Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stout said:
On the surface, that's what this movement is about but dig a little deeper and you'll find.

RESOLVED, that those participating in “Occupy Oakland” seek the genuine and respectful involvement of indigenous peoples in the rebuilding of a new society on their ancestral lands; and

Our local occupy group is planning on adopting this document and making it their own at tonight's general assembly.

This is why I'm critical of this movement and have been during the past several months during the run up. Yep, I read the radical left, daily. I want them to show me they can offer something "better" and sell me on their program.

So far, these activists haven't even entered the marketplace.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been debating folks who think that way. I've conceded over and over that they exist. They don't represent the entirety of the movement and I would not diminish the importance of the movement for the ideology of some. Change often requires coalitions and disparate people uniting for a cause. The problems are significant. If it takes radicals to move the zeitgeist then so be it.
 
applecorped said:
Kinda sounds like: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Click to expand...
It could be but I really doubt it. They protestors are carrying signs not guns. I think most are not so cynical that they think it's impossible to turn things around without armed conflict. Certainly our elected leaders could make certain that doesn't happen now. They could begin discussing reforms. Tax rate increases. Investigate the financial scandals and end implement the Volker rule and Elizabeth Warren's recommendations and pass Obama's jobs bill.

That would take the wind out of their sails. The problem is that the people who have the most pull with the politicians are the ones who pay for the elections and they don't want those reforms.
 
RandFan said:
Yes, I've been debating folks who think that way. I've conceded over and over that they exist. They don't represent the entirety of the movement and I would not diminish the importance of the movement for the ideology of some. Change often requires coalitions and disparate people uniting for a cause. The problems are significant. If it takes radicals to move the zeitgeist then so be it.
Click to expand...

Yes, however this implies a lot more than "they exist" . This document appears to represent all of occupy Oakland and tonight, it appears it will represent all of occupy Victoria BC.

I can't claim to know much about occupy Oakland, I'm having trouble just keeping up with occupy the local square they're bookfacing faster than I can read it, it's a Youtube oriented movement and I'm only a click or two away from chemtrails and 911 twoof.

Aren't you at all suspicious at how this movement can just toss demands out there, nothing "official" mind you just demands brought forth by "individuals" to be tossed in the revolutionary pot for discussion stew. Issues that resonate with a large percentage of the population yet are at odds with one another, like "down with corporations" and "an end to unemployment"

A little head scratching has me wondering just where these jobs are supposed to come from. Government ?

Aren't you a little suspicious that there's been no violence, no black bloc presence to speak of ? Anywhere ? Yet earlier this year, in the UK it was all smashy smashy ? Non violence is part of the script of this whole movement as the organisers know that rioting alienates the very people they're trying to convince to join in on their concerns.

I'm seeing ( to borrow from Anonymous ) a call to a new world order a new world order based on anarchist principals, a new world order based on a system of government that's never been successfully implemented anywhere that I know of and is by and large, unworkable in any population that greater than, or any event that lasts longer than, a rainbow gathering.
 
Stout said:
Aren't you at all suspicious at how this movement can just toss demands out there, nothing "official" mind you just demands brought forth by "individuals" to be tossed in the revolutionary pot for discussion stew.
Click to expand...
???

"Suspicious"? Demands of people who live in a representative democracy? Are we suppose to be suspicious of people who don't meet certain requirements on their demands? Is there some official wording for speech or some official count and a permit to make the speech official or something? What are you getting at? Do those who speak need armbands or something? Sorry, I kinda doubt that is where you are going but you have struck a nerve. You are going to have to help me out here. Are you thinking along the lines of McCarthy? Are we gong to start up the paranoia again? Do we need hearings to find out who the commies (anarchists) are? Is that where the rhetoric of anti-OWS is going? Hey, I'm not saying it is but you are going to have to clarify that for me. THAT, more than anything would seriously trouble me.
 
Last edited:
Here's one that RandFan should enjoy: Chris Hedges on the virtues of OWS:

He gets all verklempt at the end.
 
RandFan said:
???

". Are you thinking along the lines of McCarthy? Are we gong to start up the paranoia again? Do we need hearings to find out who the commies (anarchists) are? Is that where the rhetoric of anti-OWS is going? Hey, I'm not saying it is but you are going to have to clarify that for me. THAT, more than anything would seriously trouble me.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that the further to the political extreme this movement goes, the less support they're going to get from John and Jane Q Public, the people they're claiming to represent.

I just got back from the occupy camp, minutes ago. It's Sunday, it's not really raining ( not even sprinkling, more...threatening ) I figured the place would be abuzz, humming with energy and outrage. Nope, just a bunch of "hippies" and homeless people lollygagging around trying to pay attention to a not-too-motivated speaker.

I wandered over to the giant message board, the one where you take a felt pen and write down your demand and I saw nothing about job creation, nothing about regulating the finance industry, nothing about corporate interference in government affairs, zip, nada, nil. Nothing about the things "most" people are concerned about.

One thing I did see that I thought interesting was worded something like " we don't care if you make lots of money 10-20 million" I presume there was supposed to me more to that sentence but...there wasn't

What i saw was the usual laundry list of demands, typical of any of these type of actions. Free university for everyone, free childcare, end debt based capitalism, free housing, forgiveness of all debt, no borders, no government ...and so on.

One person was complaining about wind turbines, apparently they cause mental health problems due to something called shadow flicker.

Let's be frank here, anarchy looks nice on paper but anyone whose ever lived in a house full of roommates will soon find out that, generally, the real life situation doesn't match the ideal within a matter of months. Extrapolate that to an entire population, city state country what have you and then you'll see where I'm going with this.
 
Last edited:
"

Stout said:
What I'm saying is that the further to the political extreme this movement goes, the less support they're going to get from John and Jane Q Public, the people they're claiming to represent.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it's worthy to note that the polls are moving in the direction of support.

Poll: 43 percent agree with views of "Occupy Wall Street

Let's be frank here, anarchy looks nice on paper but anyone whose ever lived in a house full of roommates will soon find out that, generally, the real life situation doesn't match the ideal within a matter of months. Extrapolate that to an entire population, city state country what have you and then you'll see where I'm going with this.
Click to expand...
Not sure why but you have me confused with someone else. I don't support anarchy.
 
RandFan said:
???

"Suspicious"? Demands of people who live in a representative democracy? Are we suppose to be suspicious of people who don't meet certain requirements on their demands? Is there some official wording for speech or some official count and a permit to make the speech official or something? What are you getting at? Do those who speak need armbands or something? Sorry, I kinda doubt that is where you are going but you have struck a nerve. You are going to have to help me out here. Are you thinking along the lines of McCarthy? Are we gong to start up the paranoia again? Do we need hearings to find out who the commies (anarchists) are? Is that where the rhetoric of anti-OWS is going? Hey, I'm not saying it is but you are going to have to clarify that for me. THAT, more than anything would seriously trouble me.
Click to expand...

I think we can safely assume they are all communists and anarchists and go from there. No need for hearings this time.

BTW Angela Davis is on CNN now
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Not sure why but you have me confused with someone else. I don't support anarchy.
Click to expand...

Not you personally, but the entire general assembly concept is modelled on anarchist principals. Not the black leather jacket punk rocker version of anarchy, but the real thing.
 
MaGZ said:
I think we can safely assume they are all communists and anarchists and go from there. No need for hearings this time.

BTW Angela Davis is on CNN now
Click to expand...
Every time you post I feel more indebted to you. Yeah, you are just an anecdote but a great counter weight nonetheless. I realize this is patronizing and I apologize for that. Carry on and,

Thank you. Thank you very much.
 
RandFan said:
If it takes radicals to move the zeitgeist then so be it.
Click to expand...

The problem being pointed out in this thread is that due to silly behavior on the part of many of the "radicals" associated with the movement in the public eye, the zeitgeist may in fact move away from the desired state of many OWS participants.

To the extent that the people occupying Zucotti Park want the zeitgeist to move in a particular direction, the silly behavior of some of the people occupying Zucotti Park may not be helping. In other words, "Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity."

The fact that they're expressing themselves is nice and all. I don't think anybody here is objecting to their free expression. On the other hand, if the ideas expressed strike me as silly, then I reserve the right to freely express how silly I think those ideas are.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from being ridiculed for stupid speech.

Good intentions (to the extent that you can even demonstrate that the OWS movement even has good intentions) don't make up for bad articulation.

At least with The Tea Party, you could find someone with real ideas, and critique them. With OWS (specifically), you end up having to critique things like the Drumming Faction being locked in a political power struggle with the General Assembly. It's an easy thing to critique, though: It's silly, and it doesn't help the movement.

Or you end up having to critique the General Assembly commissioning a posse of vigilantes to evict actual homeless people from a public park. "We are the 99%"? More like the 98%, am I right?

These recurring themes move the zeitgeist against the movement. So far, the gist of your contribution is that it's somehow not fair to point this out.
 
RandFan said:
Every time you post I feel more indebted to you. Yeah, you are just an anecdote but a great counter weight nonetheless. I realize this is patronizing and I apologize for that. Carry on and,

Thank you. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

That’s why I’m here.
 
Stout said:
Not you personally, but the entire general assembly concept is modelled on anarchist principals. Not the black leather jacket punk rocker version of anarchy, but the real thing.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of the liberal friends I debate with. They are so adept at painting the right as fascists. I hear, "when fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross". To many of them the GOP is simply an extension of Italian or German politics of the 1930s. I do my best to convince them that the world is not really so black and white. Meh, what ya gonna do?

"Perception is reality", and let's be honest, clinging to our perceptions is ever so much easier and gratifying than questioning our held beliefs. As someone much smarter than myself said, you don't need to build a set like they did in the Truman Show to keep reality from people. You just need marketing and an emotional rallying point. They will build their own walls inside of their heads. The ego will do the rest and nothing can penetrate. Once you believe you know the truth, that's it. Most people cannot escape.

I don't know the truth and I like that. I think doubt is a good thing.
 
RandFan said:
That reminds me of the liberal friends I debate with. They are so adept at painting the right as fascists. I hear, "when fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross". To many of them the GOP is simply an extension of Italian or German politics of the 1930s. I do my best to convince them that the world is not really so black and white. Meh, what ya gonna do?

"Perception is reality", and let's be honest, clinging to our perceptions is ever so much easier and gratifying than questioning our held beliefs. As someone much smarter than myself said, you don't need to build a set like they did in the Truman Show to keep reality from people. You just need marketing and an emotional rallying point. They will build their own walls inside of their heads. The ego will do the rest and nothing can penetrate. Once you believe you know the truth, that's it. Most people cannot escape.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling the protesters governmental model evil, I'm calling it impractical and unworkable and claiming it stems from a too highly idealized vision of human nature. Yes I'm cynical.

I don't know the truth and I like that. I think doubt is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Hear hear :)

That's one of the reasons I like this discussion format, I get both sides of the argument and presented with ideas/perceptions/knowledge, things that help me at least try to understand an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom