Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? There is 1 thing we've done well but 2 things we haven't.

Posted 1 year ago on Jan. 3, 2013, 8:20 a.m. EST by therising (6643)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I think people just don't realize what's possible and it's partly our fault. I honestly think we've done a good job collectively describing the problems but kind of a lousy job gathering support that could be had.  There are two things we could do to dramatically increase support for the movement::

1) describe specific solutions to these problems and

2) lay out a vision of where successful implementation of those solutions would lead (describing the other world that's possible)

People are hungry for real solutions and a new vision of the future. Hungrier than hungry. If we do these two things well, people will be inspired and attracted to the solutions and vision. Level of support would then "rise like the sun through the morning clouds."

What about this as a next step?: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/

22 Comments

22 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I see part of the problem as examining too many problems and having too many solutions to each one. Each individual has their own take on just what problem should be taken on first and the specifics of what to do about it.

Another major impediment to success is implementation. Going from idea to law will require either participation in the system or revolution and installation of a new system. In my opinion too many here are looking vainly for the latter, while a majority of the 99% still believe in the system.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Well, what could we all learn from THIS! http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-fuckin-awesome/

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

One lesson seems to be that a majority of the US population are indifferent to what has happened.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Well, national mainstream news outlet polls showed exactly the opposite. They showed tht 40-50% of the population supported occupy. That silent majority is out there. What are they waiting for? Well, it seems pretty obvious actually. They're waiting for some inkling of plausible action steps and a real vision of where those action steps might lead. I'm not saying they shouldn't get off the sofa and help come up with both of those, but I also think we'd be adding a lot more active support if we spent as much time on solutions and vision as we do pointing out how fucked up things are.

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

I wonder if they really do. I'd have to see if the questions to know what specific aspects of occupy they supported. It may be that small minorities support different generalized ideas that can be lumped together as occupy ideals.

If support is truly that high then Occupy has made a serious error in not capitalizing on it by recruiting candidates for office in congressional districts across the country. To actually begin the work of changing the system from within.

I agree with you though, assuming they are out there, they are waiting for someone to coalesce around. That may be a person that can take an ideal and make it concrete.

[-] 0 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Oh, I don't think they're waiting for a person. The person would a) be flawed (human) and the person would be a target for heaps of propaganda and probably would be in danger. I don't think we need martyrs. We have something more powerful: an idea whose time has come. And it's a lot like the video here: http://sue-adams.hubpages.com/hub/iceland-shows-how-to-solve-economic-crisis . Maybe we could do this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Create your own congress.

Again, using Icelanders as an example, pick a few representatives from each state or region or #ows org, let the people of each region know about the representatives, and what they stand for, and announce an election, with votes accepted from a recognised email account.

You can set this up on a free MySQL database connected to a free (or paidfor) bulletin board. These are quite secure servers, and the admin/s for the bulletin boards set up the polls, and votes are clearly seen on the polls in question.

When voting is finished, and the people's congress has been elected, use the free press to announce the group, and the group's purpose, and demand to meet with the POTUS to air the group's grievances.

Remind the president that he said he supported the movement, and he also said he would march with the movement, before he got elected. If he refuses the offer to meet with the people's congress, stage another protest rally, and get the free press involved.

Don't ever doubt the power that is in your hands.

It takes unity, and solidarity to affect real change.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

Sounds good to me. Maybe it could some how relate to this: http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-could-do-this-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way/

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Yes, that's all good to me.

I'm still thinking about a true people's congress, because the current one is too corrupted and bought off to ever become a voice for the people again.

Is there enough interest and activity in local #ows movements to start the ball rolling? A local bulletin board is a great way to kick things off, and they are simple enough to set up. I started a couple of boards years ago, without any real knowledge behind me. Here's one of many free ones. http://www.quicktopic.com/

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I'm not very tech savvy so I need to spend a little time reading and understanding this. Thanks for providing sample. I'm all for whatever we can do to get the ball rolling.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Basically, if you can read, and type, setting up a BB is like posting to this board. It's probably even easier now than when I did it. It's just a template where you just decide on how people can join up (one email address per) and a few other variables to decide upon.

Have a play around with it before you make it available to the public. It's a great way to get people locally involved. You can send an email to all the members with one click. Appoint moderators, so you share the workload. Set up polls so your members can vote on any issue you propose.

Very useful compared to a forum like this one, where there seems to be little in the way of moderation, and topics just slide off the page as new posts appear.

[-] 0 points by trashyharry (3115) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

We need Money-and we need a Building.When I attended the Anniversary of #OWS,an Ancient Communist who had been at the Encampment from Day One told me that #OWS had received 800k in donations during the first few months.According to this person,a substantial portion of this money was embezzled by persons in charge of funds.Much of the rest was used in Bail Funding.OK-fine,but the War Chest needs to be rebuilt.I don't see what is wrong with allowing some of #OWS's Wealthy friends to buy #OWS a building,but this notion is apparently not widely acceptable.I don't see how we can ever get anywhere without an actual building Somewhere.We need money.Generally,I personally can contribute very little in cash.I do have all kinds of items which could be sold.I would gladly sell everything I have-Art-Antiques-Designer Clothes-Curios-Collectables-Gold-Silver-and I know many other people out there feel the same.I don't care At All about all of this stuff I've collected up over the years and I would be happy to Sell All Of It for #OWS.So we could organize an End of The World Sale to raise money.In NYC, in the Spring.Somebody who is based in NYC would have to study the feasability of such an undertaking.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I would think the problem with a building is it makes it easier for authorities to target movement and participants. Decentralized means there's no place for authorities to push back at. Isn't that one of our current strengths?

[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3115) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

As an artist,I should point out that there is nothing more deceptive than Appearance,and nobody so easy to fool as those who seek to judge People,Places and Circumstances based on Appearances.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

??????

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes, unity is conceptual. Rights are conceptual. Needs however are vital and absolute. We have recent threads on this here.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/since-when-did-wants-become-needs/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/new-year-of-wants-vs-needs-and-fulfillment-vs-happ/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/where-do-we-go-from-here-there-is-1-thing-weve-don/#comment-906764

It is basically unconstitutional to place wants over needs, ideally or in the purest sense. Of course it will happen more in an unconstitutional nation wherein people suffer and die. Accordingly such a thing will probably continue for a while, but must end eventually. Sustainability demands it. Evolution demands it. Extinction is the option.

We can find unity in recognition of the absolutes of need and the natural priority. Here's a novel exercise in that I found with an online maze which confronts wants and needs in dealing with the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

http://algoxy.com/dec

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

I don't understand what that has to do with whether a building and / or being decentralized is a good idea?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

You are correct. A building has nothing to do with unity. However, unity is needed and decentralized is the only way because it becomes larger, more relevant. Unity is a concept and can only be premptively nullified.

Did the dumbing down and corporate desensitization destroy our ability to know wants and needs as absolutes that are shared in making a basis for societal agreement and unity adequate to enforce our constitution and its PROTECTION of our needs.

To find unity we agree on the concept of sharing our recognition of vital societal needs universally expressed. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness type relevance.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

You lost me. Can you put that in plain English?

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Sorry, I was hoping to connect aspects easily. Let me try again.

therising wrote: "I would think the problem with a building is it makes it easier for authorities to target movement and participants. Decentralized means there's no place for authorities to push back at. Isn't that one of our current strengths?"

Your point is correct and I integrate your definition because it is identical to that of what unity generally presents. Resistance is everywhere.

Trying to define and expand the vital aspects of your comprehensive statement to show that the logical, natural unity is the same as the action of defining constitutional intent.

The links about wants and needs are the beginning of a societal definition of wants and needs which can be phrased accurately as constitutional intent.

Better?

I've said this 1/2 dozen different ways in the last month or so. Perhaps never so plainly. Most importantly, the discussion on wants and needs is trying to get going.

We can agree on needs, they are limited. Wants are infinite, and if we try and agree on those, the 1% win.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 1 year ago

How would you say this to a construction worker sitting next to you at a bar if he said, "Man, this country is in trouble. I don't know what we should do. What do you think?". What exact language would you use with him right there at that bar. Can you give me some exact quotes for what words you would use?

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

We should agree upon constitutional intent and use our right to alter and abolish.

The worker is under the influence, even 60% of the way to legally drunk, people only retain 40% of what passes by them. Corporations assured this 80 years ago. Meaning combined with the dumbing down (startiing 100 years ago), the construction worker will have to rely on a social structure which reasonably recognizes ALL facts and publically renders an opinion for individuals to refer to.

Media did this fairly responsibly at one time. With the dumbing down, this was appreciated, then we grew used to it, then we forgot how to conduct critical thinking in group settings.

I would leave the worker with a few words miraculously recovered from the past by the revolutionary, Christopher Brown, from the draft of the revision of the first amendment he's made. I've been reading his perspective on Article V an history and it really works particularly this.

http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

I've been using it here successfully.

To oppose this is not quite human if love controls a person.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-896428

Free speech is about an understanding and that is what I'd explain to the worker. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would ask him to work with his family, his friends and neighbors to see that Article V happens through preparatory amendment assuring speech always has that meaning.