tax everyone equally and fairly and stop corporate monies from corrupting our GOVT's decisions on things such as taxing benefits for the "upper echolon" of the american population. Basically tax everyone the same. Not give special tax breaks to the rich and corporations. One can only wonder how things like student loans got into it(by people who feel they should not have to pay it)no jobs out there(by people who feel they are to good to work for what they are offered)Unions getting involved(union official ARE part of the 1% they are arguing about,unions in general crushing this economy with the wages the charge for things with assets reaching over 150million per union) how this all got involved from a simple thing like TAX EVRYONE FAIRLY AND EVENLY get CORPORATE GREED OUT OF POLITICS.Thats what this WAS supposedly about,at one point. Its just got away from those who started it because they are not strong enough to control the masses flooding into their "camp".
A global revolution for equality, we are.
OCCUPY WALL STREET - The term is referring to the blame being associated with those who caused the financial meltdown of 2008 (Wall Street). The purpose you ask for is in the name.
Due to: special interest lobbying, excessive corporate campaign donations/funding, extensive consulting$$$ opportunities for politicians at corporations, limited investigation into conflict of interest issues affecting office, etc..
Our governments have merged themselves with Wall Street. As a result, they effectively were able to stave off investment banking regulations, fair taxation, caps on compensation, white collar crime prosecution efforts, etc. all of which coalesced as a financial meltdown, and global recession.
This in turn produced many symptoms affecting Americans at large such as massive layoffs, foreclosures, budget reductions, lost pensions/retirements, skyrocketing debt, weakening unions, severe unemployment, etc. People express themselves in many different ways, because everyone has been aversely affected in different ways. This may be where the confusion lies…..there are many symptoms resulting from:
Excessive corporate greed and systematic political corruption ---> the issues being protested within the Occupy movement.
And the solution is the death of capitalism? And the soviet-era graphics are necessary in the protest? Sorry, I understand what you are saying, and you have some valid points. I don't understand what the movement is saying, and why it is so quick to alienate people who might agree with it.
People express themselves differently it's called free speech. Get over it.
I support their right to speak 100%. Just pointing out that unclear, muddled speech, or speech that calls to mind movements from history that were destructive and oppressive, leave a lot of us scratching our heads and wonding what we are dealing with. And the official denials aren't cutting it.
I agree 100%. The blurry vision of this movement is very unbecoming and translates to a huge waste of time and effort.
Words have meaning that everyone associates with them. If you use words associated with communism then you can't blame anyone for assuming you are communist.
Yes generalizations are harmful.
"Those who created those graphics were expressing how they perceive this movement. I don't claim to speak for them, but may just maybe they view communism as an ideal that became corrupted, but was rooted in a grass roots movement aimed at taking care of the community at large. The latter sentiments I see in many OWS supporters."
You are correct. Generalizations dangerous. Therefore don't claim to represent me. Therefore you're 99% minus one individual
The generalization is the opinion that one banner or a few graphics represent the whole movement. The 99% is a statistic of which you are most likely represented unless of course I'm conversing with Bill Gates or the like right now - in that case, my bad
I do not agree with you ideals. Don not include me in your 99%
Again that's a statistic - it isn't under my control to include or exclude you.
Fish, you can get away with writing off the banner as an anomaly or a fringe group, though it took up the whole street and was anything but discreet. The graphics are official, approved by whoever does those things and speaking for the movement as a whole. And every use of the word "comrade" in the official pronouncements could easily be replaced by "friend" or "fellow protester." It boggles my mind that a group that denies communist leanings would present itself the way it does, and then complain that we all jump to false conclusions. It's like the girl that dresses like a slut, and then complains because guys see her as a sex object. Give me a break
Official? What do you think this movement is? Go to a general assembly (GA) sometime it is a ragtag bunch of people from all different walks of life. It is a grass roots and inclusive movement which include 99% of the people in the US. Being that wide of a cross section of people means there are all kinds of people! You may not like some of them hell I don't like some of them either. But let's face it the system has reduced resources and stolen futures to the point that the people waaaaay differrent backgrounds are banding to together against the unifying principle that corporate greed and political corruption is ruining America.
Being the 99% means the people in Oakland as well...........believe me they need this movement the most.
Personally I go to the SF GA rather than Oakland, because that's where I fit in and my strengths can best be utilized. Don't let one banner or a graphic artist who chooses socialist realism artwork stop you from finding a GA which has your slice of ppl that reflect you. Go there and make the change you want to see. I know it's difficult and frustrating with so many people, but that's a reflection of how bad the economic disparity has become.
Its because we're sick and tired of having to explain ourselves.
The financial industry owns this country and we're here to stop them. Period.
Your confusion is understandable. Your doubt of its success is not unfounded.
Their are a few disconnects from the history of popular movements and OWS. Typically in the history of social movements there have been folks pin pointing correctly or incorrectly a problem, choosing a battle field (literal or metaphorical) and generating a strategy best suited to meet their ends and than working towards it. You will find at a glance that generally uniting movements tend to be crushed with greater violence than those that are focused on specific strategies beyond uniting. For example unions that focused on say the needs of metal workers where fairly successful, but when union organizers in the south east fought racism as well as the coal industry they where rapidly crushed. After all it is difficult for the powers to be to fight focused groups that have justice on their side, but easy for them to keep groups that have been historically divided-divided, and as any reader of strategy knows 'keep your enemy divided.'
OWS on the other hand seems to hold that division within, is their strength and so unite a very divided set of philosophies. So somebody who is a free market libertarian will march next to a flaming communist. WHY? what a confusing strategy right? Well the reason why is that there are tons of people who are marginalized by our government and our economy. So the first phase, the one we are in, is to bring people together to engage in democracy, and to exhibit that people still hold power. We are entering phase two, and it is bumpy! It is now time for specific occupations to address the needs of their neighbors and work towards specific goals that are needed. Why couldn't we do that with out OWS? because we have for a long time been in an anti-social organizing phase believing people power as being powerless.
Whether it will succeed depends on individual engagement. Those who see specific needs, need to form affinity groups with out the expectation of the whole OWS backing them, but with the expectation that within the context of OWS they can find solidarity.
The problem with OWS is that it is post-modern, and not modern.
expand.
Just going to take a stab at it.
I assuming his meaning by post modern is the idea of a society that includes everyone and hates none. The idea that a group or society can be ran without the requirement or guidance from a true leader. With OWS, you have liberals, democrats, republicans, centrists, (anarchists, communists, socialists)(I put these in brackets because those that believe these ideas take the liberal sense of it all. Not what society and evolutionary politics has caused them to become, ie Anarchists = chaotic and socialists/communists = dictatorship).
Modern day politics and society dictate that you pick a side when it comes to everything. What's your political stance, what's your religion, are you pro choice or pro life etc. If you don't declare you're one thing, everyone assumes you are the other.
that doesn't sound particularly like a problem, it also sounds like what I described above.
I'm not criticizing or reaffirming anything you wrote. I assumed when you meant "expand", you mean "explain".
I agree with what you wrote and yes, we have the same train of though.
note: not to say you were criticizing me of criticizing or reaffirming lol.
:D!!!
I'm preparing well-written post on this, so I'll just give you a quick rundown of my theory at this time. I'll have something with more meat up tomorrow. Sorry if this comment is quickly written and somewhat sketchy.
The history of arts can be grossly understood as the oscillation between two fundamental movements: modernity, and post-modernity. We can define modernity as being something new, starting fresh, tabula rasa, usually with a simple clear structure. We can define post-modernity as being more complex, as being a re-reading of the previous modernity or more ancient movements, as re-contextualisation, as an expansion of the previous modernity.
In this sense we can read art history as a series of dualities of modernity/post-modernity: Renaissance/Baroque, Classical/Romantic, modern/post-modern. Mozart is modern. His galant style is fresh and simple and espouses new ideas of form. Wagner is post-modern. He renders the forms of Mozart more complex, he re-reads them, etc... Kandinsky is modern. He brings in something fresh and new, the idea of abstraction. Matthew Barney is post-modern. A diamond full of complex re-contextualisations. etc...
The Vietnam war protest of the late 60's was modern. It was fresh and clearly defined. We had hippies, the peace sign, Woodstock, smoking weed, sex in the mud, songs of peace, etc... This protest did not re-contextualize previous ones, it was what it was.
Occupy is absolutely post-modern. It is based on the re-contextualizatoin of other protests. There is a link with Egypt, a link to the "Days of Rage" protests in Chicago (see US Days Of Rage posters), a link with anarcho-syndicalist protests in 1930's Spain, a link with the non-violent ideal of Ghandi, the poster imagery is linked to old Russian communism, one of the latest posters made a reference to Tiananmen Square, etc... Its flavor is a strange combination of all these things re-contextualized in a new socio-political context that is America of today.
This is essentially what makes Occupy so difficult to read. I'll be expanding on this idea in my next post, and I'll be offering my solution. In a nutshell, I think Occupy needs to become modern and break away from all the comparisons to other protests. It needs to have its own blood like Superman. (Superman is a descendant of Samson, through Hercules, but Superman is absolutely modern. We don't see Hercules or Samson. The influences are completely digested. What we see is an all American Superman) We need that all American Occupy.
Hey confusedoldguy - I am right there with you. I haven't found two people or two sites that have the same, clear, concise message that makes sense. This seems to be a very ineffective movement that is being labeled as lazy, unemployed people. There are jobs out there. Anyone that has gotten anywhere in life has had to be responsible for real work.
I'd like to see OWS demographics: Your resume Your bills - do you have any? What obligations allow you to leave your home, bills, family for 2 months? Age. Who paid for your college? Who is paying for your loans. Who pays for your technology that you are currently using? Have you paid taxes? Do you own anything?
The answers will most likely be "no" - not the "banks, government, etc." have kept me from doing these things - have you tried?
I, like many have worked too hard to jump on your bandwagon of unorganized movements.
BINGO! "If I don't get the movement after two months of paying close attention to multiple news sources and making regular visits to the official web site and forums, that's not my fault, it's the fault of a movement that is scattered all over the map"
Egypt is kicking ass, because they know what they want, they aren't flaky about it.......
get over communism as inherently evil
Tired of being told that I don't get it
asked for raise again ?
Wow. Thanks, Matt. I'm a little less confused now.
Communism is the public ownership of lands and factories
like national parks and sewage processing
It also failed and even they had their 1%, not every citizen was a 'party member'. There were still those who had plenty while other's starved. If you are going to choose a model that is equitable why not look at the social democracies in Norway, Sweden and Denmark for example? Not all of their lands or factories are public. Show me exactly what communist country brought real financial security and freedom to their societies? Using outmoded models that have already failed shows a lack of creative initiative.
I understand Cuba has national health care
So what? You don't need to have a communist state or economic system to have national health care. Switzerland has national health care, so does Japan and neither needed communism to implement it!
a state does not need to be communist to have national health care though the government often own the hospitals
Nay, they all have both private and public hospitals. In Denmark for example health care is universal and compulsory, Health care is mainly financed through a centrally-collected tax set at 8% of taxable income and earmarked for health. 30% of the population purchase private health insurance so there is still a choice for those who want it. Same for France, England, Germany, Japan etc. They all have both public and private hospitals.
problem, reaction, solution. More and more i am believing that this movement is a psyop...that there are actually leaders with a hidden agenda. Evidence points this direction, and the fruit is beginning to show.
Constructive critisicm is great. I agree to an extent with your message and the OWS folks do take note. I am a true supporter of this movement. Thanks.
Come one, come all! Here's where to get it:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The bailouts seem like 1 step forward for the corps that got them but 2 steps back for the average guy who suffered from the crash in late 2007...the bailout put the banks back on their feet but didn't facilitate a boom to the overall health of the economy for the working class...I now look in the paper for jobs and only see opportunities that don't cover my basic bills and won't ever cover my health care needs or the debts I owe from the loss of income I had before 2007...I'm not young enough and have more need for health care than I did when the same job opportunities that are available to me now where more feasible when I was 20 and my health was less of a concern. My grandfather didn't work 35 years at the same place after he left the Navy and set an example for my mother and myself for me to start at minimum wage w/o health care in my 40's because it's more important for the white collar guy to make an extra $billion in profits by sending jobs to china instead of keeping the jobs here for the blue collar middle class guy and only making several million in profits instead of a few billion..
it seems absurd that someone who can say that you can get by and fight to pay the bills by taking a shitty job would defend someone who takes jobs away from the working class to make unnecessary profits amounts. Profit is profit and when you're talking about the difference in profits that range in the millions to the billions by avoiding fair compensation to American employees by outsourcing and avoiding taxes and taking bailouts from the government that the rest of the tax payers (the blue collar guy) provided...HOW COULD YOU NOT STAND UP AND SAY, NO MORE TAX EVASION FOR THE 1%, NO MORE OUT SOURCING JOBS TO EVADE FAIR WAGES TO AMERICAN EMPLOYEES, NO MORE BAILOUTS WHEN YOU SCREW UP???
Still you dont get it ?
Really you dont get it !
What you have stated is why OWS is already doomed to failure. They will not have a leader, they will not purge out the radical elements and appear as an anti-American movement more and more each day. If they could get control over their message, they might have more staying power, but without a unified face or voice, any and all rationality are lost to the loud fringe elements here.
Then go watch TV. Who cares?