Forum Post: Why attack Occupy?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 11, 2011, 7:05 p.m. EST by bugbuster
(103)
from Yoncalla, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I am mystified by 99% of Occupy's opponents. Do you who attack Occupy here imagine for a second that you could ever be among the 1%? Unless you are on their payroll, what conceivable reason could you have for defending them? They would never let you past their bodyguards. If you threaten to gain wealth, they will have your money before you know what happened to you.
If you think you are defending a status quo that will ever have anything for you, you are delusional.
Many posters believe #OWS is just an activist wing of the Democratic Party and for good reason. Consequently, most of the attacks are from independent and conservative individuals who see #OWS as a support group for President Obama and Democratic congressmen. I may be wrong, but I believe the vast majority of attacks are from these individuals and not the real 1%. #OWS has done nothing to dispel this notion and, in fact, have embraced many of the Democratic Party's base of supporters such as labor unions, liberal Hollywood celebrities, MoveOn.Org, etc. No one wants to be played for a fool. #OWS should issue a list of its grievances and demands so everybody knows where it stands. Lacking that, do not be surprised by the barrage of attacks.
This post is a pearl among the swine we get from most of the naysayers on this forum. This is something worthwhile for discussion. A movement like this will be all over the map for some time to come. Remember it is barely two months old. Give it a little time. These things take years. I think that the support for Obama is draining away day by day in view of his favorable actions toward criminal bankers. Protest movements draw in everybody with a gripe. A lot of them are unfocused, some have stronger cases to make than others. Overall, Occupy is stellar among movements I have seen over my 67 years. Not perfect, but damn good, and smart. It is way too soon to try to distill all the input into a coherent platform. To do so would fragment the movement into factions instead of unite it.
most people think what the media would like them to think.
most people think what the corporate media would like them to think.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels
I'm not defending the 1% I'm attacking the vandals and thugs that is an embarrassment to the left wing. This open ended moment has opened the flood gates to gangsters, conspiracy nuts, and people that just want America collapse in on itself. It's a shame because this open ended, anything goes, protest first figure out what your protesting later attitude has killed the credibility of the people with good ideas in your movement. Start over, call it something else, march on washington and present some clear demands because all I think of when I hear occupy now is a mob breaking windows and spray painting walls in Oakland. Your credibility among most of the left is lost. It's the tea party all over.
What source(s) of information do you have about the Occupy movement?
I for one oppose you primarily because you don't believe in private property rights. And because I believe you are playing a dangerous game with the futures and in fact lives of a lot of young impressionable people.
The internet will allow you to continue to stir the pot. Good for you. But I believe that young people will ruin their futures with arrests for foolish violence, innocent people will likely die and that valuable public resources (police) will be overtaxed.
The original premise (I think) was a good one... fight the corruption of corporate money in the political system. But you've strayed off into the careless, hateful attack on virtually all institutions with little or no thought of the consequences.
I think you kids are confused. You seem to think that because someone is Conservative that makes them a Republican. You are wrong Im Independent and vote that way every election. You think because I show interest in the Tea Party movement I agree with Wall Street. Again you are wrong. I cannot stand in the street with my parents money. I have to go to work everyday to keep my tiny insignificant life afloat but its my life. I do object however to paying taxes that support your group and the unions and the societal leeches that take but never give. Thats why they attack you. Its that simple. Im not a troll or a hater or anything other than a working man. Heres a tip - Life gets rough get a helmet and stfu
A little background: At 67, it has been some time since anybody called me a "kid." I've been going to work every day for 45+ years, never missed a payment on anything including my taxes. I served my country honorably in the US Navy for four years.
As a patriotic taxpaying citizen, I wholeheartedly support the Occupy movement as a necessary response to the attempt of the far right to subvert the Constitution, loot the treasury, and subjugate the population for the sake of their decadence and inordinate greed. I support a return to equitable tax rates, common sense regulation of business, fairness and an end to corruption in government.
Fear. They fear us because security, the predictable, is a powerful - perhaps THE most powerful of human drives beyond the need for air, water food, etc. And security represents the mecanism for attaining those things. Thus, the instinct is to fear change in any of the ground rules that provide those things. This is why reassuring people that were are really just about restoring demoracy, true democracy, that has worked for us BETTER in the past than the present system, and will work for us BETTER again in the future to provide security again is essential! To much theorizing regarding the underpinnings of people's survival will just induce fear and mistrust. I think this realization, and it'saffects on strategy and tactics is very important to get a handle on. Thanks for bringing up such an important question! PS A lot of them are also getting paid.
Here's your answer: there is no 1% and no 99%. There are only people who have more or less money in varying degrees. There are very few super wealthy who dabble in politics or even care. They don't need to.
Ignorance. Anger. Fear. That usually causes people to attack one another. Attacking people who are exercising thier Constitutional rights to assemble peacefully and the freedom of speech only to degrade them with ignorant and backwards stereotypes is completely Anti-American and makes you look like a real a$$hole. I only have pity for those people who live with that much fear in thier lives that it is easier to attack behind a computer than face anyone or anything in real life. Know thy self and know thy enemy.
What did you lose during the crisis?
House? Car? DVDs?
Nothing. I'm doing rather well. See above. Never missed a payment in 45 years, hardly ever called in sick from work. The difference between me and you is that I care about my fellow citizens and the quality of life in my country for all of its people.
Caring is one thing. Giving charity to those that are irresponsible is another thing. A "system" of Govt shouldn't be encouraging bad or irresponsible behavior by subsidizing it or giving a handout. Charity is fine.
If you had the power to destroy the Occupy movement and prevent any such protests from recurring, would you do it?
i remember when i was in middle school
[Removed]
so you believe you'd need some mythical 1% boogymans permission to obtain any kind of wealth?
if so does that mean all your little music idols got that permission, before selling you their CD? or your favorite actors had this imaginary permission right?
hmn what about the creators of all the little electronic toys you preocupy yourself with daily? did they have the boogymans permission?
no, Im not rich by any measure, but I do live in a country where it is possible, and hate to bust ya bubble but, the real 99% of this country (the people not occupying anything but a job and a home and a family) wont let you destroy it.
Ah yes,it's a huge conspiracy isn't it?
No, not a conspiracy at all. You see, people don't make hundreds of millions of dollars by working hard and saving. They take it from other people, either in the form of direct cash or by extracting it from the physical environment, or by manipulating the invested wealth of others in sophisticated ways. In this battle for wealth, you and I are unarmed combatants. You have no hope of ever achieving that kind of wealth. If you did, you wouldn't be sitting at a computer or diddling with your handheld gadget.
Roflmfao. So rich people robbed you heh? Did you call the police? Rich people just pull money out of the air huh? Anyone can invest can't they? You sound like the typical self-entitlement mentality. Seriously,read what you wrote. Try to get away from the victim mentality and make something of yourself.
Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
Here's the difference between you and me. I am doing fine, thank you. I am concerned about what I see happening to other people. I think it's bad for my country to have this level of inequality. Part of the problem facing the US today is that our young generation is starting out with their backs to the wall. The country has no good future this way. Yes, people with vast wealth do acquire it by extraordinary means. They got a good piece of my retirement account, but my balance sheet is better than most banks: I'm still in the black. They may have a lot of your money hanging out to dry and ready to be blown off the line, but not mine.
The only people taking my money is the govt.
Then you probably don't have enough to bother with. If you're a kid out of college with a five- or six-figure student loan and no job yet, then different story. My daughter has a professional degree and a $150K loan to pay. She's ok because the customers where she works are being asked to cough up way more for their services than they would have, and so they often have to go without. The money that should have been helping support her school went down a shithole in Iraq and places like that, and into the pockets of thieves calling themselves military contractors.
[Removed]
We're not defending them. Many of us agree with some of your points. Personally, I don't like your tactics and also think Americans have no right to complain about suffering. Money out of politics. If you'd have stuck with that I'd have been in. But you're all over the place ideologically and your reps don't appeal to me. Some of the people in those camps are honestly just dumb - the crap coming out of their mouths and harassment of fellow citizens rather pisses me off.
Freedom of speech pisses you off more than clubbing, gassing and shooting peaceful protesters for exercising their freedom of speech?
Democracy is more than one point of view. Where we can find agreement we can move forward together. Dismissing all of the movement because you disagree with part of it is self-defeating to the part you agree with.
But being all over the place is kind of the point if you think about it. If this really is the 99% the the ideas coming forward are going to be far greater and varied then just 1 idea. Some of them great and wonderful a good many worthless, some of them down right idiotic and dangerous.
The kind of censorship your looking for is happening though at ever stage. I can say this honestly because when someone comes up with an idea that is just so stupid and idiotic...its not repeated over and over and over. It eventually dies and is forgotten in the mass. The good ideas like getting the money out of politics are repeated and amplified until they are shouted so loud everyone gets to hear them.
Unfortunately just like going to the store you have to deal with all these people in the parking lot shopping at the same store. Here they are being able to come in and give their ideas. The best thing you can do is ignore the bad ideas and encourage the good ones. By taking part in that process you will help this movement what it should by becoming the true voice of the people to effect change in our government for our betterment.
"This is not a question of politics, of right or wrong. This is a question of intelligence. We must be smart. We enjoy popular support, for now. But to preserve America's good will, we must keep our demands narrow: end the corrupting influence of money in politics. That is something a majority of Americans can get behind. That is something a social movement can achieve. And then, and only then, can the other issues be successfully pursued." - theghostofthomasjefferson
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
that along with the other 20 things and any other cause that pops up. it's become an umbrella under which any group claiming to be OWS can do whatever, such as tormenting other US citizens and keeping them from voicing their opinion. I can't get behind that. The footage of OWS blocking tea partiers conference so agressively was despicable. and I am NOT a Republican.
Truth
[Removed]
Your reference to child abuse is offensive to me and all other survivors of child abuse. You go ahead and call people names but you're very sad to joke about child abuse. If you had been abused as a child I'm sure you would feel the same way.
People attack Occupy because they are scared an anarchy will take over their country. I agree with them. It's scary.
There's nothing scary about anarchy. What's scary is when the police and military fight you to prevent it from happening.
It's not particularly about anarchy. What is scary for most people is the idea of replacing the only system they have known with a system they have never lived in and which has seldom been put in practice, certainly not in a country with 300,000 million people. There's always an element of danger in any revolution and change of government structure. It's normal to be scared, and healthy I would say.
This sounds like an argument against revolution in general, not against anarchist communism.
Certainly, any revolution is scary. As for anarchist-communism, I think what makes people scared of Occupy is that it's not very transparent. A lot of protesters themselves do not even know it is an anarchy. The word is only branded tentatively with the movement. At times, it almost seems Occupy is scared to admit what it is because it fears people will refuse it. I was discussing with a protester yesterday who categorically refused the idea that Occupy was an anarchy. I even showed him articles written by David Graeber and he refused it. I think this lack of transparency is scary. I'm not saying it's the fault of Occupy. I don't know if it's planned that way or not. But it would be nice if the structure of the movement was talked about in more open fashion.
On a personal level, I have to admit I do not believe in anarchy. As for Occupy, I believe the movement serves the purpose of waking up the masses. For that, I like it. I don't really think it will grow to big, so I'm not scared in that regard. But, who knows. Anything could happen.
I agree the vital contribution that OWS has made already is in waking up the masses. I even go so far to say that even if they were to fail royally due to lack of organization or the resulting inability to anticipate and avoid or otherwise counter everything from bad press to frostbite to police pressure, this will take nothing away from their success in being the wake up call, nor will it discredit the facts they turned our national focus toward, including the idea that we must gather to demand reform.
Like the boy who cried "the Emperor wears no clothes", getting what everyone suspected out in the open is the crucial part--even if the boy is escorted from the scene, no one can force the rest of the citizens to imagine clothes again for the strutting bare-assed fool before them .
With OWS it is the same, they can go home by choice or shut down, but the idea will remain undeniable and will be easier for the next people to take up and fight for.
I still hope they don't fail because the lost momentum would nevertheless take time to regain, and it would be best if they either adjusted to their growth by becoming more organized, or if they invite and allow other allies to step up and share the fight without using the name OWS, so that occupy becomes one face among many representing the movement and not the only one. But I'm not afraid that the call for fairness and justice relies on their voice alone anymore.
And I am less worried about anarchy becoming a viable political system here even if given equal chance to have a shot by getting a clean slate from re-branding. The ideas of socialist democracy can't even get traction here and there are actual examples of it working well in practice, like in the mixed economies in Europe and Canada, so I am not worried about anarchy. Even in the chance instance of some revolution eventually happening, the most likely powerful fighting factions will be those least likely to even consider it as an option.
Shit, it's a tough enough sell even to those who don't demonize it, but just find it the most inefficient and confusingly foreign way one could choose to try to get anything done at a pace faster than excruciatingly slow-- for a case in point just look at the confusion and consternation created by the GA meetings among even staunch supporters of OWS, who are of a more traditional mindset about the most efficient manner of organizing. They have no clue why protesters reject any idea that might speed up the glacial process that is decision making by finger waggle, wherein even planning to get something done another day takes a couple hours to agree on, and as evident in posts here and elsewhere, the reality of trying to engage with such a process for most normal people is maddening, and it drives them away feeling very bitter. But most leave or desperately try to change it, hanging in for a bit first before they give up and recognize that even the most bitter feelings of disenfranchisement that arise from being unable to take part in real organizing for a cause you feel deeply about is preferable to being driven completely bat shit by trying to do it strictly by the rulebook adopted by the consensus or nothing crowd of finger wagglers, since nothing (in the way decisions or plans) seems to be the result of the hours of discussion and endless meetings of the GA much more often than any actionable plans.
cont below...
Cont from above....
Anarchy looks great on paper and can even work in more limited venues, but as with most political systems, it is long on theory and short on practical logistics for making it work in the real world. Any time I've asked supporters to explain the concrete plans for making it work in light of the not yet perfected state of mankind and to lay out the logistics for implementing it nationwide, I just hear folks double down on the theory or provide insufficient examples of it in practice at much smaller scales (i.e. look we kept occupy camps open for two months using consensus decision making, it's therefor superior to the electoral system).
Not singling out Anarchy here BTW, I have the exact same complaint about Libertarianism, which I fear a great deal more, since its proponents are quite similar to anarchists in their optimistic idealism, but much better at selling a theory longer on faith in man and fine principles than on day to day details and practical logistics.
I think the lack of transparency about anarchists in OWS is not for any shady purpose, just an understanding of the knee jerk reaction of average people to the mere mention of it. Besides, while it is run as an anarchy and promotes anarchist ideas by showing them working (well or not is still hotly debated) in practice, I do not get a sense that they are pushing for an anarchist agenda above all others. It may be run as an anarchy but only some in it are promoting anarchy as a solution, and they are standing among others promoting socialist ideas, and libertarian ideas, and the far greater number calling for change that no matter how broad or comprehensive, are still moderate calls for reform-- an end to the gutting of the social net that falls way short of socialism, for transparency in campaign and political finances and in elections, and for a move away from the (now twice discredited) unregulated capitalism that has corrupted our politics and created the economic crisis, but is hardly a move to destroy the free market. Deep reform, sure, but hardly a radical departure from the constitutional government most of us still stand by.
Anarchy may make OWS fumble the ball enough from being unable to manage growth and public opinion, and the next in line to pick it up will also learn a few things about the value of efficiency. Or to avoid this scenario, the people organizing OWS will adjust their strategy to cope with the necessities of effectively running a grassroots movement without it falling apart from inside pressure or being picked apart by outside opponents. But this means the movement would no longer run as an anarchy, rather as an adaptation created to allow for timely and fast decision making and will likely include a hierarchy of some sort, even if limited in power and term. This of course will, no matter what the form, still politically represent the majority of OWS members better than pure anarchy, since most don't give a fark if Anarchists started OWS or not, as it's everyone's baby now. Fair enough, as the number of anarchists protesting alone and without the aid of the rest of us OWS train-hoppers might be great enough to corral together to Occupy a park for a week or two, but needs to involve a broader coalition to keep the numbers it has gathered, much less gain strength and grow as it needs to if it is to create change.
So either way, the movement will likely live on, under the name Occupy or some other, but anarchy seems unlikely to gain traction as an optimal system for organizing anything larger than a co-op or commune, which is where it has always shined as a method for organizing, and is usually the only context where it is used.
"Unless you are on their payroll..." BINGO! Most of the trolls on this troll-infested forum are PAID to troll.
Typical conspiracy nut language. I've been posting because I'm concerned with how bad occupy is making the left wing look. You are NOT the 99% and how dare you speak for those of us who are not vandals and thugs.
"... for those of us who are not vandals and thugs." TYPICAL trollspeak!!!!!
[Deleted]
Troll= rudeness, inflammatory, off topic slurs, racial slurs, refusal to engage in dialogue, resorting to personal insults...and the list goes on.
Nice try...
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Lol. Do you really think that? Paranoia is a strange thing.
Hey Yin, why do constantly beat the "trolls get paid" drum? Do you honestly believe that anyone with a dissenting point of view must not be genuine in their belief?
Nice try there, "Rob"...
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
You did not answer why you think trolls are paid, and to add on, do you have proof?
Do you honestly believe a guy posting this: http://global-human-rights.us/home/ 300 times a day is doing it for fun? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you, I rest my case.
How much are they paid, by who, and where can we apply?
Ask THEM, not me! :)
Mr Buttbuster, come on who decided on this stupid 99%, if i'm in the 98, 88, 78 or 60 percentile group what difference would it make? I'm still comfortably off, better then most people in any socialist, communist , or welfare states. Let the top 1% be, there will always be someone in the top 1% in commie countries its the party heads, would you rather have that?
I attack OWS because I love the koch brothers and sarah and eric and clarence and mitch and rush and ruppert
and I know, one day, I will be sooooooooo rich.
I'm building a soylent green factory -
do you have anything to contribute?
Old hippie fuck I need your help. Need help making a t-shirt. We need to draw a picture of Zooccotti Park with a cage around it. Here are some ideas: Draw a hippie climbing the cage like a monkey and throwing shit. Draw a hippie rolling in mud and shit like a pig. Draw a hippies fucking like dogs. Draw a picture of a hippie eating peanuts like a big fucking elephant. Draw a hippie as a lazy fucking Ape doing nothing.