So, I've been more of a lurker lately than a full participator, but I've noticed a reference to the Occupy Wall St. protests here and there. Generally, they seem like pot-shots, and are largely uninformed, so I figured I'd give an insider's perspective.
I, along with a couple hundred other people, am currently occupying Dilworth plaza in Philadelphia in solidarity. As of today (Oct 12) there are 118 occupations nationwide, and 346 worldwide.
I am a 23-year-old college graduate with a comfy job as a web developer at the American College of Physicians. Most of the people I interact with at the occupation are employed, despite the popular 'wisdom' of the contrary. I have never protested before in any form. This was the first movement that I felt was actually worth my time (and it takes a lot of it).
Of course, you will find your hippies drumming and dancing around (seriously, I don't know how they can do that for 16 hours straight), but you may be surprised to find parents, and grandparents participating in the General Assemblies (our form of direct Democracy). Of course you'll find your spoiled rich kids, but you'll also find your homeless veterans, finally speaking out and being heard.
We have a system of government set up at the occupations that works pretty well. Everyone has to participate in a 'work group'. I'm in the media and art work groups. We have cooks, medics, security personnel, community outreach, etc. Twice a day we have General Assemblies. The General Assembly is like our Congress, except we don't have representatives, it is a full democracy. It's a slow process, but highly effective. I can explain more if anyone is interested.
Now, the main thing everyone asks is "why?" The lack of a direct answer to this question is probably the biggest source of judgement passed on us. We don't have a politician, we don't have a spokesperson, and we don't tell people what to think. We intend to represent the 99%, and because of this fact, and the multitude of experiences that come out of that large demographic, it is difficult to harp on just one, or even a handful of points.
I personally want to see corporate personhood ended, and corporate money out of politics. That is just me though.
What I can say is that Occupy is meant to empower those who have lost their power. The middle class is shrinking, and the number of impoverished is growing. Our politicians can't even pass the simplest legislation anymore, and large corporations continue to abuse people and planet for profit. Our government of the people, by the people, and for the people has been sold at liquidation prices to the corporate super giants. We the people have no say anymore, and we are at the mercy of the almighty dollar.
I, by myself, am powerless to fight this, and so are you. The Occupy protests are aimed at gathering the 99% into a focused front. Together, we can be more powerful than best of their lobbyists, puppet politicians, and any amount of their corporate money.
So, I implore each of you to at least make a brief visit to your nearest occupation. Before passing judgement, see what it is about, and how you can help. The thing that will make these protests successful is you, and your support and solidarity. Bring your opinions--open dialogue is part of what makes us strong--but leave your preconceptions at home.
If you have any more honest questions, feel free to ask, but I won't entertain any baseless bashing.
Same shit is happening in Australia, we now export our imports and manufacturing is virtually gone. The people will have the upper hand sooner or later. good luck!!
My 2 cents before this thread implodes. First off I'm liberal. Not crazy Michael Moore liberal, more moderate and would love to get behind this. But I can't. I don't get the protests! When I hear the protesters talk on tv or the radio or the news (not FOX but HuffPost) I don't think they know what they stand for. I get the fact that they are "Angry As Hell And Not Going To Take It Any More" but I don't think they have a clear direction or could answer a question like "what would you like to see happen" Many appear to be protesting for the sake of protest.
I have brought this up to others and was told I was ignorant and uninformed and told to google the website! Not So. I am a news Junky and know exactly what they are protesting. What I am saying is that for an outsider looking in, it appears that many, some, most don't know what THEY are protesting for.
Another thing that bothers me is all the kids running around with digital devices and Apple Products. I don't know why, but at the least it smacks a bit of hypocrisy and on the other hand it is hard to feel sorry for a college kid with a macbook pro bitching about the economy when I teach kids who are dirt poor.
I have been told that lack of a unified message and centralized leadership is their stagey that makes the Ideology harder to attack by conservatives. Good luck with that one.
And something scares me about it. The protesters seem to feel so smug and cleaver with their human microphone. Maybe you guys out there aren't old enough to have read 1984, but that whole zombie like droning of what someone else said, seems very, very, very Orwellian to me. It is a very effective technique that I use in the classroom to brainwash my students into remembering vocabulary and definitions. It works well, very well wether it is vocabulary or politics.
Again. I'm not bashing the movement and think of myself as one of the 99%. Just telling you what it looks like from where I sit. Good luck to you. --------
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 7:45 PM
I appreciate the message echoed by these protests, and it's good that the issue is getting a lot of attention. I'm still skeptical about whether this movement will crystallize into something.
But people like you give me a little hope that maybe I am underestimating the intelligence/integrity/benevolence of the public. There's just so much crap to fix, it seems almost impossible. There are hardly any politicians who understand science, for example. I facepalm frequently at policies or decisions based on bad research, or false conclusions. Will it ever change? I doubt it, honestly. Can we make it better if we try? Probably.
So I'll just keep playing the blues - because I need to, for that and many other reasons (also it's pretty fun).
Merci et bonne chance.
P -and Stickman makes some good points-
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 7:42 PM
If you got what you wanted, you would simply be horrified. The application of a direct democracy is nothing but a terror. Ask the French if you don't believe me.
You are a victim of your own government's policies, rhetoric and education. The real call should be to stop the governmental enslavement of it's people by making them think it is the government's job to take care of them.
Your call for governmental force to remove the wealth of another to give to you is as asenine as it sounds. The right is to equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
We are in sad economic times because of unscrupulous behavior of both corporations and government. Ultimately the unintended consequences of bad and intrusive governmental intervention into the free market combined with some jackasses who were willing to take advantage of it gave us the sad situation we sit in today.
You are fighting to take your own opportunities away. Corporations are just groups of people making money. They started small. They got big because they were successful. You have the opportunity to do the same yourself. If something is not working now - do something else. That is the way opportunity works.
The American Founding Fathers had exactly the right ideas. Unfortunately, we have gone askew - mostly because the average citizen has no idea of the principles and reasons why this nation was founded as has been so successful.
Protest all you want, but may I suggest against the government that is handing you this pile of crap.
Okay, there were a lot of responses, so I'll try my best to address a palpable number of them.
First off, we are not necessarily anti-corporation, we are anti-corporate greed. A big company is not a problem. A big company that exploits people and policy is.
Next, you don't have to be dirt poor to be pissed off. 99% is a wide economic gap. I am quite well off for now. I am not fighting for me, I'm fighting for my friends who aren't doing so well. I'm fighting for my countrymen/women who are struggling, and I'm fighting for future.
Another thing, the "people's mic" as it is called, is NOT anything anyone WANTED to do. In Philly we have amplification, and we use it. On Wall St they did not have access to amplification, so the "people's mic" was the only way to allow a large number of people to hear one another. It's only Orwellian if you repeat only one opinion. Keep in mind, there is no leader of this movement and EVERYONE there is welcome to implement the people's mic.
Also, the news is covering this HORRIBLY, which is why I encourage you to go down to your local occupation and speak with people. If you come out of that with the same opinions, then I guess the occupation is not for you, and at least you tried. If there seems to be no clear message, it's because there are a lot of messages. Again, 99% is a wide demographic. We are working as a group to develop a unified manifesto, but it takes time. Everyone is a leader in this, and we can not delegate this to one person and pretend to call ourselves democratic.
I also want to reaffirm that 'redistribution of wealth' is not exactly what we're getting at either. The system is broken. I don't care what your political views are, I think you'll be hard pressed to argue that point. The income gap is widening, and the middle class will be nonexistent if we keep going down this path. We want tighter regulations on corporations and the removal of corporate money in politics.
Again, I'll try to respond to any serious comments the best I can.
Jon, I think what you guys are doing is just fine. It's participatory democracy, not mob rule. (That's why KingoBad is mistaken.) A lot of Americans, and others, have forgotten what participatory democracy looks like.
The real thing scares people. What's amazing is that Americans, of all people, SHOULD be responsive to participatory democracy--especially when, as it plainly the case, republican democracy has been torpedoed by corporate money and has, partially for that reason, but also for other reasons, become dysfunctional, non-functioning. Who among us, of whatever political persuasion, can honestly say that Congress is working right now?
Things have to work first on the local level. What you're saying about work groups is absolutely crucial, and it's the first thing that the Bill O'Reilly's of the world completely and deliberately ignore.
The demand that popular protest immediately articulate "goals" is silly. It's like somebody, confronted with a work of art, reflexively saying "How much does it cost?" There's a category problem here. It takes a while for large groups of real people with legitimate but multivariate grievances to figure out what they are, then articulate them. First comes an awakening of sorts. That's where we seem to be right now. That's exactly as it should be.
In the period before grievances have been sorted out and articulated, it's impossible to stop the flowering of democratic energy, or--importantly--to nip it at the bud by buying off the Chosen Leaders. And THAT, my friends, is why some people are very anxious right now. The people with money want to be able to locate a couple of people and say "Talk to them. Find out what it will take to shut them up and shut this down."
What's fascinating is that those, especially on the conservative end of the political spectrum, who most fervently applaud popular participatory democracy when it happens in a neoconservative-approved World Zone--such as the former East Germany in the vicinity of the Berlin Wall--are quickest to try and discredit it when it shows up here in America.
There are several obvious reasons for the present discontent. When it showed up on the Tea Party front, it was both a panicked expression of total rejection of the vision of a new America offered by Obama--"He WASN'T BORN HERE!"--AND, as I see it, a considerably more legitimate complaint with the profligacy of the American government family on the pocketbook tip: ever-growing deficits.
Now that an entirely new group of people have taken to the streets, I see the protest very much as JonLaing describes his own personal grievance. If you look at the income distribution curves over the past 25 years, there's been an indisputable concentration of wealth in the upper few percent and an equally indisputable flattening and in some case impoverishment down below.
This is simply a fact. So-called conservatives can insist, as they repeatedly do, that we should preserve the American dream of Getting Rich, and I agree with that. Why not? Let's all get rich. But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that fewer and fewer people are getting more and more rich. America is more imbalanced in that respect than it's been for 80 or 90 years. Let's get back to the 1950s, where taxes were high, everybody was doing pretty well, corporate presidents made only 20 times as much as the secretaries instead of 100 times as much ($4.5 million vs. $45K) and Little Walter had #1 hits!
If I'm wrong about that, BTW, I urge people with legitimate statistics to blow my claims out of the water. Please link to the page where you've found your statistics.
In the face of that constriction, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that a popular uprising has finally occurred, nor am I surprised that it cuts across so many demographics.
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 8:28 PM
This thread will be blasted out of the water before too long so I will have my say now. jonlaing... I suggest you and all your comrades in this movement, lead by example. I say that YOU yourselves are "greedy". So, please lead by example and immediately divest yourself of all money, any homes, cars, HARMONICAS, and anything else of value and give it all to the poor and downtrodden. Sell your computer, your amplifiers, microphones as well...give the money to the poor. Also convince some of your Hollywood darlings like Barbra Streisand, Tom Hanks, Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, just for starters,to get rid of ALL their wealth and contribute it to the poor. Abandon their Personal Corporations, resign from William Morris, fire all their attorneys, resign all rights to books, movies, investments, anything that even LOOKS like "corporate greed". When I see your ilk practicing what they preach, then I may choose to do likewise. Otherwise if any of you come into my neighborhood with that "protesting" and "you owe me a college education" stuff...you're going to get the shock of your life, mister. People in general just do not like you. Before you reply with the usual smug elitist comments about how evil I am and how I want to see old people eat dog food, or throw little children out into the streets, read this>>>>> I freely admit to being a one way SOB who loves to take care of my own, loves to have a Bible in one hand and a pistol in the other, who loathes liberalism and is very happy to be a so-called "right wing, extremist, bigoted, nutcase, pig." I thought that in addition to that horrible word "religion", political stuff was prohibited also. Apparently not. I've said it a zillion times..."the degree of someone's open mindedness will be in direct proportion to how much they agree or disagree with the point of discussion. That applies to me exactly...I will choose to be open minded when I damn well please. No matter what Obama tries or does, he cannot control my mind unless I allow it and you and your protestors cannot do it either.
@ Kingobad - "Corporations are just groups of people making money"
Wow, that's all a corporation is? You mean like a girl scout cookie sale? Great , I'll take a box of chocolate mints.
I'm so glad that all that stuff about how contemporary corporations have empowered themselves so as to assume a place where they nearly exercise the role of a fourth branch of government in the USA has no base in fact whatsoever.
The lobbyists and big money armtwisters, they're all just a bunch of unassuming people making money. Like a kid with a lemonade stand. What a relief.
And all that stuff about subsidies for billionaires and socialized risk, WELL! Just shut up!! Those billionaires are just groups of people so it's all ok!
It's not a swindle if it's legal and everything follows up along with the party line. You have the opportunity to do the same yourself. Surely if you are smart and ruthless enough (or if you are just well placed shall we say) you can also figure out how to gain your own disproportionate and unfair advantage. So no more whining from jealous losers.
Hey remember feudalism? That was just groups of people making money. They got a lot of bad press, but listen - those guys REALLY knew how to get things done. Better believe it.
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 9:04 PM
So let me test my understanding...You're saying you have a cross section of our culture getting together to bring attention to somethig they believe in...is that correct?
Are you the same Nazi, terriorist, selfesh, unfair, hostage taking, racist group that Nancy Pelosi calls the Tea Baggers?
Joeleebush, Your post shows that you completely misunderstand what "the other side" is saying. To be honest I think you're refusing to even try to understand what their point of view really is, and instead you prefer just to make up your own straw man arguments to tear down.
What I am saying is, that without proper boundaries, Democracy can be as tyrannical as any despot or king. Historically, democracies HAVE elected tyrannical leaders.
I am not applying this to the current application of protest and organization of said protest, but as an end goal of the movement. Protest is fine and healthy. It saves us from violence and all of the other nasty things inherent in disagreements in society. It is certainly necessary in a society that values not killing each other.
If everyone gets together to say that, as a majority, we vote to take your money you nasty rich people. I am saying it is Tyrannical.
I believe that there is an inherent problem with ever increasing governmental intrusion. The effects of that are the horrible incentives they create or reinforce.
The problem is not with corporations, it is with governmental collusion with corporations so that everyone involved gets theirs, including the politicians lining the pockets of those they choose.
Freedom and Liberty is the goal. Not monetary equity. If the corporations are intruding on your liberty to achieve success, then so be it. But you will have to change Government to change the way they influence the marketplace in favor of their cronies. I vote for throw all the bums out.
Keep on protesting. Just put your aim in the right spot. ---------- Danny
KingoBad hit it on the head in his last two statements: Government collusion w/the coporations is the real problem...past and present administrations equally guilty.
Also, not only is Freedom and Liberty the goal, they are the only things "promised" to us by our constitution, NOT an equal cut for everyone.
Joe Lee, if you assume everyone is a smug elitist that's all you'll ever see in people. I'm not sure how you wrap your brain around people you seem to consider communist being elitist. Communism would seem to be the polar opposite of elitism- everyone gets the same amount. You've got your buzzwords and don't seem interested in honest debate, but that's your prerogative.
For what it's worth, I don't think Communism or Capitalism work in their purest forms. A good education system is, for example, important to produce the next generation of workers. It is not, however, in the interest of any particular company, to spend their money educating workers unless they can lock up the rights to those workers productivity. Under the old guild system (hey and even Major League baseball until what, the 70's?) that's exactly what they did. The apprentice system could only be maintained with enforced monopolies, which is both anti-Capitalist and anti-democratic. Socialized education is the best way to churn out lots of educated people (and before anyone moans about how test scores are heading in the wrong direction take a closer look at the data. We make virtually everyone take tests now. It used to be the poor students were just discouraged from taking the tests. I don't like everything about No Child Left Behind, but at least that's one positive.)
I've been left with a similar impression as Stick about the protests though, but that may just be the messy birth of a movement. Bailing out the banks was necessary to keep the economy from getting much much worse. Bank runs would have led to complete economic collapse. As bad as things are now compared with say, the Great Depression we are still doing pretty well.
That said, I don't agree with how the banks were bailed out. We needed to prevent a run, but we could have done that in several other ways. We protected the banks shareholders and employees. The idea of stock is that if a company fails you lose your money. We could have bailed out the people with all the bad mortgages, which would have in turn saved the banks and killed two birds with one stone, but again, that sets bad precedents. If we wanted to protect the banks from a run we could have taken the wreckage and made good on their debt. We could have let inflation take hold. A lot of economists argue that Japan's lost decade had a lot to do with an overemphasis on staving off inflation. Inflation makes it easier to pay off debt and encourages investment (sitting on your money during deflation gets you in real trouble and actually encourages domestic production as long as you can keep it at inflation instead of hyperinflation levels.
I don't hear that sort of discussion coming out of Occupy protest, but maybe it will.
I Respect that freedom and liberty is your goal Kingobad. That's my goal also.
Just keep in mind that after fighting for liberty and independence one of the first things the "American Founding Fathers" set out to do was to set up a -
Yes, they understood that government was necessary, but inherently dangerous to Liberty. That is why the Constitution was carefully written as a limit on governmental powers. While I don't mind refinement, the original intent is as sound as it has ever been.
Yes, SOME of them understood that government was inherently dangerous to liberty. Only some of them. Some of them wanted George Washington to be King. Others thought slavery was really really cool and that women should be considered to be a form of property.
They were a quarelsome, fractious lot with many and various different sets of beliefs and interpretations of what liberty is and how to achieve that end. Compromise was a major ingredient in the final product.
Yes, government is a hazard as are corporations, trade unions, the NRA, liberals, conservatives, socialists and any other collection of interested people gathered to influence an outcome, but the real problem isn't just any one thing. The REAL problem is me and you and us . And that's exactly what it says in that big book that some of you guys keep shaking at everyone else.
Good news is we can all work to make it better. No need to round up the usual scapegoats. The jews, the commies, people who talk funny, whatever, aint your problem. WE is our problem.
Last Edited by on Oct 12, 2011 11:34 PM
My political feelings and beliefs notwithstanding on a harmonica forum (although, any posting with a title of "OT" probably shouldn't ever be locked if those posts are ever allowed in the first place), all I know is that I wandered down to the "Occupy San Francisco" zone last evening. Had some fine jamming with a couple of guitar-people on the sidewalk. We had a huge crowd of more-or-less "captive" audience, all clapping along and having a good old time.
Yes, they were hygienically challenged. OK, most of them with their corporate-built iPods, Walmart tents and sleeping bags, and Trustafarian dreadlocks, downright stunk. But, we had some good fun, right there on the street.
I agree with you: the problem isn't with corporations per se, but with collusion between the government and corporations, lubricated by lobbying money.
Income of the the top .01% of Americans--the richest 15,000 people in the country--was stable for many decades in the middle part of the century: they made 1% of the money. In the last decade, that has risen to the point where those 15,000 people now make 6% of the total income.
They've done extraordinarily well. Everybody else, up to the 90th percentile--folks making up to $125,000 a year--has gone down in the last ten years. The median income has declined from $53K to $48.5K during that 10 year period. That has never happened.
MSNBC just presented these statistics, drawn from the 2010 US Census.
These statistic are a direct result, in part, of the lowering of capital gains taxes. The argument was that if you lowered those taxes, "the rich" would invest and create jobs for everybody.
They haven't done that. Well, correction: they haven't invested here in America. They've invested overseas, where the cheap labor is. Then they've pointed all the politicians at Grover Norquist and said, "Sign his pledge never to raise taxes."
There's nothing wrong with being rich, per se. But there's something immoral, ultimately, in gaming the laws and the governmental process in such a way that very rich people who have accumulated that wealth through corporate activity not only don't feel the pinch, but actually do much better than the great mass of people who ARE feeling the pinch.
If America is declining--and I'm willing to believe that in various ways it is--then those who profit through corporate activity, in the mass, aren't sharing in that decline. They're profiting in the face of it.
This is why the mass of Americans is upset. People feel this injustice.
Last Edited by on Oct 13, 2011 5:41 AM
I don't consider myself particularly out of touch with current events, but I have to confess that this thread is the first time that here in the UK I've heard about these protests. Shows how much the news is controlled by corporate interests
Now I know I'm right behind you.
The global economy is in total meltdown and it all began with a bunch of greedy corporations selling bad loans to people who they knew would never be able to pay them back - subprime mortgages and predatory lending. The whole credit crunch was entirely avoidable - there just was not enough regulation of financial institutions globally.
I am a socialist, but it isn't Marxism to suggest that those people who got us into the shit have some responsibility to those whose lives have been destroyed through no fault other than perhaps a little too much trust. It's just basic morality.
If I went to your house, poured petrol through your letter box and burnt the whole thing down I'd be locked up for deliberately causing you to lose your home. If I intentionally sold you a mortgage that I expected you to default on and then sell your debt to another unsuspecting customer (protecting myself from the inevitable shortfall at foreclosure in a collapsing housing market) - then I end up with a nice little end of year bonus.
I had a friend who did wander down to our local Occupy movement. He asked a simple question. what are your goals.. and was told in no uncertain terms "Get the F*** OUT NOW!"
Why is this a hard question? seems to be a goodly number of these folks protesting have no idea what they want or how they want it.
Okay, again, there are a lot of responses, so I'll try to clarify with the people who are asking questions or mistaken about something.
First off, we are not the Tea Party, or even related. Currently there are no specific plans to translate this movement into an official political party. Not only would it be antithetical in many ways to our general philosophy, but if we can really get the support of the majority of the 99%, then why would we need to stoop to that level? If we really all get together as a unified front and tell our government, "This is how it's gunna be," then they really don't have a choice but to listen.
Actually, at the Philly movement, there were several press releases that I came across with the Tea Party planning to counter protest... To date they haven't gotten around to doing so. There are a lot of things about this movement that are directly opposite the Tea Party, but we as a collective want to include them into the dialogue, since most of them (not their sponsors) are the 99% too, hence their opinions matter to us. However, being that the Tea Party is funded by the 1%, we certainly have our differences.
Let me stress that Occupy is neither left nor right. If you were to survey the current occupiers, you would probably find a left lean, but we don't necessarily identify with either side. Needless to say, we're all kind of disillusioned. We're done with the partisan categorization, and we just want solutions to the problems.
Some people already touched on this, but there is nothing wrong with a corporation per se. However, there is something gut wrenchingly awful about a company as big as Walmart forcing its employees onto food stamps (that's just one of a long list of specific grievances with large corporations).
And just as a side note, and to dismantle some preconceptions. In Philadelphia, we are Occupying Dilworth Plaza on the west side of City Hall. Anyone familiar with Philadelphia knows that Dilworth plaza has been occupied by the homeless long before we got there. We have made a specific effort to include them in dialogue and feed them as if they were one of us, because as far as we're concerned, they are. So, self-centered we are not. We just believe in a higher standard of justice.
If you think the Occupy protests are stupid (and you're entitled to such an opinion) then I want you to ask yourself two questions: Is the system broken, and if so, what are YOU doing about it? Apathy is not an option.
@shadoe42 I'm not sure which Occupation you're talking about, but I know in Philadelphia we have a small pocket of anarchists who... well... are assholes. Your friend may have accidentally walked into that pocket of people in your local occupation. I apologize that your friend was treated like that.
As far as our goals, we have a loose thrust, that we as a group are solidifying. It's a deceivingly simple question, especially when we want to represent the 99%. There are a lot of opinions and experiences that we are trying to compile into a single message. It takes time.
The simple answer to why were are out there is: This system is broken, and we're occupying 24/7 to make it clear that we are aware and determined, and we won't accept anything less than justice.
So, we have an idea of what we want, it's just difficult to put it into one cohesive statement. For Philadelphia we've been polling people to try and get a clearer idea of what the collective wants. I'll post the top five below (this data is taken directly from our Facebook page):
- Take corporate money out of politics - Stop making tax payers pay for the mistakes of corporations - We need more regulations to increase transparency and accountability - End corporate personhood - Dismantle the Federal Reserve Corporation and the banks that compose it
This is the top five things on our Facebook right now. Maybe it will shed some light. If you agree or disagree on some of these points, I again encourage you to go down to your local occupation and have a discussion (just avoid the anarchists, because they're assholes).
Some really good points being made. It seems that there are parallels to the movements and protests of the 60's. The current generation (whatever the new Boomers are called) are ready to Occupy their place in this country on different terms than we have now. I applaud them and encourage them. We need change and if it takes 10, 15, or even 20 years of protest against obvious injustices then thats what it takes. The one thing that stands above all that I have read or heard re: "OCCUPY" is Hope, not based on rhetoric, but on the conviction of "WE THE PEOPLE".
"However, being that the Tea Party is funded by the 1%, we certainly have our differences"
Really?
And I hear that the movement you are part of is being funded by George Soros and the United Auto Workers Union as well as others who reside in that 1% you demonize.
If the system is broken and you want to fix it - you need to provide details on just what your proposed fix is. Preventing people from gettin to their jobs like your SF brethren did at Wells Fargo is not a solution I can endorse.
On the five points I can easily agree with taking corporate money out of politics and ending corporate personhood. Stop making tax payers pay for the mistakes of corporations is a little more tricky. We bailed out the banks and the automakers, but we did it with loans, which are getting paid back. (It's not even the first time we bailed out an auto company.) Keeping them afloat has saved jobs.
The money we've spent was actually on all sorts of stimulus to fix the economy after they broke it. I think the big failure was failing to get better regulations in place with the bank loans. Now that they are back on their feet they are in a position to throw their money into lobbying against it. As for dismantling the Federal Reserve? For better or worse the Federal Reserve has a bunch of powerful tools for affecting the economy, both positively and negatively. It needs to be less beholden to the super rich, but we need some institution with the ability to set monetary policy at that level. If you've got a viable alternative, I'm all ears.
Each Occupation is independent. I can tell you that Philadelphia does not have ANY funding, other than the generous contributions of other 99%ers. Have you seen any TV ads? Any campaign commercials? Any politicians endorsed? No? That's because we don't have any funding other than what is in our own pockets.
As far as proposed fixes, we're working on it. Wall St. has been Occupied for just about three weeks. It would go a lot smoother and quicker if more people participated in the discussion as opposed to just dismissing because we don't have a bulleted list of talking points.
And though it sucks for the other 99%ers that had a hard time getting to work, we are not going to turn our focus away from Wells Fargo execs. I can tell you that across the country they have a big ol' target painted on their backs; in Philadelphia especially. I could go into detail if you want, but you can also just skim through the news.
"And though it sucks for the other 99%ers that had a hard time getting to work"
Sacrificial lambs eh? It is alway easier to make the other person sacrifice, isn't it?
Why don't you all just occupy the White House until Eric Holder brings charges? That way you can leave the common folk to go about their business.
BTW - I am not a fan of WF since they tried to screw over my daughter and son-in-law but I am not about to condone your methods when you are hurting people trying to go to work so they can pay their bills and feed their children.
Well, Zadozica, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, and dialogue is always important.
So, since you don't approve of our methods, what would you suggest? How would you go about fixing our broken system? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm being serious. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.
You are making the assumption that I agree with you that the system is broken and then you ask me for my ideas? How does that logic work?
Wall Street Bank Execs are not the total system (that you claim is broken) yet that is your singular focus. How does that work?
We are a nation of laws built around a representative republic. I would start there if you want to make change - which by the way is VERY hard to do. Ever go on a diet - LOL? Most people cannot change themselves let alone a system.
You have identified serious problems. You are looking for ways to collaborate with diverse peoples who are also affected by the same situation. You are calmly organizing and evaluating your options and taking on the responsibility of bringing about a set of solutions.
I'm sure that I won't 100% agree with whatever 99% of anybody will come up with for solutions but nevertheless, I think that your activism constitutes a noble undertaking, and like someone else said here - people like you give me hope.
@LSC You might want to refer to the "OT" label at the beginning of the thread name before asking what it has to do with harmonica.
@Zadozica If you're saying that the system isn't broken, then we're worlds apart on opinion, and should probably just leave it at that. It seems like you just want to dismiss any form of dissent that isn't packaged in a nice little box.
FYI, when I said the system is broken, I was speaking generally. It's up to each and everyone one of us to decide what that means and what to do about it.
So, if you agree that there is something wrong, my question is what are you going to do about it? If you don't agree that there is something wrong, then again, we'll never agree, and there's no sense going back and forth on it.
The problem with the US and the UK and pretty much all long established democracies is that the whole system is infiltrated by nameless men in grey suits who are the real power holders. Unelected and powerful. You cannot reach high office without their backing. Just look at the control and influence the Murdochs had over governments of left and right in recent times. When was the last time a UK Prime Minister or a US president was elected without the backing of multi-millionaires?
Voting changes nothing if all sides are being controlled and manipulated by the unelected, unaccountable, rich and powerful
The New York group actually have put out an official statement, though this is not a statement that all the rest of the occupiers have agreed to, it probably roughly echos their opinions. Of course a good dramatic reading voice helps.
Zadozica, I'm not sure I'm following why you are against protesting. Voting and boycotting are good measures, but I think the key to protest is raising awareness. Boycotts have a very hard time gaining traction without someone holding up signs anywhere.
For example, when I was a little child (way back in the late 70's) my family joined a boycott of Nestle. It seems Nestle was in the practice of going into third world countries with baby formula and handing out free samples to women just long enough to get them to stop lactating. Then they'd start charging. As if this wasn't bad enough, the baby formula mix they were giving out had to be mixed with local water, which in most of the third world is a terrible idea. The boycott is still in place. Nestle is still doing it. Not enough people know about it to pass a vote on it. How do you bring enough pressure to change something like that?
There are also different levels of protest. As long as protest stays non-violent I'm all for people protesting. They aren't keeping people from working, just making some noise. Protest is such an important part of democracy that we took the time to protect people's right to assemble in the Bill of Rights. Sometimes it's messy. You get KKK protests and anarchists, and smelly hippies with their drum circles, but that's what shaping public opinion is all about. (My mother was in the crowd when Martin Luther King had a dream!)
@Zadozica, unfortunately IMO there isn't much of a choice with the two party system. Voting for me has been the lesser of two evils. I vote for one scum bag because his/her opponent is more of a scum bag. Both sides take money and are influenced by the huge corporations, which is one of the things "Occupy" is protesting.
"Zadozica, I'm not sure I'm following why you are against protesting"
Please point to my words where I say that I am. I am against "protesters" that block an individuals right to earn a living IF that person is not reason of the protest - for example the WF workers.
Again, please point to example.
However, I still don't know what the collective is protesting about. I know what Jonlaing says he is protesting about, but unless he controls everything, I ain't too sure.
"unfortunately IMO there isn't much of a choice with the two party system"
True, but it beats the hell out of a one party system.
Zadozica, okay, that's the problem with all discussions. People get misinterpreted. I'd agree that it's important to try to minimize the effect of protests on innocent bystanders.
As for George Soros funding Occupy, well, Slate had a good article on it. Here is the link.
Yes, you can find a money trail if you go back far enough, but if you trace any particular dollar bill back you can find a link to people of any political stripe. From what I've seen I'd categorize most of the Occupy people as lefties of some flavor, so Soros would seem like a natural ally. I do think there is a difference between the Buffets, Soros, and Gates's of the world and say, the Koch brothers though. They all give money to causes along the political spectrum and they certainly lobby for laws that benefit their industries, but I don't see the Koch brothers looking out for anyone besides themselves, whereas Soros et al, seem to be willing to give to causes that don't necessarily put money in their own pockets. That could be my liberal bias showing though. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. :) ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
"Beats the hell out of the essentially 3 party system we have in Canada. Vote splitting lets parties run up majorities with less than 40% of the vote."
Or as happened in the UK, where the party who polls the fewest votes gets to decide which of the two front runners forms a government.
