Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: What the fu** has happened to occupy wall st.

Posted 9 years ago on Dec. 29, 2011, 8:43 p.m. EST by searchandsuspicion (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I love this movement. To me it is the most beautiful thing in the world. I used to stand with hundreds of people in zuccotti and be proud to be part of such a movement. But now where is everyone? Why have our numbers dwindled? Why has our prescence become so small? I understand that the movement has been branching out and doing other things but we need to remember that this started in the street, protesting together, in massive numbers.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

The troll posts are getting more inventive. Actually, the movement is growing.

[-] 1 points by nuik3 (17) 9 years ago

no doubt... i was watching msnbc as sleepytime chatter and there was a group that had occupied the coffee shop from which they were broadcasting. it was funny.

way to go guys!

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

If it stays doing that it will fade away and die and it will have accomplished only a fraction of what it could have otherwise. I don't think that OWS by itself is going to be capable of fixing things, although I hoped for a fairly long while that they were going to have the same frightening efficiency in the political sphere that the Tea Party had in 2010. What I'm hoping happens is that the more policy-minded people who have been involved in, support, or merely were influenced by the movement get involved in other interest groups and the major political parties from the bottom up, and from there a) force their elected officials to act according to the best interests of their constituents rather than their bank accounts; b) make sure the policies they decide to go to bat for are logically consistent and practically feasible; and c) make sure that they truly go to bat for those policies, compromising where necessary and reasonable but being enough above reproach that bribery and threats don't work.

We've had our big moment in the sun to demonstrate to the world that we exist and now it's time to do something with that moment. The Tea Party was able to do what it did because of an incredibly disciplined multifaceted approach that involved a fair amount of popular hell-raising in the beginning to let people know that they existed and that they were mad as hell, but they hardly restrained themselves to just that. These days if you look at where the Tea Party is, it's now in the House of Representatives to a very significant extent, in the Senate to a lesser extent, and in the halls of K Street to a rather disquieting extent. While I don't agree with a fair amount of the policies they're fond of, I have to admire their tactics and I would like to see OWS adopt those tactics.

[-] 0 points by BystanderDC (91) 9 years ago

That is exactly the issue. The Tea Party was disciplined and had leadership, the OWS is not. It is like crew, everyone has to work in unison to propell the shell forward. You don't need a coxswain, but the use of one can greatly help. The Tea Party was effective for those very merits of having someone or some people in charge. Whereas, the OWS is a bit of an amorphous blob trying to do everything at once but doing each thing just ok. Focus is the key and leadership is absolutely necessary.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

"same frightening efficiency in the political sphere that the Tea Party had in 2010" - One of the greatest lines I've read on this forum, and I've been here for months. Interesting how 99% of OWS folks discount the TP as a movement put on the republicans and the Kock bros, when nothing could be further from the truth. The TP Express are the politicians trying to co-op, the TP Patriots are as grass-roots as anything.

Every post I've made has tried to get OWS folks on here to take their energy to study who to vote for come November. But all I the feedback I ever received was being called a troll. Not many members seemed to want to take the time to actually affect change legally by voting, they'd rather bitch and complain. Your post above gives me hope that the OWS movement may accomplish something besides costing the average tax paying citizens millions of dollars in cleaning their cities.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

Here's the thing; I don't like nor trust nor agree with the Tea Party most of the time, and I do have a nagging suspicion that they were a bit too efficient. Even if that's true, however, that's no reason to discount them; if anything that means we need to be studying them all the more intensely. In the world of tactics there may still be right and wrong, and that doesn't change, but there is also what works, and ignoring what works in a situation like this where so much is at stake is a grievous sin.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

You say you don't trust the TP, have you taken the time to see what the TPP stand for? Limited government & following the constitution. If you are against corruption, how can you be against these core principles?

I'm called a troll all time, and yet I've NEVER said to vote republican or democrat, I've said the only way to legally affect change is to vote in politicians who have strong morals. Why is OWS against this? If you believe there is a better system of government than the constitution has laid out, name it right now.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

First of all the constitution is not automatically super duper. The constitution had slavery and women couldn't vote and etc... That was not automatically super...

The whole point and spirit of the constitution was to allow progress to occur and to try to prevent abuses of interests and powers who have advantage of the system, not for us to become pawns of that system, and be exploited by shallow interpretations.

Money is not everything,..period. Cutting your taxes does not automatically make a better society. That is not really a constructive viewpoint. Principles of real substance is what drives real progress, ideological reform, not just sliding budget numbers around. The idea that simply using budgeting decisions to fix things is not an effective strategy, there is too much dysfunction in almost all areas for that...

Biased god beliefs is also not going to make everything super duper either...that was called the dark ages, the opposite of progress, corruption on the highest of orders.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Money is not everything, other than providing food, shelter and safety. And so many OWS folks on here want a central government to dictate who gets what? That is nuts. A free market with a limited government instituting smart and proper regulation will keep us at the standard of living we have been enjoying for hundreds of years.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Ok, you do know that unchecked capitalist free market is what allows the right wing humping in the federal reserve and wall street crashes and bailouts by the unchecked and unregulated capitalistic dysfunctions that causes most of the problems in the system? Hello? How can u really be so confused exactly? How is unregulated incompetence good for society exactly?

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Why do you say right wing humping? You don't believe that Obama and his ilk are doing the exact same thing as the corrupt republicans? It will take you 5 seconds to go to Opensecrets.org and review what corporations donated money to Obama's administration, and all the other politicians too. BOTH SIDES. Goldman Sachs contributed more to Obama than to any other politician.

Are you working on Obama's campaign team for Nov.2012? Are you getting a tiny portion of the BILLION dollars Obama has in his campaign war chest?

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

I clearly recognize that both parties are involved with this, it is just that the republican message is stronger with deregulation, and unchecked capitalism, this is not a mystery... The tactic of saying the policy, idealogogy, or practice of each party are exactly equally bad or equally good has a merit of zero... The problem with much of the republic message is that it is often hostile to social progress in many ways, just look at Rush and Palin, Newt, etc...the thrust of alot of these kinds of messages is unhealthy... anti-conservation, pro-ecological exploitation, etc... But yes, I understand democrrates have much of the same 'internal issues', it is just that republicans posture overall is much more aggressive against regulation of questionable practices by banks and big business. Trust me I know both parties are contaminated internally by special interest influence and questionable working methods, however making excuses for the the ideology of much the republican agenda is not necessary. We don't need to bury our head in the sand and make excuses by saying 'everyone is the same', and fawn at their pant cuffs.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Also, I didn't say unchecked and unregulated free market. I said we need regulation, but smart regulation, not the BS there is right now.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

Saying the Tea Party stands for following the Constitution is as much an exercise in oversimplification and sophistry as saying that Occupy Wall Street stands for compassion. The Constitution is very much a living document, and there are eighteen extra amendments (sixteen if you discount the Prohibition battle) and an incredibly strong body of law based on Supreme Court cases that will testify to that.

I have serious problems with the Patriot Act and the subsequent establishment of the DHS and the TSA; it pretty much ignores our Fourth Amendment rights and has a chilling effect on the First Amendment as well if used very much at all. SOPA and PIPA effectively flout the First Amendment and need to be either blocked from reaching the president's desk, vetoed, or if they somehow make it into law struck down by the Supreme Court in that order of preference.

I know about the irregularity involved in setting bail before a criminal trial, and I don't like it. There needs to be an establishment of a legal minimum of risk criteria before bail can be denied, and if bail is going to be posted so high that a person has to go in debt to a bail bondsman to get out then it should just be denied altogether and then the merits of that denial debated. Stupidly high bail is in fact deceptive and needs to be regulated.

I'm only turning 19 this February, so I haven't done jury duty yet and thus have never been present at a trial. That said, I have read a number of discussions on the issue of plea-bargaining and the creation of an "assembly-line" justice system in which innocent people may plead guilty to avoid a trial they're not equipped to win. I feel that we need to answer that by better staffing the courts and subsidizing law school for public defenders much the same way some places are beginning to subsidize med school for primary care doctors to ensure that the poor have a fair shot at talented representation.

Honestly, I am highly uncomfortable with the whole idea of an explicitly Christian nation that whole groups of evangelicals are pushing for (and more often than not "strong morals" is used as a code phrase to mean that) freedom of religion must include freedom from religion. At the same time, the two specific examples you cited are enough a part of our cultural heritage that it would be better to let them die on their own rather than risk the backlash associated with attacking them.

I have somewhat of a problem with the Tenth Amendment as it's currently construed. I would much rather it read: "The powers not necessary to enable the United States to fulfill its Constitutional obligations to its people, nor explicitly permitted to it by the people, are reserved to the people." and then let it stand and be defended as such.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on the degree to which the spirit of the Constitution is actually respected by our government compared to the degree to which it could be and should be respected (see this link for the context in which I wrote that: http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-bill-of-rights/ ). What I've seen is that the Tea Party doesn't so much stand for the Constitution as it stands for one particular interpretation of the Constitution, and as such is on no special moral or Constitutional footing compared to any other interest group out there, popular or otherwise.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Well we certainly agree on DHS, the TSA and the Patriot Act. And when I mention 'moral', it's not a code for any religious basis, it means to find a politician you believe wants to serve in public office for the betterment of society, not to get rich. I know that's a far-fetched notion, but if the people can continually vote out politicians who are in there for their own gain and nothing else, eventually we'll have elected officials who will get the message and serve for the good of the public. It will take many elections, but it can be done.

You know far more than I do about the specifics of the constitutional amendments. I couldn't spout off what you just did, but you bring up so many different points, just like I see on the OWS forums and the OWS message in general. And that is ineffective.

You said you want to learn from the TP movement. I believe OWS needs to learn a bit of oversimplification and sophistry. OWS needs 1, 2 or 3 clear messages, then ALL members need to get behind it. That's what my fellow TPP did, and we kicked ass in 2010, voting out over 80 members, and we're going to do it again in November.

Although I'm a bit scared that Newt will get the nomination. Newt is as corrupt as any politician has ever been.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 9 years ago

Figures; I'd say that if we make Occupy Wall Street about campaign finance and lobbying reform and about the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall we'd have a start. Then we'd need to begin to focus our efforts on public relations and political activism in order to convince the rest of the country that we're here to act as their power brokers rather than off pursuing our own thing and to focus on providing the populace with candidates whom they can truly claim to be proud to have voted for.

The stuff I posted above was about looking at what "following the Constitution" actually means, not a slew of causes that we should try to pursue all at once. I see those things as part of a list of long-term goals that I would like this country to slow down and take the time to address; as much as I want to see it change I am fully aware that trying to run down nine different things at once is PR suicide because it makes you appear (and in some ways be) scattered and inefficient.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 9 years ago

Reinstate Glass-Steagall is perfect. And I have seen that talked about a lot among OWS members. What is disheartening is for every 1 person on here talking about valid issues that could affect change, there are 9 others who believe capitalism should end, or are spouting off democratic/liberal talking points they heard on MSNBC.

My brother watches MSNBC religiously, and the MF Global scandal with John Corzine was never reported on even once! I couldn't believe it. An Enron like scandal, only many times bigger was not reported on even one time.

So many people here are hung up on calling people right wing, repelicans, trolling, other stupid names to validate their viewpoint, that they are missing the point entirely. I guarantee that OWS could be as effective if not more effective than the TP if members would stop using childish labels and get behind one or two core ideas.

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 9 years ago

They don't want to be like the government, or a business, so any kind of structure at all is something OWS doesn't want a part of.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Really? Maybe OWS is smart enough to understand jumping on to current political structures in place is more of the same. The tea party had powerful right wing interests behind it as well, although you did organize well... OWS is idealistic in nature, not just pragmatic number bashing... cut my taxes or I'll vote you out etc... Maybe if we just step back a little we can actually learn and understand something fundamentally important... Just rushing forward may be more of the same... I'm for constructive deliberation until we get it right... So we can do something real for once and for all...

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 9 years ago

Yep. I've read a ton of posts that say that exact thing. They want a different government, no government, communism, anarchy, hand outs, etc. There is no constructive deliberating. It's become more and more deconstructive. They do every thing from helping families(good) to harassing people for going to the bank(not so much). They will not "get it right". It will disperse into the ether, unless they can come up with a clear message. Right now it's just a screaming mass that nobody wants to deal with.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

OWS is a movement of individuals, you can't blame them for that... The fact that the message is disjointed is a reflection of society's fractured reasoning structures, society doesnt make sense or function properly in so many areas. You may be trying to put OWS in a box of your own design. Look at how much hate and attack is directed at OWS, I doubt tea party had this much trolling, this reflects a sickness in society against its own progress. Yes, there are some questionable thinking by certain members of OWS, but the idea is to progress not to pop out of some rabbit hat fully formed, we are talking about reality right, sometimes progress is messy...

[-] 0 points by necropaulis (491) 9 years ago

I don't blame them for being individuals. I'm not trying to put them in a box. Progress is messy, but a lot of these groups -not indy's- cause harm to the cause.

We, as Americans suffer from "rich kid" problems. I'm not trying to water it down like that, but we don't have the inner wars other countries do, nor the massive abuse other governments have put their citizens through. This is where some of the hatred starts. People trying to just go to the bank to do business get called assholes and toys for the banker fat cats. The real -99%(cause come on, there's a lot more rich people than the touted 1%) can't do their jobs, which takes money from their pocket, so they aren't jumping through hoops of happiness either.

On the flip side, the groups who do get positive results are stuffed under the carpet, because they are as "radical" as the others who, in fact, get absolutely nothing done at all.

And no the Tea Party most likely didn't have nearly as much trolls. The reason behind that is because they are too old, or just because nobody really likes them and doesn't want to spend the time pissing them off.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Interesting theory but the tea party is 'safe' ideology. Newt and Palin and rush and hannity probably all agree with them because probably at least half of it was just Obama hate anyway... Trolling is also hate, so this doves on with them both pretty close. Hate is not a real constructive ideology...

Here's an important idea. We should not lump things together, we should identify merit where it is instead of just labeling. Our analysis should be in measure to the merit of something, if it is just resentment based on capitalist 'entitlement' then it does not have much weight.

But here's the deal, we are essentially talking past each other, because of generalized labeling. This is extremely common and the reason progress rarely ever occurs. Once something turns into over-generalized labeling it has gone away from specific constructive identification, but because the reasoning obstructions are so deep, constructive identification of the actual real issues almost never occurs. It's unfortunate, but unless we get to a point to want fundamentally constructive dialog, real progress is more like a pipe dream...

Do you want fundamentally constructive dialog, are you willing to approach discussions in ways to allow this?

[-] 1 points by necropaulis (491) 9 years ago

I'm always down for actual conversation. It's something sorely lacking in this forum. I wish there were more people in the OWS like you. I think things would go a lot better for them with more level headed people.While it may not be as news worthy, things could be achieved in the background and that's just as good.

You're right about the generalization. It happens on all side of this. The corporates(not lumping, just tiding for sake of space), the OWS, and the general public. This is why I think OWS will either fail or just run about in the background. There's too much negative press against OWS. At least on the national level. Local is a different story.They at least give up good press when something good happens.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

I'm very encouraged when I see people want to look deeper at things because that is where progress is...it shows a good spirit on your part... thank you for the kind comments... The reality in many ways is, is that most of us want to be reasonable, but we have a hard time understanding each others intentions, and can so can become defensive... In addition, breaking things down at a fundamental level for these problem areas in society is not taught much and rarely done...

Actually, in many ways the problems of society are just simply the breakdown of our reasoning communications, and is the result of our fumbling wihen trying to express ourselves and and so then problems of seeing the actual good intentions of each other.

I will also try to keep following up more with the discussions, even though the forum comments can be unwieldy sometimes. Cool...


[-] 1 points by TheEmployedOne (2) 9 years ago

why don't you just get jobs?

[-] 1 points by pinker3 (56) 9 years ago

site traffic:


they really need to get the site under control from spambots.

[-] 1 points by jhoffman (22) 9 years ago

once you donate money to an orginzation that doesnt have to use it in a legally responsible manner there is no way you can get it back.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 9 years ago

Apparently, one thing that has happened is that people have forgotten how to spell fuck.

[-] 1 points by Riley2011 (110) from New Britain, CT 9 years ago

I think that there needs to be more guidance....I am personally using this movement to stop supporting corporate America starting now...I remarked somewhere earlier about the NYT article on the front page about corporations now being able to write off billions...great middle America is getting squeezed to death in taxes and the poor are slumping.... As for anarchy...I guess that people should be happy being taxes to death, having a declining standard of living, watching interest rates climb while banks are able to give 0 rates for savings... The media is lying to us and acting as if this country is on an upswing- more people are hiring...or is it that unions are caving in and the workers are taking less? Sorry -but I am frusterated...and maybe the movement is ending- but I am also getting off of the capitalist merry go around and making money go further....


[-] 0 points by BystanderDC (91) 9 years ago

No offense I don't think this is the "rich" out to squash the message. But a freedom for anyone to voice their opinions. That is the whole purpose of the forums. To allow people to speak their mind.

[-] 1 points by searchandsuspicion (1) 9 years ago

I am aware the movement is spreading, but i was at zuccotti earlier there were 10 people there. We need more mass and more organization. And definitely less secrets. that plan b reoccupation effort was a failure because of too much secrecy.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

OWS was based on an idea that was/is needed in many Arab countries: a revolution. Because of this, OWS categorically refused to make demands. They wanted to topple the government, not work with it. Because US doesn't need a revolution and most people don't want one, the energy faded away with the coming of winter. Anarchism and communism have never been very strong in America. Their protest was never expected to last very long. Anarchists always destroy there own selves.

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

First of all, you are making a mistake lumping OWS into one viewpoint, that has a merit of zero... Your characterization is in very simplistic terms, pushing this anarchy theme, very weak... Yes there is this idea that OWS is 'leaderless' that has been made, this however doesn't translate directly into anarchy. What is your intent? I suggest not ramrodding false over-generations around please...

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

My intent is nothing more than to clarify what OWS is and isn't. I don't believe anarchy is necessarily a bad thing. If you don't like that word, we can throw it out. I use the theoretic definition which means an absence of hierarchy, i.e. an absence of leaders. It's not a generalization, but a clear definition. OWS has always professed that it does not want leaders, hence its an anarchy by definition. This doesn't mean it's bad.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

A definition of OWS... Ok, here is one: A group of individuals living in a dsyfunctinal society, trying to bring light to disparaity of wealth, and corrupt and non-helpful policies, without much real clear idea how to resolve the problem, for the most part. We are also hounded by trolling and disjointed because of a number of fundamental confusions that are the foundation of a dysfunctional society, like the following.

  1. A sea of individual practicing of non-constructive opinion-worshipping, instead of a focused approach to real constructive reasoning.

I did not mean to jump on your post so much, as you do maybe seem well intentioned...

But let's look at some intentions because this is important when determining human motivations and actions. Generally, many of us on the left repel from 'absolutist ideas', unfortunately in error when going to 'everything is equally correct' or some other confusion, turning us into pawns and being almost completely ineffective.

Less regulation in many areas areas can be ok IF people already know how to reason constructively (which is unfortunately not taught very effectively). Democracy also doesn't work if people can't reason effectively in at large enough level to be constructive, which is why we're are where we are at, because we can then be easily exploited.

There is a path that can be effective to bring real progress, but it is not simply taking extremes from what we react negatively from, this requires real constructive analysis and working together, not just popularity or flattering each other for votes, or by using false relativism. Hope this helps explain better in some way....

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Thanks, but It doesn't really help.

I think OWS has very clear goals and tactics. They want to cause a political revolution. They want to topple the government and replace it with direct democracy. They have been very clear about this. They are not confused about their intent.

That being said, I personally don't agree that a revolution is needed. I think the current republic can be fixed. However, this is just my opinion.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Where are you getting this information, and how does it speak to everyone in OWS exactly? I have read post by people who want to repeal certain laws glass-seagal etc, and form a 99% congressional party, and for the wall street bankers to be held accountable, not so sure about the toppling agenda you are claiming. I for one advocate for true effective oversight, hardly think these types of ideas are anarchy. I know people who protest and people who organize ows protests and they don't say anything about the intention of anarchy... No structure, no laws, no central government is not constructive, at least in our current society, which is what anarchy is.

Direct democracy is also a poor way to progress. Hilter was elected by majority vote. Majority voting is not somehow automatically super duper.

Is there some kind of mission statement that claims OWS wants anarchy, I haven't seen it. However, it is important for the government to get on a page where it serves the public interest, and not be a bureaucracy that obstructs progress or obstructs fixing its excessive internal influences by using bureaucratic stalling tactics, etc. to block the redress of improper policies and practices.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

From the first page of this website:

"This #ows movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society."

"the only solution is WorldRevolution"

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Ok, let me give another point of view to this. There may be some who are frustrated with current society and would like to see a 'free society' maybe something akin to 'burning man' festivals, etc. There can be fundamental problems with this...

The reason we are in the position we are in is frankly a breakdown of reasoning within the society on an individual level. Any belief other than this is fundamentally walking in darkness and is not constructive. These problems will exasperate and occur in a 'free society' as well when groups form to trade and barter etc. This country is very large, and so the kind of resource allocation needed for such a society is large.

Technically, less control and interference by government can be beneficial, but only under very specific circumstances. This would require that individuals were across the board capable of making business and social decisions in a manner methodically and technically accurate and constructive, which is unfortunately fundamentally extremely rare.

Essentially, the idea of democracy is an attempt to have sophisticated political mechanisms in place to try to prevent abuses and corruption in the midst of a population whose reasoning foundations and motivations can be questionable. But democratic institutions can become quickly exploited by the groups that are advantaged behind and protected by that structure.

There is nothing wrong with questioning whether anarchy is beneficial to society or if OWS has anarchic tendencies, but anarchy has problems, as mentioned above.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

"There is nothing wrong with questioning whether anarchy is beneficial to society or if OWS has anarchic tendencies"

I wish more people understood this. It's nearly impossible to debate these issues seriously. When the act is attempted, a hurricane of ad hominem soon follows.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

WorldRevolution does not mean that it is anarchy. Was the change from colonial rule by Britain to American government anarchy? No. Just because a change, radical or not, to address current problems with the system is promted, does not necessarily mean anarchy... I'm slightly confused why this would seem difficult to understand. Anarchy (def): absence of government, laws, established order, or ruling power.

Reform is not simply anarchy. The spirit of democracy is to encourage and engage publicly for the improvement of the system and to redress wrongs, and /or abuses... That's not anarchy. Right?

Concerned that you are running this idea around, not saying u are, but this concept is not difficult to understand, so wondering why you seem to implying that reform or OWS is some how specifically anarchy... Do you have maybe a specific complaint that you feel towards reform in general, maybe a specific question you have may be more helpful...

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

I have no problem with anarchy. Do you? It simply means a lack of hierarchy, hence Occupy's refusal to have leaders.

I'm not saying a political revolution is good or bad, I'm simply saying this is the goal OWS has been talking about since the beginning. They clearly state they do not want to interact with politicians "we don't need politicians" (no demands), they clearly state they want to have direct democracy implemented nation wide "we want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner" (political revolution).

Again, I'm not saying this is good or bad. This is a matter of opinion. I'm simply clarifying what OWS is and isn't because many people seem confused even though Occupy has been very honest and forthcoming about their goals and tactics since the very beginning. The goal of Occupy has always been to dismantle the republic and replace it with direct democracy. They want to topple the government like it was toppled in the a few countries of the Arab Spring protests. They always talk about Egypt because a revolution occurred in Egypt. They also want a revolution.

Many protesters seem confused as to why OWS refuses to make demands and refuses to have leaders. These protesters push for these ideas. This will never happen. OWS doesn't have leaders because it is based on the idea of anarchy (no leaders), and it will never make demands because it does not want to work with the current government. Again, I'm not saying this is bad. I'm just clarifying what you should and shouldn't expect from this protest.


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

OWS needs to move the general assemblies online so everyone can participate.

[-] 1 points by gsw (3367) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 9 years ago

that should work. i would think there would be ways for voting, that could verify 1 person 1 vote. so am i advocating for voter id? maybe a random number could be generated, and one would need some "proof" of residency, like a utility bill, notarized letter, etc.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

Yes, something like this would be possible. It might be tricky to implement, but I think it's worth the effort. It would help the protest grow by permitting more people to get involved in the general assemblies.


[-] 1 points by nuik3 (17) 9 years ago

got kinda owned there didn't you T?


[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 9 years ago

I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago

We are still around. Some of us are also doing other things. If your serious about loving the movement then check this out:

This is why we are here this is why you are needed.


Share, circulate, educate, inspire.

See also people from all walks of life, from all over the political map "not" supporting a party or leader or group of leaders but "supporting an Ideal".


Check this out could be real good fun. (petition inside)


[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

The reality is that for the most part, if you expect a movement to 'pitch in' and gain momentum, then there has to be some kind of dynamic impulse driving it...

Unfortunately, the tea party is a movement that has questionable interests that advances various deregulation and to obstruct various areas of progress, which advantages many dysfunctional power structures, including the far right. So therefore they received help from powerful interests behind them for media support and strategies to succeed.

For a genuine movement to fix core corrupt praces and systemic dug-in power structures, power centers will not be 'advantaged' in those areas almost at all. The OWS movement is almost completely an idealistic movement, don't be mistaken, very few other movements are that way in that they do not advantage power centers. The democratic party unfortunately also advantages many exploitive elements, maybe not as much as the right, but still quite extensively.

Therefore another tactic is needed to cause a dynamic change, because there is not as much support from the system, and that tactic is a fundamental change in how we reason. This actually can fundamentally reverse all core problems in society, unfortunately how to do this is almost completely unknown by most people...



[-] 0 points by BystanderDC (91) 9 years ago

Interesting article I found on TechCrunch re: the attempt to create a social, secure network. It would seem the main issue with the OWS movement is the fact it is leaderless. Anyone can come up with a general idea and go with it. Basic business principles dictate that if you go in many directions and try to please everyone you'll inevitably fail. The movement needs to be more focused and that is probably is what is turning people off to staying active.


[-] 0 points by iRevolution (54) from Fayetteville, NC 9 years ago

The problem is there was no vision, No goals, no demands, no clout, no really move to change things, just people in the streets. OWS didn't change a thing, which is the sad part...

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

No vision. No demands. No goals. No leadership. No real desire for change.

[-] 0 points by elpinio (213) 9 years ago

It is dead

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 9 years ago

My question today is-why aren't the OWS teaching-spreading-USING the information in this link I just posted?


I'm NOT a social engineer, so I would never know this stuff. My question is-this idea is 30+ years old-and the solutions are almost that old-WHY aren't the "professionals" or "experts" in social movements, and social organizing and social justice SHOUTING THIS STUFF from the rooftops??????

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 9 years ago

OWS is soooooooo last October! Now it's on the trash heap where it belongs.

But don't worry, the unions and other socialist groups will come up with a Plan B soon enough. Stand by for your marching orders.

[-] -2 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

"I loved this movement. To me it is the most beautiful thing in the world."

fixed for ya. it's over. all that's left is me and the rest of the "clean-up squad" to get rid of these last few persistent members.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Once upon a time there was a fuckwit douche spigot.

Surprise, it was you.

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

you are accepting defeat already?

[-] 2 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

What purpose is it to be confused and non-helpful exactly? How about putting forth an argument that does not rely on poor argument tactics of low substance... Exactly how are you benefited by this? Some may think that there is pleasure in stroking self-ego by being hateful, but we cannot actually attain real enjoyment from this... but we can tell yourself we do...but it is technically not possible. Is also not possible for there to be a legitimately justified position for such tactics, although there may be some residual reactive motivations that may be driving it that may have some weight, however this current approach would be misdirected in regard to what is being discussed. Unfortunately many people think that there is some type of healthy function for these types of misdirection, however, technically there isn't. Would it really hurt that much to try to have the discussion be constructive?

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

My motive is the systematic destruction of this movement by creating confusion and decent from within. I do also get some entertainment from some of these clowns.

Thanks for caring thumbsup

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 9 years ago

m@stURbator : You really are a bit of A Wanker, aren't you ?

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

Yes I see that you think you are enjoying yourself... Did you notice something? You just repeated yourself, really.... What does that mean? Why don't you tell us...

You see there is actually a fundamental confusion among almost all if us... Most people believe that it is ok to spray questionable statements (ie questionable opinion) all over each other and that it is the OTHER person that is responsible for disproving such questionable statements. This is actually inverse from what is actually true.

So you are probably reacting to various questionable approaches to discussion by society in general, however you're approach is disruptive and unnecessary. If you want real constructive discussion, I will help provide it it. You do not need to prove that much of our reasoning have problems and we are often fumbling around. The OWS movement has some good intention, maybe you would like to help us instead try to improve?

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

I appreciate you keeping this thread at the top because I like the sentiment, but my motives will not change in regards to this "movement". I am on the right side of this, and you will realize that soon enough.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Remember that time when all of your friends took a vacation to the Bahamas? No? That's because you have no friends.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 9 years ago


[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

Its true, someone who is able to maintain a job and be productive in society will have fewer opportunities to take trips to the Bahamas. Most of the cash I would have available for that is taken from me to pay for welfare checks. So next time you trade sexual favors for some of that welfare money (i assumed you are to lazy to get it through the proper channels) you can think of me.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

n 10 years, you will be fucking a anal-dwelling jogger for free in a broken down brothel, you fucktard.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

I thank you for helping my cause. Now everywhere I go I don't just leave one pointless comment, I leave two. Yours and mine. Thanks for helping me distract the lemmings.

To my partner in crime cheers

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

By the time you learn how not to be a wanker, it will be more or less 6 months too late.

You are a true piece of shit.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

It took so long to learn how to be a wanker, why would I throw that all away?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

I am under the impression you adore bestiality slightly too much.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

I might, never looked into it. What are your favorite links?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

From the first second I met you, I knew you were a tree hugging dick cheese.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

Now your getting it. Content is not important, Its all about bogging the site down with comments exactly like that.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

As long as you are still having fun, Koch whore. When a hobo wrecks you and makes you eat smegma, nobody is going to give a shit.

[-] 1 points by Listof40 (233) 9 years ago

This is pretty degenerated, kind of sounds like someone trolling, and then responding to the themself...not saying so, but let's watch how poor the language is getting please....

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

Fun and a purpose. Its amazing, and its FREE!

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 9 years ago

Ditto! And the best part is.......It worked! LOL

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

It definitely did ; )

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Look, you corpse humping leg humper, nobody likes you or your aborted boyfriend

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 9 years ago

Someone keeps clicking like before you click dislike, so I think your statement is false. Could you clear up the humping confusion for me? is it the leg, or corpses, or is it a corpses legs that I have been humping?

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

Once upon a time there was a neo-conservative slob.

Surprise, it was you.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 9 years ago

GirlFriday, what are you the rest of the week?



[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 9 years ago

From what I hear, you should not be allowed to own a kitten, you sick fuck.