Forum Post: Who follows this forum?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 9:58 a.m. EST by RedJazz43
(2757)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have to work and I have some medical problems, but I try to get to an occupation as often as I can. I am not very adept at computer and internet usage, but I come on this site because I am looking for the kind of conversation I find when I go to an occupation. Unfortunately I can seldom find it here.
I think about 45% of the people who come to this forum are really hostile to OWS. It is difficult for me to understand why they would bother to spend their time on a forum whose values they do not share.
I think about another 45% of the people who contribute to this forum are well meaning and they think they support OWS, but from their comments it seems to me that they don't know what OWS is. They come with all kinds of ideas about what they think would be good legislation or how to start a new political party or some kind of Constitutional amendment that they think is essential.
OWS is not about any of that and if they just read the official statements on the cover page of this forum, the statements posted by OWS itself, not simply by other people on the forum, that should be perfectly clear. For example, right on the right hand side of the cover page of this forum it say "we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society." And a little further down, "the only solution is world revolution." What in the world do the liberal supporters of OWS think statements like that mean, except what they actually say? My only conclusion can be that they are really not paying any attention to what OWS is all about. Either that or as Leon Trotsky once said of Norman Thomas, "Thomas was a Socialist as the result of a misunderstanding."
Of course OWS is very open to all kinds of ideas, even ideas that are apparently contrary to its basic premises, but if you are going to have your ideas taken seriously it makes sense to have some understanding of the group you are involving yourself with and its premises, and if you are really challenging those premises you ought to be aware of that and the up hill battle you face with such a challenge.
I suspect what many people fail to understand is that the Global Economy is in melt down mode. It is simply not sustainable and the institutions that produced it will go the way of the dinosaur. The Global Revolution is an attempt to get to that end game with something in place that will lessen the chaos. All things come to an end....and those who are comfortable just don't want to see it end. But end it will...
..And if it doesn't? It's best to be prepared for both endings.
"good legislation or how to start a new political party or some kind of Constitutional amendment that they think is essential."
Being against these things is why I'm going to eventually leave the OWS movement. I'm not in New York, but we have a local chapter here in my city. I feel the only reason I remain in it is to help bring attention to a lot of problems, specifically corruption and abuse of power.
What kind of global revolution? They have yet to define what that means and what new system would be in place.
In all honesty, I think our system wass great... I just think it got hijacked due to the American people's complacency. So now we just have to get out the corruption and restore our system to what it's supposed to be.
Our system works, it has worked, but now it's been hijacked and turned into monopoly-pyramid-schemism, with a tiny bit of remaining original system. And I think a few adjustments need to be made once we get out corruption.
The kind of attitude you have here in your post is why I don't think you will get full national support. The best approach to unite all of the people is to make the goal to get rid of corruption. In my opinion.
No one has yet to suggest a real, plausible new system. And a resource based economy has yet to be explained how it would work. It just says SHARE, and no one has put a process to it.
Was great, was hijacked, began with the World Wars (IMO WW2 was a mistake), CIA killing JFK, RFK, ML King; 911-fraud, USS Liberty false flag, funny-money Wall Street games.
Now we have global warming, geometric world population growth & peak oil . . . if we don't change the $ystem will collapse because life as we're living it is unsustainable. Maybe things will have to get worse before ppl wake up. I work up when I discovered CIA killed JFK.
Tyler Dirden said it best in Fight Club
It's only after we lose everything that we're free to do anything.
What is this new system you speak of?
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." -- Janis Joplin, "Me & Bobby Mcgee"
Actually, it was Kris Kristoffeson (SP?) that wrote those words. Janis just sang them better
I am here to see what direction the movement is taking, and if it represents the change I would like to see. Someone developed something called the99PercentDeclaration, a petition, which I feel is very well done. I signed the petition. However, I do not know where this stands in the larger context of the groups. It appears the movement does not want leaders, platforms, or messages to represent them. If that is true, I fear failure.
Nobody at the NYC GA takes the 99% Declaration seriously.
the statements posted by OWS itself
Who is this "OWS" you speak of?
(I smell hierarchy...)
Well, I went to this site's "About" page and found this:
"OccupyWallSt.org is the UNofficial de facto online resource for the growing occupation movement happening on Wall Street and around the world. We're an affinity group committed to doing technical support work for resistance movements. We're not a subcommittee of the NYCGA nor affiliated with Adbusters, anonymous or any other organization."
Clearly, they are not the people who started the movement. They are not that clear on their own agenda, but say they are a group of technically proficient people who have chosen to come alongside the movement. They are no more representative of the movement than I am if I create a website today to do the same thing.
I do see that they seem strongly affiliated with the New York General Assemblies and their www.nycga.net website says, "On the 17th we as individuals rose up against political disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice. We spoke out, resisted, and successfully occupied Wall Street. Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love."
It's hard to say for sure if these different groups of people are the same or even if they were the people who started the movement or are groups that have emerged out of the protests and are somewhat co-opting the protests into the direction they think right. One thing is clear: they are for breaking the law in order to protest. That, of course, is completely unconstitutional.
What they will find if the movement steers too far from society is that the movement falls apart and becomes fringe. Right now many people can join because, as far as most joining are concerned, they are not joining any political organization but are merely raising a voice against Wall Street and are going to keep their voices raised until they see real action being taken against Wall Street's abuses.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
FYI read the recent New Yorker piece on the origins of OWS. It's basically a sympathetic piece and should clear a lot of things up.
Can you post a link to it. I'd like to read it, too. I don't trust that any particular web site really speaks for those who started the movement, as I have no idea who really is putting together the web site -- not that I see any problem with the web site, but I think I might get a little broader opinion of how the Occupy Wall Street movement developed from the New Yorker ... if it is available on line.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
"we don't need politicians to build a better society."
Assuming the creators of this site are even the spokesmen for OWS, which they are not, as it is a movement of many people who gather because they're angry, then it sounds like OWS is about anarchy. Is that what the creators of this site are about? Anarchists seem to be in the minority here. I guess I came to the site looking at forums and never really bothered to read the home page or anything about the site creators as I was just interested in what people had to say, not what the creators of the site think. I go check it out.
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
About 45% of the people who contribute to messages here seem to be actively hostile to OWS. Another 45% seem really clueless as to what OWS is all about, what its origins are, who it's initiiators were, what the politics of the initiators are or what the current politics of OWS, its governing body, the NYC GA, or the allied occupations and their governing bodies are all about.
Most of the people who contribute to this forum who say they are supportive of OWS not only do not seem to have read the premises of the forum or does it seem that they have been to a single occupation or even a GA anywhere.
I haven't really found it very easy to sift out how the movement started and what the people who were first on the streets believed. I know the New York Assembly sounds a little anarchistic in what they say, but I'm not sure they speak for the broader movement in New York. Certainly they don't speak for any of the movements outside of New York that have been inspired by the example in New York. I think the movement's strength is what appears to be its diversity. Likewise, this web site's strength may be its diversity in letting dissenters speak right alongside supporters. It's a chance to reach out to each other, for it is often too noisy on the street with yelling to do that.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
The NYC GA is more than a little radical. It's intitiators are quite radical and very influenced by the intellectual traditions of anarchism as well as other radical tendencies. There is nothing conspiratorial about this. There is no hidden agenda and they have never hidden their views. They are quite open about it. But they are also not at all sectarian. Within two days after to occupation began they began a series of labor solidarity demonstrations and these were unconditional. That is they did not ask the unions to reciprocate or change there view in any way. And union bureacrats and the structure of American labor unions is about as far from anarchism as you can get. But the genuine support of the occupy movement earned it real solidarity from some sections of organized labor, without which the movement probably would have died an early death. Basically the most well articulated tendency within the movement is anarchistic and quite radical, though undoubtedly a numerical minority. The mass base of the movement is basically liberal, sometimes aware of the radical leadership and sometimes rather willfully ignorant of it. Also, even though they probably constitute a majority within the movement the liberals are no where near as politically coherent as are the radicals. But this balance between liberals and radicals is what gives the movement its strength and was one of the key ideas of the early SDS which said that it needed liberals for their relevance and radicals for their vision.
Thank you. That sounds like it is probably a pretty accurate and fair presentation of the overall makeup of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The most cogent one I've heard so far.
--Knave Dave http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-now-unoccupied-but-stronger/
this is a trolling argument to leave. This is what the movement is about. http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/OccupyThisWiki:About
what any one site says about it is really just what a site says. A revolution consists of meaningful actions to have real change. Lacking any definition of those things, the mob ticks on. Whats left to resolve in the future is simply predictable to anybody who understands the involved systems. The 99 percent declaration is off the table, but it won't stay off the table long.
I'm not a supporter of the OWS movement, but I would hardly say that I am hostile towards it. I come here to read, learn about the movement, and hopefully have intelligent discussion about the issues. Unfortunately, people don't talk about these issues on the streets or in their offices - but they should. Who knows, maybe one benefit of the movement is that it gets people thinking and talking - even if they aren't in agreement with this particular movement.
I'm here, I'm a supporter, though we differ on purpose.
I've seen to pages that advocate for a large General Assembly, representative of each of the 50 states, for the purpose of petitioning the Federal Government on a variety of issues.
You can find them here:
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
The Ninety-Nine Percent Declaration Post Office Box 190 Red Hook, New York 12571 the99declaration@gmail.com
And the second proposed petition: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
It's a bit complicated, and somewhat confusing, I'm trying to sort that part of it out for myself.
Because of the nature of the design of the Occupy Movement it is difficult to pin down just what we are all about. It is by consensus.
Personally I don't think that tossing each and every institution in federal government will serve the people - and I don't believe that will happen.
I do believe that if we are to represent the 99 then it is up to us to define our message in accordance with the basic views of that majority. Tough to do, even in a group of only ten people.
Sad that so many people have been hoodwinked by that piece of garbabge that is so contrary to the values of OWS that it makes me want to puke. I can't believe that people in a movement that treats junkies and PhDs as equals would fall for a document that excludes minors and noncitizens.
I don't follow what you are saying.
I follow this forum to gain knowledge. There is a plethora of informed and educated people, with enough integrity, to disseminate their hard earned knowledge, for the betterment of people they will never meet. Those who come here to disrupt and attempt to discredit, are fearful of the success of this movement. Those who come here to espouse a political entity, are vote harvesting. Thanks.
Freedom of speech Baby.. Freedom of speech you type too much, u seem smart to yourself wow your English not so good hehe :)
One in which -------- causes a shift in the way we see things and reforms society. How about this- Technology. Technology has already caused a shift in the way we see things and has reformed society as we know it. ie: Wikipedia "We’re not just building an encyclopedia, we’re working to make people free. When we have access to free knowledge, we are better people. We understand the world is bigger than us, and we become infected with tolerance and understanding."
I have been trying to figure this out. "The only solution is world revolution", is very vague. Since the movement is non-violent, it is certainly not talking about war. So we must be talking about bringing on a new age. One in which -------- causes a shift in the way we see things and reforms society. So, can someone fill in the blank for me? People are looking for answers and trying to fill in the blank for themselves. Though I see no problem with this. It's kinda cool to see people trying to figure it out. If whatever they assume is happening here, causes conflict with their sensibilities, then they are forced to figure out why. All good things.
They're not exactly being nonviolent in Egypt right now. Though some people see it as a matter of principle it seems to me that many in the American movement see it largely as a tactical expedient. There are, after all, very few absolute pacifists in the world.
What are the "kind of conversation I find when I go to an occupation"?
I agree with you about all the well-intended band-aid solutions ppl post on this forum. My idea is to abolish money -- with abundance (modern machinery) barter, hoarding, bogus jobs and money is unnecessary.
More than confident that gathered here People who care about not only his own stomach. Well, I'm here with a very specific mission - Nardialog.
I follow it to learn something about politics and sociology (I am more of a science guy and lack some knowledge in those areas). I visited Zuccotti Park a couple of times in October, and found it fascinating, a small functioning community. I think the movement has some good ideas, some not so good (like any human venture).
I think Nietzsche said that the a man should be judged not by the quality of his friends but by the quality of his enemies. I think the people challenging the ideas of OWS should be welcomed with open arms. The gadflies serve an important purpose. As Zamyatin put it, "the world is kept alive only by heretics." OWS may be the heretics to the rest of society, but the gadflies with their challenges may be the heretics in your midst. And of course everyone is free to ignore the posts that don't interest them.
[Removed]
I come here for entertainment.
Also to watch the progression. most come in protesting everything from bush to big macs but if you look long enough, it eventually melds into something MOST of America can agree on. Corruption in business and government.
nooo it doesn't excuse their original behavior and idiocies however that is where the entertainment value is.
You are correct. People should be aware of what this movement is about and what its intentions are. It is not hidden. But it is a little vague and could be misinterpreted. It can easily be taken in a figurative sense, rather than a literal sense.
When OWS says it doesn't need Wall Street or politicians and wants a revolution - I believe they mean that in the most literal sense possible. I believe that their ideal outcome would be the overthrow of the government, ending our Representative Republic and replacing it with Direct Democracy.
Total madness.
How about a "Direct Republic"? I'd be all for that, except it doesn't employ any consonance, which may offend your artistic sensibilities.
We currently have a de facto "Representative Democracy", which is the worst of all possibilities.
We have an oligarchy. Some would say kleptocracy. We need election reform laws that will end political corruption to return our Representative Republic back to the people, as it was intended to be.
And thanks for being cognizant and considerate of my artistic sensibilities! I'm not against a Direct Republic because of my artistic sensibilities though. I simply don't think changing our form of government is necessary.
You're welcome. You know, I think I'd like you. I misread "their ideal outcome" in your post as "the ideal outcome"
However, I must disagree that we don't need to change our form of government.
As it currently stands, there is no real consequence for corruption. The people have no teeth.
Some type of 'Direct Impeachment' mechanism needs to exist, and personal liability applied.
oh my gosh no! A thousand times no! You are correct - I said "their". Whew! Glad we got that cleared up. : )
Consequences for corruption - you are right, there are none. Because we have a political system driven by money which encourages corruption. We need election reform legislation which will end the monied influence. There are lots of different ideas on how to do this. On one side, there could be 100% publicly financed elections. Sort of on the other side of the spectrum would be that only human bodied persons could contribute to a campaign up to a certain $ limit, no more PAC $, no more $ driven by lobbyists. And there are some other variations and specifics in between.
Some of this has been tried in the past, to rein in the corruption, but it never gets very far. No surprise. The legislature acts on behalf of the big money that puts them into office.
http://fairelectionsnow.org/about-bill
Some more very recent legislation as a result of this protest. http://tomudall.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=970 http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/254139/20111122/house-democrat-introduces-occupied-constitutional-amendment-ban.htm
The Deutch amendment is highly criticized because it still would allow Union contributions. He's a Dem and thats politics for ya! But I still think these things are positive steps in the right direction!
With the right kind of election reform, I'm not sure we would need a different impeachment process.
Hope you don't still think my beliefs are "madness".
"Of course OWS is very open to all kinds of ideas" Not really.
Only Marxist need apply is the OWS de facto rule. All else are flamed.
Why do most sane posters here disparage the Marxists?
The "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need. Karl Marx 160+ year old ideology has failed at horrific human cost everywhere/every time it has been tried worldwide.
Proof: the wonderful "Workers' Paradises" of Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Soviet Union. Places SO wonderful you are shot or worse if you try to leave.
That is what OWS wants. It sounds crazy because it is crazy.
On a purely numerical basis liberals far outnumber radicals in OWS, However, they are seldom able to get their perspectives approved, not because of any manipulation on the part of the radicals, but because the liberals can't agree among themselves. With a little effort you can see how that problem is reflected on this forum.
I follow it to figure why we are blaming corperations for the problems the government has caused.
People who are 'hostile' to the OWS are here because we want an end to the corruption in Washington and a return to a representative form of government. We know that many OWS supporters want that too. We also know that the leaders and the people who started OWS are radical marxists and anarchists who are twisting the supporters toward their own radical agenda. That must be stopped, and we need to focus on election reform and government reform. Not toppling our government or economy. Understand?
Do you really think that any radical faction of ows could succeed in toppling our govt or economy without the help and support of the people? The answer is no, but that shouldn't mean that they must stfu and stand on the sidelines. That is the fox news zombie motto, but fuck that. It's the same kind of tactics that those in power have used for so long to silence the populace again and again as they erode our liberties and go against the peoples will.
Calling people radicals or un-American just for daring to try to speak out against the war, the patriot act, or anything else on the neo-con/neo-liberal agenda, and using tactics to demonize, marginalize, and shame even the political voices of the moderate opposition is the kind of crap that kept concerned people from all over the political map meek and shamed into standing by while corrupt politicians passed laws chipping away at our constitutional rights and more recently turned a deaf ear to the will of the people during this economic crisis, using our money to bail out corporate interests without holding any of those known to have engaged in corrupt practices accountable, then allowing those same businesses to post record profits without tossing one red cent in taxes through the massive loopholes that they lobbied for, or uphold their end of the social contract in any way.
And if I recall correctly, more moderate citizens watched all this with their thumbs up their asses because we were so scared of being red-baited or shamed by being called unpatriotic to do much more than sporadic one off protests that accomplished Fuck all. The Tea Partiers like to claim they did more, but that was co-opted almost immediately by neo-cons and corporate interests and they didn't even know it for ages, half of them still don't get it. They point to the fact that they managed to elect supposed "outsider" candidates while neglecting to mention that once in those candidates either accomplished nothing or worse, immediately began voting the same as status quo politicians. And neither the efforts on the left or right over the past decade or two ever gained broad support outside of their in-group, rapidly lost steam even there, and in general left the American people thinking that no political engagement or protest would get attention to see anything changed.
Yet here we are arguing about every aspect of that change, but no longer questioning we can achieve it. And all because some silly kids and nefarious radicals as you impugn them to be, had enough faith in the integrity and commitment to freedom of the American people to imagine that they might rise up and stand up for their just society, even if the call came from kids and anarchists asking them to stand side by side with them and discuss ideas with them. Well I thank God for the Patriotic American Anarchists and Socialists and Kids with the balls to try it in a society that often pays lip service to free-speech in lofty speeches to the party faithful but vilifies or ridicules it when it comes from the mouths of people holding different opinions, and I thank God for the many of more mainstream ideology who could put aside their differences and answer the call to work toward the common interest of all Americans, even ones they don't understand or agree with.
And twisting supporters towards their agenda? How exactly are they doing this? By creating a movement where they can speak their ideas without being humiliated for holding a view point outside the mainstream, just as people with many views are invited to speak without shame? By creating processes and forums where even judgmental jackasses like yourself can come speak your mind too, and get in a few ego-boosting jabs at whatever group you deem worthy of your scorn so long as you observe a few rules?
Despite anarchists, socialists, and even libertarians being so cheeky as to talk about their ideas (ideas guys, not campaign slogans) without shame or apology , OWS still manages to find the bulk of it's support, and the vast majority of participants in their calls to action, from those of more moderate and mainstream political ideology. And this is because Americans are sick of the kind of culture represented by your post-- A place where free speech means some speech is freer than others and those on the fringe are demonized simply for thinking something different.
cont below..
[Removed]
cont
If an anarchist stands next to me with an "End capitalism" sign at a protest in a country where I guarantee you, at best they will be able to, along with a broad coalition of people with many other ideas about economics and governance, create the political will to reinstate a few regulations that will return us to a capitalism that works for the people rather than a tiny fraction of powerful interests, what reason is there outside from a rigid intolerance of other viewpoints for me to put down my own more moderate "End Crony Capitalism" sign and side instead against the person who is the enemy of my far more dangerous enemy?
The only documented occasion of any faction of people trying to push fringe ideas onto the moderate members of ows was when the black block made up of a small group of local anarchists refused to listen to the majority of non-violent protests in occupy Oakland and against the objections or attempts to stop them by the bulk of peaceful protesters, threw rocks and one evening gathered after the mass of general strike protesters had gone home in order to engage in vandalism and confrontations with law enforcement (and this group is not unique to Oakland ows protests btw, but are a long standing local problem and have created issues by behaving outside of expected norms at Oakland and other Bay Area protests long before ows came along).
Did they manage to twist the peaceful political speech of the protesters by refusing to behave after confronted over these actions? No, the others refused to allow them to hide in their ranks and marched over to Berkeley, a venue with a more deeply entrenched culture of non-violent protest, and combed with Cal students to increase their strength against such infiltration. If there has been not much news out of Oakland recently, it's not because the police drove people away, but because they chose to leave rather than let radicals use their numbers as a shield to use to hide in an remain safely anonymous while acting outside of the stated goals and methods of ows. Last I heard, only 30 protesters remained in Oakland, not large enough a crowd for provocateurs to hide out in. Only once the blac block is brought into the mainstream, encouraged to leave, or otherwise neutralized, will many return from the Occupy actions nearby to protest in Oakland.
This means not only is your claim to radicals in ows "twisting the supporters toward their own radical agenda" without proof, there is actual evidence to the contrary, showing that when an outside faction attempted to twist events to their own agenda, they were firmly rejected and not allowed to do so. So saying that any group in ows seeks to topple the government or economy by somehow twisting the political will or duping the majority of its supporters is beyond ridiculous, even if as individuals, some protesters and supporters hold political views supportive of an end to all current practices in favor of a different system.
From what I have been able to see the initiators of OWS, while somewhat influenced by Marxism, are considerably more influenced by the intellectual traditions of anarchism. But I haven't seen them hide their views from anyone. If anything the liberals who support OWS tend to ignore the views of the initiators, or if they are aware of the, treat them incredulously as hyperbole.
I still want to be able to have the kind of conversations here that I have at the occupations, which is not about election reform and government reform. They are about building a new, more just, more loving, more peaceful and more democratic society rather than submitting to the hierarchal state of the 1%. Whatever reforms that are instituted it will still be their state. Both opponents of OWS and well meaning liberals are inhibiting that discussion here. Because it is possible to be more reflective here one would think that the discussions here would be better than those at an occupation. But they're not, mostly because of all the noise from opponents and liberals
If the goal of OWS is to expand and grow then it will naturally take on a direction of its own. OWS strength is that it accepts all ideas and isn't an exclusive club. That's what makes it difficult for corporations and lobbyists to get a propaganda media blitz organized against these movements. I'm a fiscal conservative Republican who happens to agree with the OWS movement and yet my belief is that great change can be accomplished by taking back control of Washington DC in a coast to coast effort to remove every incumbent. It removes the problem and retains our government structure. It also appeals to far more people than dismantling government. I see many people identify the OWS movement as a Marxist idea with Liberal support. Corporations don't see it that way. They are cautious and rightfully so.
Agrees, and would only add that to grow, each of us needs to talk with people we know and convince them of the merits of OWS.
weather a person here is conservative or liberal, they can both agree that what we've had in washington for past 12+ years is neither conservative, nor liberal. Just corrupt.
The driving ideological force of OWS has more to do with the anarchist intellectual tradition than with Marxism. It is true that the mass base is probably more liberalish. In no way do the radicals have any kind of hidden agenda. It's more like the liberals choose to ignore it, pretend it's not there or rationalize it out of existence.
There is not going to be any great support behind a direct democracy movement. at least 50% of the country is definitely against changing our electoral college system. The issue is election reform and an end to corporate and union buying of our elected officials. Whatever it is you believe is great for you. But you have to look at the whole of the country if you expect support. 91% of the country has a bad opinion of Congress. 91% of the country is not unhappy with our Republic form of government. That is a small minority. If you want to win, you go with whats popular. The Tea Party (non-GOP rational people) would join any operation to end corruption in Washington. They will not support direct democracy, and in fact will fight against it. I mean who really wants 51% to rule over 49%. Liberals certainly wouldn't have been very happy with direct democracy when Bush was in charge and republicans were winning. The public could have done away with welfare, food stamps, art funding, and every other social program they didn't like and then where would liberals be? Direct democracy is dangerous and outdated.
Who says ows is a movement is demanding direct democracy? It is run as one, and that may continue or change to adjust for the realities of growth, only time will tell. But how does this equate to being a direct democracy movement? Most people IN ows much less the majority of the public at large are not going to support such a move, and ows has not released demands for this or published any agenda seeking to work towards this. Even the articles on consensus released by ows organizers are not about running the US as a direct democracy, but only focus on defending the principle of direct democracy as a means of grass roots organizing from outside attack by people who, after sitting on their butt for a decade and letting things get bad enough the youth had to lead the way for us to overcome fear and apathy and raise our political voices, thought if they bitched loud enough or mustered enough support, they could step on in and take over the planning and management of a movement their lazy asses wouldn't even have conceived of starting themselves.
Or are you mistaking those individuals arguing for direct democracy as a viable option as somehow being the same as an official agenda instead of what it really represents, the excited voices of people speaking up after long being silenced by unwillingness to get torn up in the political feeding frenzy that is the norm now in our civic debate?
Your claim indicates a feeling that any of the elements in ows outside the mainstream had better shut the fuck up so as not to risk offending people who can not accept individual ideas and a variety of perspectives within a movement that they deem should maintain strict adherence to only the ideas or talking points of the platform most acceptable to the majority of the people. This is a bit ironic when paired with your eloquent warning of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority and why this does not serve the interests of a free people. I guess this kind of tyranny is ok when it serves to exert pressure towards silencing the voices of those minorities whose politics are deemed too fringe?
Does anyone among the more moderate (or at least realistic) of citizens in ows or the country at large really think anarchists, if allowed to speak outside their own online havens for the first time in recent or not so recent memory without being shit on and disrespected by personal attacks from all present, are going to somehow convince a nation of very stubborn people who revere the documents that form the framework of our government even if they agree on nothing else, to somehow give anarchy a serious go? Are you fucking serious?
Part of what sold me and many others on this movement was the fact that even people with "stupid" ideas are allowed to speak, and are treated with much more respect than is usual if they give the same in the course of disagreement. Some folks find it refreshing to see that all members can speak up and have a chance to see their ideas tolerated by respectful debate as often as ad hominem insults, as one would expect in the kind of America we seek to restore, at least if we really believe in a society were all citizens no matter their politics are invited to join in and rewarded with tolerance as they exercise their rights to civic engagement and freedom of speech, as citizens who are equally protected and honored for their humanity under the Constitution of the United States of America.
But the upside to a movement devoted enough to the principles this nation was founded on to let anarchists throw their ideas in the ring with everyone else, without having to be anarchist itself, is that if folks like you think that the only change needed, or the most important one is an amendment to reform campaign finance, and want to motivate the letter writing, canvasing, and other activities going to get that done, you are encouraged to, and don't have to claim your efforts are affiliated with ows to recieve support from any in ows who like your arguments and methods. It doesn't matter to most of us where the best ideas or direction comes from, if they can muster support honestly and seek a better nation and world by working parallel to ows instead of within it, they will not get any argument from most within ows unless they seek to quarrel by seeking to mislead or discredit ows without cause. All that matters is if they see opportunity and a means to take advantage of the change in dialogue and public focus that ows has created to pursue a plan to fix some of the corruption of our system, they should do it!!
I know that direct democracy is impossible to truly enact. Our Republic still gives the Majority a voice in the policies that shape our legislative, domestic and foreign policies. The problem is that Corporations have been able to manipulate the process in which decisions are made. When corruption infiltrates an agency like a police force the court will place monitors within the actual workforce. Maybe we need court appointed monitors in every office or every member of Congress if they lack the ability to carry out their legal duties.
Then the task at hand should be to eliminate their ability to buy elections. A simple constitutional amendment banning private direct donations to candidates or parties would suffice. Include lobbyists in that also. Any money that people want to donate to the political process shoudl go into a general election fund to be shared by all candidates who obtain a certain amount of signature support. Problem solved. The problem with monitors is that they can't get an appointment with the long list of lobbyists in and out of congressional offices every single day.
The nice thing about monitors is that they don't need appointments.When an agency is corrupt or refuses to follow court order stipulations then a monitor can be assigned to that agency. I personally think that any politician or staff member who returns to the private sector should be barred from directly and indirectly joining any Lobbyist Firm or become an Influence Peddler. In addition, no former elected representative or staff member could join or create a Consultant business that deals directly with any prior corporation they had contact with while in office or employed by a Congressman. Corporations would then be in a position to have to influence legislation on the merits of their points made in a open forum called public debate.
Things can change very rapidly. Watch what happens to the UC general strike. It may or may not succeed, but whether it does or not will tell us a lot about how willing people are for fundamental change. Also there is often a lot difference between how people think, how they think they think, and how they act. For example, during World War II Detroit auto workers voted overwhelmingly not to strike for the duration of the war, but in 1944 in the midst of the war Detroit saw the greatest strike wave in its history.
You know how Direct Democracy will fail? Lets put it into the perspective of the 2010 elections. Under direct democracy, most social programs would have been cancelled and shut down. Direct democracy proponents would have a coronary about that. A balanced budget amendment would have passed. You really want direct democracy when the political climate shifts back and forth every 10 years?
There are two types of people who will truly help OWS: 1) The people behind the strong ideas of the movement, 2) The people with strong criticism of the movement. Having critics on this site is an advantage for OWS, not a disadvantage. It forces OWS supporters to defend their ideas with arguments. It fosters discussion. This helps everyone, especially OWS. When your ideas are challenged by strong arguments, they either survive because they are good and can be defended with stronger arguments, or they die because they are weak. In either case, you win.
The problem is not the critics on this site, but the fact that many OWS supporters are not intellectuals. Intellectuals know that critics are their best friends and encourage debate with them; they don't call them trolls. There are only two reasons to call a critic a troll: 1) You don't understand the importance of criticism in a healthy debate, 2) You fear that your position is weak and can be destroyed by the stronger arguments of the critics.
If you believe in Occupy, and you think it is a viable movement with strong ideas, then you shouldn't be afraid to defend it with strong argumentation. Unfortunately, many OWS supporters seem to fear the critique so, they attempt to hide it under the rug by using ad hominem and appeal to motive logical fallacies. Ironically, this only gives the critics more power since their arguments go unchallenged.
Goodbye.
Your post makes sense, however, 'You Smell', is not a valid position. People here call them trolls, I would like to know what you call them?
People who do nothing but insult others are trolls. Period. Some of these trolls are pro-OWS, some are anti-OWS. For example, tulcak is a pro-OWS troll. He does not offer arguments to defend his position, but, instead, debates with the use of insults.
You can review his post here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/trolls-we-have-known/
It is sad that this forum has decided to attack the critic and label most non-OWS supporters as trolls. OWS supporters should also denounce the trolls within their own ranks if they want to be taken seriously.
There is a difference between criticism and the consistent "Get a job" rhetoric. Thus far, there have been few "critics" that have demonstrated the ability to carry on any productive healthy debate. You know that many of them are paid to post. You do have more than one identity here, do you not?
I don't know this. Who's paid to post and what is your proof that they are. Are you making more assumptions again? I'm starting to think OWS supporters are nothing more than conspiracy theorists. Prove me wrong. Show me the money; the names of those paid and the names of those paying, and your proof.
I don't need to. It isn't necessary. One only needs to know the tactics to recognize what is happening.
Logical fallacy: appeal to motive. Useless.
I have two entities and will be creating more. My entities are characters from Plato's Republic. Thrasymaque is a sophist, and Glaucon is Plato's older brother. But, so what? Again, you jump in with a logical fallacy: appeal to motive. You should counter the argument, not the proposer. It does not matter what the motive is behind arguments, the only thing that matters are the arguments themselves. If someone brings good debate to this forum, I have no care in the world if he has one identity, or one hundred. I will debate his arguments. Period. You should do the same.
BTW - It is not because I have more than one identity that I was labeled a troll by OWS supporters, it is because my arguments are strong and researched. I pose a powerful critique which is scary to those who can't defend their position. I was labeled a troll long before Glaucon made his appearance.
No.
Thrasy, what you do not see, or cannot grasp, is that your lack of integrity is not excusable. You have made this a game and I am not obligated to play it or even by your rules. This does not make you intellectually superior. It makes you a fraud.
I do not find the threads that you start appealing or worthwhile, therefore, I do not participate in them. I do not see you on threads discussing inequality or multinational corporations or war profiteering. I see you on threads where you question OWS poster art.
It is not my job to engage in debates that are worthless and create a defense against something that may as well have come from Faux News. When you begin to discuss or tackle the actual issues (instead of diversions), then we can discuss your position of strength.
If you do not wish to engage in the types of debates I enjoy to engage in there is no problem. We all engage in the debates we find interesting. The important point is to use strong arguments and not logical fallacies like you always do.
What lack of integrity? Everyone knows I am Thrasymaque/Glaucon and that these are characters from The Republic. I am open about that and not hiding anything. Your username is GirlFriday, that doesn't give me any information about you. You could be anyone. This is the Internet.
The only difference between us is that I back up my statement with arguments, and you don't. You mostly resort to logical fallacies.
You accuse some posters of getting paid without providing a shred of evidence or any arguments at all. Who are they, and who are they getting paid from? Show us some arguments. if you can't, don't bother raising these lame logical fallacies.
I don't "always" do it. In fact, I provide a variety of links from reputable sources regarding issues on the debates that I am actually engaged in . Although, after I back up my sources, they no longer wish to discuss the issue.
You just don't like it when I reach up and smack the crap out of someone crying for the 445th time about issues like censorship on a forum. You do not have to like it, but there it is. And it isn't necessary for me to prove it to you. It is only necessary to recognize the techniques.
Although, it is quite telling if those are the only threads you see me at, isn't it?
I do not care what threads you write in or what are your views. I only care for interesting discussions. If I called you out here, it is because you have only used logical fallacies on this webpage. It does not matter if you use proper arguments elsewhere, these do not eliminate the fact that you do not do so here. This defense of yours is just another logical fallacy.
Logical fallacy: assumption.
Logical fallacy. You provide no arguments that discuss these techniques. You haven't even defined the techniques you allude to. And, even if you did, it would not prove that anyone is getting paid to write posts. Absolutely meaningless.
Another assumption without supporting arguments.
Just one fallacy after another. An utterly meaningless discourse riddled with unfounded accusations.
Are you still in high school? (appeal to authority - a logical fallacy of my own ;-)
I remember my first philosophy 101 course and my first beer.
"I do not care what threads you write in or what are your views. I only care for interesting discussions. If I called you out here, it is because you have only used logical fallacies on this webpage. It does not matter if you use proper arguments elsewhere, these do not eliminate the fact that you do not do so here. This defense of yours is just another logical fallacy." U jelly?
See this?
http://www.alternet.org/media/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations/?page=entire
Have you seen places like this? http://www.thebrickfactory.com/what-we-do
or this: http://www.thewritersforhire.com/seo/social-media.html
Once upon a time we didn't know how this game worked. But, now........we do.:D U mad?
Thank You GirlFriday, Great article about the army of trolls and flacks getting paid to influence the minds of the world with the help of the internet.
Thank you.
Mad? No, I'm happy. You're attempting to prove your point by using arguments instead of logical fallacies. It shows my posts weren't useless and you're bettering yourself and the overall quality of the forum by posting something more meaningful then before.
The article in your first link is dated December 15th 2010. That's before this site existed. Your second article simply links to a company that offers its writing services. This only shows that some people on the Internet are paid writers. It does not prove that there are paid writers on this site.
If you are claiming that paid writers exist on the Internet, then yes, I agree. If you are claiming that there are such writers here then I demand more evidence. Do you have names of users who are paid writers and the names of those paying them? Do you have arguments to show this is not only an assumption on your part?
If you're just making assumptions, then it's junk just like a conspiracy theory. Nothing but meaningless and unsupported accusations meant to denigrate the argument proposers instead of the arguments; appeal to motive and ad hominem. Unless you can prove your case, I would ask that you stop using logical fallacies and fight the arguments instead of the argument proposers.
Thrasy, I don't have to prove it here. It isn't important if the article is from 2010, this has been known to go on since 2002. I just need to know the techniques. Flooding the board is a technique.When the flooding and idiocy stops then I will stop. :D
Thou doth protest too much, methinks.
Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation does not equate causation). It is not because you see a certain technique used that it means the writer uses that technique intentionally or his being paid by someone.
OK, so you only make assumptions and you'll just keep making more. Thanks for clearing that up. I think we're done here, unless you have something else to add apart from more logical fallacies? I'll look around for someone who uses worthy arguments for my next discussion. Later...
P.S. Did you drink your first beer while you were taking your first philosophy class? If so, that might explain why you don't understand the art of proper debate.
Thras, don't be dense. They liked this forum better when everyone agreed with them.
Noted.
Debates are one thing. Discussions with comrades to move the movement forward are quite another. Both are necessary. Unfortunately I think this site is dominated by the former.
If criticism does not exist on the field, then it might be good that a lot exists here. If you don't like it, nothing forces you to use the forum. What do you want? Constant high-fives? There are tons of other forums you can use. I'm not going to stop having discussions and criticizing faults I see in Occupy just because you don't like it. Sorry.
When people are in a Working Group there might be all kinds of discussion and debate in that working group as there is in the GA, as there in in the U.S. Congress, but to my knowledge I don't know of a Congressional Rep who openly questions whether or not that body should exist at all on the floor of the House or Senate. Likewise with OWS. There is all kinds of internal debate, and there is also external debate, that is debate with its adversaries, but it would make a lot of sense if all a Working Group or GA did was debate whether or not it should exist or its basic values. It moves forward based on a common agreement about its purposes and values.
I welcome debate with the adversaries of OWS, though some of it seems rather pointless because it is often rather clear that the values of OWS and its adversaries are so different and there are so few points of contact that no real communication can take place. On the other hand, if any common agreement can be found, usually useful and interesting discussion can proceed from there. That said, that kind of discussion is very different than a discussion with comrades which would by no means be about "high fives' but it would proceed from many common assumptions and might be about how to move the movement forward, what it should do next, whether or not to engage in a particular action and why, resolving internal problems at an occupation, etc.
We need both types of discussion, but it is my experience that there is far too little of the latter on this forum.
It is up to you to invite your colleagues here and start the kinds of discussions you would like to participate in.
Most of my "colleagues" are too busy at occupations to diddle around on a forum like this. My excuse is medical problems that keep me from being at an occupation as much as I would like to be.
That's sad, because many of the OWS supporters here have no clue what Occupy is. Read tulcak's thread for example: http://occupywallst.org/forum/trolls-we-have-known/ He pertains to be an avid OWS supporter but categorically denies the movement is structured as an anarchy by intellectual anarchists like Graeber. He calls anyone who says this a troll. It's quite lame that the movement's own supporters don't even understand basic aspects of the movement.
I agree, criticism is very necessary, and that many pro-OWS people here only want the high-fives, along with the occasional flame-thrower venting.
I, too, try to use logic and expose fallacy , and appreciate your criticisms. If more people here( and in the streets) took the time to reason and debate, then OWS might be in danger of succeeding.