OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Ebon]

[Sachita]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ijx...ayer_embedded#!




Hartmann: What if I prove scientifically that 147 corps run the world?


and if this is true do you really trust food sources, vaccinations and medical research? You can rebel against taxes because its an immediate tangible thing but the picture is much larger then that. Are you going to ignore it and keep on the way you have or become proactive in changing it?

[atomiczombie]

I just want to say that it seems like its just a handful of us who are regular posters in this thread, which saddens me. I wish we could get a lot more participation, because this movement is about ALL of us. Perhaps we can each pm our friends and invite them to join us here and participate?

[nowandthen]

http://www.prospect.org/article/occu...s-race-problem

[nowandthen]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=237706202950462

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by nowandthen

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=237706202950462

THANK YOU!!!

[nowandthen]

http://www.change.org/petitions/dema...occupy-oakland

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I just want to say that it seems like its just a handful of us who are regular posters in this thread, which saddens me. I wish we could get a lot more participation, because this movement is about ALL of us. Perhaps we can each pm our friends and invite them to join us here and participate?

i've pointed more than a few people to this thread because the posters here have been doing a great job of consolidating information and updates here. i've even changed some minds about what Occupy represents. they may not be posting, but i'm billing this thread as the go to place to stay updated. it really helped me cuz digging this stuff out of the media rubble is really time consuming. i come here instead so i'm grateful to the posters that are posting. i look forward to checking it everyday

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I just want to say that it seems like its just a handful of us who are regular posters in this thread, which saddens me. I wish we could get a lot more participation, because this movement is about ALL of us. Perhaps we can each pm our friends and invite them to join us here and participate?

Drew:

My reasons for being uncharacteristically quiet on this thread are covered pretty well in this post at HuffPo by the law professor Lawrence Lessig:

[begin his words]
Here's the fact about America: It takes an insanely large majority to make any fundamental change. You want Citizens United reversed, it is going to take 75% of states to do it. You want public funding of public elections? It's going to take 67 Senators to get it. You want to end the corruption that makes it impossible to get any of the things liberals push? It's going to take a broad based movement that cuts across factions, whether right (as in correct) or Right (as in not Left).

It's great to rally the 99%. It is a relief to have such a clear and powerful slogan. But explain this, because I'm a lawyer, and not so great with numbers: Gallup's latest poll finds 41% of Americans who call themselves "conservative." 36% call themselves "moderate." Liberals account for 21%. In a different poll, Gallup finds 30% of Americans who "support" the Tea Party.

So who exactly are we not allowed to work with, Dave? 30% of America? 41% of America? All but 21% of America? And when you exclude 30%, or 41%, or 79% of Americans, how exactly are you left with 99%?

Talk about wanting to have it "both ways"! How can you claim to speak for 99% but refuse to talk to 30%? (And just to be clear: the 30% of Americans who support the Tea Party are not the 1% "superrich." I checked. With a calculator.)

And finally as to one of the commentators on Dave's essay who finds me "poisonous," and said I said: "OWS needs to drop the 'We are the 99%' slogan because it might hurt the feelings of the rich." What I said was not that the movement should give up the slogan 99% because it offended. I said it should instead talk about the 99.95%. That's the percentage of Americans who did not max out in giving in the last Congressional election. That is the percentage that becomes invisible in the money-feeding-fest that is DC.

So if you really want to rally the 99%, you might begin by identifying those things that 99% might actually agree about. That the 30% of Americans who call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party are racists is not a statement likely to garner the support of at least that 30%. (And again, as ABC found, it's not even true).

On the other hand, 99% of America should be perfectly willing to agree that a system in which the top 1% -- or better, .05% -- have more power to direct public policy than do the 99% or 99.95% is wrong. And must be changed. Before this nation can again call itself a democracy (for those on the Left) or a Republic (for those on the Right). This "Republic," by which the Framers meant a "representative democracy," by which they intended a body "dependent upon the People ALONE," is not.

That, too, must change. Meaning, in addition to all the things we Liberals want, we must change that as well. And my view is that if we changed that corruption first, we might actually find it a bit easier to get those other things too.

[end his words]
-----------------------

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Drew:

My reasons for being uncharacteristically quiet on this thread are covered pretty well in this post at HuffPo by the law professor Lawrence Lessig:

[begin his words]
Here's the fact about America: It takes an insanely large majority to make any fundamental change. You want Citizens United reversed, it is going to take 75% of states to do it. You want public funding of public elections? It's going to take 67 Senators to get it. You want to end the corruption that makes it impossible to get any of the things liberals push? It's going to take a broad based movement that cuts across factions, whether right (as in correct) or Right (as in not Left).

It's great to rally the 99%. It is a relief to have such a clear and powerful slogan. But explain this, because I'm a lawyer, and not so great with numbers: Gallup's latest poll finds 41% of Americans who call themselves "conservative." 36% call themselves "moderate." Liberals account for 21%. In a different poll, Gallup finds 30% of Americans who "support" the Tea Party.

So who exactly are we not allowed to work with, Dave? 30% of America? 41% of America? All but 21% of America? And when you exclude 30%, or 41%, or 79% of Americans, how exactly are you left with 99%?

Talk about wanting to have it "both ways"! How can you claim to speak for 99% but refuse to talk to 30%? (And just to be clear: the 30% of Americans who support the Tea Party are not the 1% "superrich." I checked. With a calculator.)

And finally as to one of the commentators on Dave's essay who finds me "poisonous," and said I said: "OWS needs to drop the 'We are the 99%' slogan because it might hurt the feelings of the rich." What I said was not that the movement should give up the slogan 99% because it offended. I said it should instead talk about the 99.95%. That's the percentage of Americans who did not max out in giving in the last Congressional election. That is the percentage that becomes invisible in the money-feeding-fest that is DC.

So if you really want to rally the 99%, you might begin by identifying those things that 99% might actually agree about. That the 30% of Americans who call themselves "supporters" of the Tea Party are racists is not a statement likely to garner the support of at least that 30%. (And again, as ABC found, it's not even true).

On the other hand, 99% of America should be perfectly willing to agree that a system in which the top 1% -- or better, .05% -- have more power to direct public policy than do the 99% or 99.95% is wrong. And must be changed. Before this nation can again call itself a democracy (for those on the Left) or a Republic (for those on the Right). This "Republic," by which the Framers meant a "representative democracy," by which they intended a body "dependent upon the People ALONE," is not.

That, too, must change. Meaning, in addition to all the things we Liberals want, we must change that as well. And my view is that if we changed that corruption first, we might actually find it a bit easier to get those other things too.

[end his words]
-----------------------

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

I doubt very much when people say they are the 99% that they believe they are actually the whole 99% but rather just a part. The part that is energized and seeking a way to wake up the rest of the 99%. I also haven’t heard there are people who the movement will not work with. But perhaps there are. What do I know. However, being a leaderless movement, or a movement in which everyone can lead, I can’t imagine one or two people can make a decision about who the movement can or cannot work with.

I think Dave Zirin is a bit of a self righteous prick and I think Lawrence Lessig is a bit of a dreamer. And I think Lessig has more of a problem with Zirin that he does with the Occupy movement itself. Especially given he spoke at Occupy Wall St and Occupy K St. Granted he does have a bit of a theme going –

“We should use the energy and anger of this extraordinary movement to find the common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans, and not just us. And when we find that common ground, we should scream it, and yell it, and chant it, again, and again, and again.” Lawrence Lessig

Perhaps a themed Lessig is not exactly an over the top all out supporter, still, I can’t imagine any right minded person could really disagree with a theme of common ground that would justify this revolution for all Americans.

Well, maybe someone could disagree with his use of the word revolution. I think Mr. Lessig didn’t actually mean revolution. There is such a chasm between reform and revolution that a good many of the 99% would fall in trying to cross ideas from one side to the other.

Or maybe I am speaking for myself.

I know I stare at that chasm between reform and revolution and wonder. What side am I standing on? Although I seem able to make the leap back and forth it does leave me breathless. I have stood here or there it seems for as long as I can remember. But for some reason, at this particular time in history, I see something different. Another possibility.

But again I could be wrong. It might just be the same old. But I am a sucker for reform. And who wouldn’t be. The devil you know and all that. What could possibly be different with something new when it’s the same flawed human beings creating it. Why not fix what we have? But is that even possible?

Yet, I can’t help but hope.

Still, I have a hard time with movements and political parties. Historically political parties were often created or strengthened by siphoning off the revolutionary potential of various social movements from the streets to the voting booth. Political parties by their very nature acknowledge the authority of the state and the hierarchal structures of our society. Though they may seek to make changes to the aesthetics of our system, they do not challenge the system because they are very much a part of it. All they can do is treat the symptoms. They may spout rhetoric for the 99% but they represent the 1%.

So where do I stand. Reform or revolution. I guess I will just wait and see what transpires in the coming months and years. But in the mean time…

I don’t think Lessig’s idea of a united 99% is so much horseshit, as Zirin so foolishly claimed. I don’t know that the occupy movement will find allies in the tea party, but if they do that would be awesome. I do think they very well might find allies within the 99% who identify as republicans. And they will find them within the 99% who identify as democrats and independents and green and so on. I think most right-minded people see a big problem and get that there are bad times ahead for the 99%. I understand it will hit some of us harder than others. In the end though I’m not sure we will be able to tell the difference. The poor don’t have far to fall before they hit bottom, so maybe it won’t hurt so bad. Yet, the bottom is just that. The bottom. Squeezed dry, over and out. However, the poor don’t have much real opportunity to accumulate debt, the great equalizer. Debt will erase your class in a heartbeat. The rich don’t need debt and the poor can’t afford debt. Guess who that leaves?

The middle class or what is left of them, are likely to be crushed beneath the weight of debt. I think when you stumble and smash yourself on the rocks of austerity, it’s hard to tell the bottom from a rocky ledge only part way down. And I don’t know how much comfort there is in knowing you can still fall further.

As far as posting on a forum or talking to your peers or spreading your ideas, opinions and beliefs in any way possible, I say go for it. But the reality is that not everyone’s ideas, opinions, beliefs are equal. For example (and granted to save time I chose an easy one), some people believe evolution is not a proven fact but just a theory and they feel creationism is a valid theory as well and deserves equal time and should be taught in schools etc. Others understand that evolution is a proven theory given all the data available, it’s a fact and in order for it to stop being a fact someone would have to disprove it. These two beliefs are not equal. There is a truth here a right and a wrong. Evolution is a fact and a belief in a fact should not be made to share equal time with belief in a fallacy. There is not data or proof to support creationism. So while I understand and accept that some people believe in it, I don’t have to consider it as something that should have equal value. However, that doesn’t mean that when it comes to ideas and opinions based on knowledge and facts, and with reasons behind them I don't want to hear them unless they mirror mine. I don’t have to agree with everything everyone says. And I’m very capable of changing my mind when I hear a good reason to reconsider what I believe.

Everyone’s experiences are valuable.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century. I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism. This turns me off for two reasons.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free. Secondly, there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism. I have also noted that skeptical or dissenting voices are written off not caring or being fine with the ways things are. I think that people of goodwill can disagree with certain rhetorical flourishes (presuming that the people using that rhetoric mean it) while still agreeing that the system is skewed toward the rich and that this creates injustice which leads to instability.

I don't want to create a socialist utopia because I know of no better way to create a dystopia than to try to create a utopia. I would argue that one of the causes of our current suffering is that the Right has been pursuing a libertarian utopia. I want to create a society where someone who is born into poverty can get an education, find themselves a job, work their way up a career ladder and perhaps retire as solidly middle-class. I want to *expand* the ranks of the 'petty bourgeois' not see them swept away.

Right now, I'm seeing the Left talk to the Left and only certain segments of the Left at that! I do not see anything that leads me to believe that people of the Right (of which I am not) are welcome nor have I heard or read anything here to make me believe that Liberals (as opposed to radicals) are at all welcome, that our voices would be heard, that our ideas would be given due consideration, or that our experiences would be considered at all worth listening to. I might be wrong but I've been reading this thread since the very beginning and I don't see a great deal that leads me to believe otherwise.

Lessig is right, we are the 99% is a great slogan. The problem is is that there isn't a concerted effort to bring most of that 99% into the fold.

Cheers
Aj

Aj, thanks for coming in and sharing your thoughts. The strength of this movement is in the diversity of its participants.

I guess you and I must be reading different sources for information on the OWS movement. I haven't seen or heard or read anything saying that OWS is for socialism. From what I have seen and read, they do want significant reform but nothing about abolishing capitalism. And to suggest that they want to go to a system that restricts freedom and democracy seems antithetical to everything I am seeing.

There might be some people who do want a socialist utopia. Frankly, I don't have a clue what that would look like. I, personally, believe that we need some powerful reforms along the lines of the New Deal. Stronger anti-trust laws, a more progressive tax system, and things along those lines. These are the types of things that are coming out of the OWS working groups and voted on at the General Assemblies.

I think you will find a lot of helpful information about what is going on at the epicenter of the movement here:

http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/

If you just read the minutes from the GA meetings you can see that what is going on is democracy in its purest form. They don't agree on taking any actions until a full consensus is reached. They have various working groups whose job it is to bring proposals to the GA meetings for everyone to vote on. If they don't get 100% consensus on a proposal, they will listen to concerns and go back and work on it and then bring it back and have another vote.

This is what is so great about the process: they are making every effort to give everyone who attends their meetings a voice! The only people I have seen being kicked out are the ones advocating violence. This is a leaderless movement because it is not about individual people. It is about all of us.

Aj, if you can, would you please provide some links to the sources you are reading which have led to your conclusion that some people aren't welcome at the OWS events or GA meetings so I can see what you are seeing? Thanks.

[dreadgeek]

Certainly, I’m happy to provide sources always:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...Organize%21%29

Then there's been the various iterations and riffs on the use of the word 'occupy'

http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.c...e-wall-street/

http://ignite-revolution.org/

I find quite a bit of the language in the above quite problematic and I think that to the degree that OWS adopts these ideas, that is the degree to which it is problematic. While I understand why consensus decision making seems wonderful, my own experience is that it is not so much democratic as it is a way for a small group of people to hold an agenda hostage. I need point out only what happened to Rep. John Lewis in Atlanta where he showed up in support, someone blocked consensus on his being able to speak which, as an aside, was when I started to think 'Oh no, not again'.

I want OWS to be successful. I want it to push the political class (or drag them kicking and screaming) to the table so that the long hard slog of rebuilding the middle class in this country can begin. But I'm a reformer not a revolutionary. I just don't trust revolutions because so few of them turn out well. I'd love to see us have a Constitutional convention with two goals:

1) A Constitutional amendment specifically defining a person in such a way that corporations are outside of the definition

2) A Constitutional amendment providing for the public financing of campaigns.

I think that those two things alone would go a very long way toward making the voices of the vast majority of people who aren't rich something that elected officials ignore to their singular peril. Right now, there's really no negative consequence to ignoring our voices that isn't outweighed by the consequences of ignoring their master's (read: the top 1%) voice and so they pay the piper that plays the tune. If we are the piper, they'll have to listen to us.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Aj, thanks for coming in and sharing your thoughts. The strength of this movement is in the diversity of its participants.

I guess you and I must be reading different sources for information on the OWS movement. I haven't seen or heard or read anything saying that OWS is for socialism. From what I have seen and read, they do want significant reform but nothing about abolishing capitalism. And to suggest that they want to go to a system that restricts freedom and democracy seems antithetical to everything I am seeing.

There might be some people who do want a socialist utopia. Frankly, I don't have a clue what that would look like. I, personally, believe that we need some powerful reforms along the lines of the New Deal. Stronger anti-trust laws, a more progressive tax system, and things along those lines. These are the types of things that are coming out of the OWS working groups and voted on at the General Assemblies.

I think you will find a lot of helpful information about what is going on at the epicenter of the movement here:

http://the99delegation.forumotion.com/

http://www.nycga.net/category/assemblies/minutes-ga/

If you just read the minutes from the GA meetings you can see that what is going on is democracy in its purest form. They don't agree on taking any actions until a full consensus is reached. They have various working groups whose job it is to bring proposals to the GA meetings for everyone to vote on. If they don't get 100% consensus on a proposal, they will listen to concerns and go back and work on it and then bring it back and have another vote.

This is what is so great about the process: they are making every effort to give everyone who attends their meetings a voice! The only people I have seen being kicked out are the ones advocating violence. This is a leaderless movement because it is not about individual people. It is about all of us.

Aj, if you can, would you please provide some links to the sources you are reading which have led to your conclusion that some people aren't welcome at the OWS events or GA meetings so I can see what you are seeing? Thanks.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I am a Liberal but I'm a Liberal that does not believe I am living on 'occupied' land. I am living on land taken by conquest over a century ago but that cannot be changed and so to call America 'occupied' land is to make me a foreigner in my own country, the only country my family has known since at least the early 19th century.

Whether I am living on occupied land or land taken in conquest over a century ago seems irrelevant to me. I understand that using the term occupied does imply the possibility of the occupation ending. This occupation will not end. Yet it doesn’t make me a foreigner in my own country nor am I concerned I will be evicted anytime soon if I say the land is occupied. It certainly was occupied although I think stolen a better description because that doesn’t imply there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of getting it back. I don’t think it is a problem to recognize and validate the issues and grievances of others. Sometimes people just like the truth to be recognized for what it is. They just want to hear the words.

As a college educated professional, I am the 'petty bourgeois' which has to be 'swept aside' in order for the poor and working-class to be free.

Is this truly what you believe? Because if it is, then conversely, you are saying the poor and the working class must remain shackled. They must live in poverty or remain overworked and underpaid in order for you to remain the petty bourgeois. I don’t agree that is true. I think there is plenty for everyone. No one needs to be swept aside. Only the 1% who hold hostage an obscenely large percentage of the wealth need concern themselves with having less.

Perhaps you are mean something along the lines of the poor and the working class should be given opportunities to become the bourgeois?

I've read a number of OWS statements that were decidedly anti-capitalist. Some of the stuff at People of Color Organize invokes the 'petty bourgeois' and speaks of destroying capitalism... there is simply no way to have a *socialist* society without seriously restricting freedom and liberty. We can have social democracy but we cannot have socialism.

Socialism doesn’t scare me. The idea of socialized medicine doesn’t fill me with dread. I don’t hold any particular reverence or loyalty toward capitalism as a stand alone economic system. I think at this point capitalism is failing most of us. Only that 1% really benefits. Many say it is because the type of capitalism we have now is crony capitalism. And that works for no-one but the power elite. Perhaps. I don’t know. I think I am open to ideas. I don’t know if any economic system in its purist sense will meet all our needs. Not that we are experiencing capitalism in its purist sense yet, but I certainly see a trend toward the privatization of just about everything and that scares me. I’m not a small government kind of person, nor am I an ideological communist. I like the middle. It seems the sanest way to go with most everything in life. I don’t like what capitalism has shown me so far. But I won’t shut my ears when someone talks about keeping it as a part of our economic system. I like the idea of a social democracy but I am open to new ideas. New combinations of things that might work. Perhaps there is nothing new left to be thought of when it comes to economic/political systems and systems of government. Perhaps it is more about getting the right formula, the right mix of systems, a dash of this and a bit of that.

I want OWS to be successful. I want it to push the political class (or drag them kicking and screaming) to the table so that the long hard slog of rebuilding the middle class in this country can begin. But I'm a reformer not a revolutionary. I just don't trust revolutions because so few of them turn out well. I'd love to see us have a Constitutional convention with two goals:

1) A Constitutional amendment specifically defining a person in such a way that corporations are outside of the definition

2) A Constitutional amendment providing for the public financing of campaigns.

I think that those two things alone would go a very long way toward making the voices of the vast majority of people who aren't rich something that elected officials ignore to their singular peril. Right now, there's really no negative consequence to ignoring our voices that isn't outweighed by the consequences of ignoring their master's (read: the top 1%) voice and so they pay the piper that plays the tune. If we are the piper, they'll have to listen to us.

I believe the first order of business is a redistribution of wealth. I think getting two constitutional amendments you mentioned finally ratified will be a good start. Diffusing the power of the financial sector through regulation is another good start and if the two amendments are ever ratified then there would be a chance to deregulate. It will be slow going because the power is not in the hands of the people. The 1% controls everything. The will try to crush us before we can ever effect any significant change. Either that or swallow us up somehow in the political process.

Revolution is an overthrow and thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. I don’t think anyone is advocating that at this time. I have heard people call it a revolution, as in that quote by Lawrence Lessig, but anyone who understands revolution recognizes that this is a reform movement.

Even in the sources you provided I didn't see evidence that some people are not welcome at OWS or the GA meetings. I imagine some people may exclude themselves for various reasons, but the movement seems open enough. I personally think inclusion is extremely important if this movement is to have any measure of success.

Actually I advocate working toward a philosophical global unification regarding the interests of the poor and the working class. That would mean finding a way to work with people who hold vastly different and in some case opposing ideologies. I don't think it is impossible to unite very different people to work toward a common purpose. After all the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[dreadgeek]

We support the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement: we have high levels of unemployment and we have high levels of foreclosure that makes Oakland part of the 99% too. We are a progressive city and tolerant of many opinions. We may not always agree, but we all have a right to be heard.

I want to thank everyone for the peaceful demonstration at Frank Ogawa Park tonight, and thank the city employees who worked hard to clean up the plaza so that all activities can continue including Occupy Wall Street. We have decided to have a minimal police presence at the plaza for the short term and build a community effort to improve communications and dialogue with the demonstrators.

99% of our officers stayed professional during difficult and dangerous circumstances as did some of the demonstrators who dissuaded other protestors from vandalizing downtown and for helping to keep the demonstrations peaceful. For the most part, demonstrations over the past two weeks have been peaceful. We hope they continue to be so.

I want to express our deepest concern for all of those who were injured last night, and we are committed to ensuring this does not happen again. Investigations of certain incidents are underway and I will personally monitor them.

We understand and recognize the impact this event has had on the community and acknowledge what has happened. We cannot change the past, but we are committed to doing better.

Most of us are part of the 99%, and understand the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. We are committed to honoring their free speech right.

Finally, we understand the demonstrators want to meet with me and Chief Jordan. We welcome open dialogue with representatives of Occupy Wall Street members, and we are willing to meet with them as soon as possible.


Wow.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Certainly, I’m happy to provide sources always:

http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com...Organize%21%29

Then there's been the various iterations and riffs on the use of the word 'occupy'

http://unsettlingamerica.wordpress.c...e-wall-street/

http://ignite-revolution.org/

I find quite a bit of the language in the above quite problematic and I think that to the degree that OWS adopts these ideas, that is the degree to which it is problematic. While I understand why consensus decision making seems wonderful, my own experience is that it is not so much democratic as it is a way for a small group of people to hold an agenda hostage. I need point out only what happened to Rep. John Lewis in Atlanta where he showed up in support, someone blocked consensus on his being able to speak which, as an aside, was when I started to think 'Oh no, not again'.

I want OWS to be successful. I want it to push the political class (or drag them kicking and screaming) to the table so that the long hard slog of rebuilding the middle class in this country can begin. But I'm a reformer not a revolutionary. I just don't trust revolutions because so few of them turn out well. I'd love to see us have a Constitutional convention with two goals:

1) A Constitutional amendment specifically defining a person in such a way that corporations are outside of the definition

2) A Constitutional amendment providing for the public financing of campaigns.

I think that those two things alone would go a very long way toward making the voices of the vast majority of people who aren't rich something that elected officials ignore to their singular peril. Right now, there's really no negative consequence to ignoring our voices that isn't outweighed by the consequences of ignoring their master's (read: the top 1%) voice and so they pay the piper that plays the tune. If we are the piper, they'll have to listen to us.

Cheers
Aj

Thanks for sharing your sources Aj.

The article from your first link is really the first I have read about OWS mentioning any words such as petty bourgeoisie and socialism. Well, I have seen the word socialism bandied about but that is from right-wing critics and not from the protestors themselves. I found that whole article quite disturbing. Firstly, I am not sure how people are getting these statistics on the populations who are protesting.

"Since this movement is currently dominated by a class of people who make up, perhaps, the top 20% of the ninety-nine in the US and Canada––and probably only four or five per cent of the global ninety-nine––the fact that it is speaking, in very broad brushstrokes, in language vaguely akin to the language of communists is extremely interesting."

This sentence itself bugs me. How did the writer come up with these percentages? This is a fluid and growing movement and I can't imagine that anyone has collected enough data to do an accurate statistical analysis. It seems like the writer just pulled these numbers right out of her/his ass. Also, what specifically does the writer mean by "language akin to the language of communists" specifically? If you go to the 99delegation website or the OWS nyc working group site that I previously linked, you won't find much of any language resembling that of communists that I can see. No one is calling for an overthrow of the government or an end to capitalism in any of the working groups or general assemblies from what I have read.

And then there is this little gem:

"Even the fact that the movement has been resisting the need to place key demands on its agenda, falling back into some sort of “strength in directionless” ideology promoted by AdBusters (one of the key magazines for the activist, “culture-jamming” petty bourgeoisie), demonstrates the consciousness of a petty bourgeoisie in crisis––directionlessness, confusion, the realization that its class position is, and has always been, unstable."

First of all, Adbusters is a Vancouver based anti-consumerist magazine and yes they were the ones to propose a Sept. 17th occupation of Wall Street. But they don't claim any control over the protests and won't even comment about them when news organizations (such as NPR) ask them to. What the movement has become, has become so organically and not by the orchestration of Adbusters. Secondly, this ridiculous notion that the movement is directionless and that people don't know what they are protesting for is garbage. That's the kind of thing Faux news keeps saying. This sums it up better than any words can:



People know why they are protesting and what it is they want. The OWS working groups are working day and night to come up with a list of demands to put to Washington. This process takes so much time BECAUSE they are trying to include as many voices as possible and come to consensus. They are working towards a national General Assembly for next summer in Philadelphia. They are working on ways to make it possible for people who can't make it to the assembly to vote online. They are putting up as much of the process on the web as they can. This movement is very new and the process is slow, but that is good. It means they are being careful.

There's a lot more of that article that I really shake my head at, but here is a real zinger:

"When this movement peters out, as it surely will, and the majority of its most vocal supporters decide they want “to join the victors when the fight is over,” then we must ask ourselves what victories could be claimed by the left in the aftermath?"

This is just stupidity. It seems like the author is just wanting this whole thing to fail so that he or she can say, 'I was right! Ha ha!!' The truth is no one knows how this will turn out. 80 years ago during the Great Depression this country didn't have a revolution; it had a reformation. The economic situation today is in some ways very different, but in others very similar. The income inequality is almost the same as it was back then. We have corporate monopolies today that are just as powerful as the ones back then. The reforms we enacted back then have been eroded over the decades by all the deregulation done in the name of making America "more competitive". We can change this. We CAN achieve significant and needed reforms. The writer of this article seems to assume it will fail. Well, he/she can kiss 99% of my ass. I am going to stay positive and believe.

Ok so I could go on taking that article apart, but I am tired tonight lol. I do want to come back and talk about your other 2 links. The second one I found interesting, the third one seemed to be some fringe movement that really isn't tied to OWS in any concrete way. I haven't seen anything from them on the 99delegation site or in the minutes from the GA meetings. Ah, but it is late now and I need sleep, so I will sign off and continue this discussion tomorrow.

Thanks for participating!

Drew

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Sachita

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ijx...ayer_embedded#!




Hartmann: What if I prove scientifically that 147 corps run the world?


and if this is true do you really trust food sources, vaccinations and medical research? You can rebel against taxes because its an immediate tangible thing but the picture is much larger then that. Are you going to ignore it and keep on the way you have or become proactive in changing it?

This was quite interesting. Corporations acting like cancer...

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

This was quite interesting. Corporations acting like cancer...

Yeah I love the way he broke it down.

[SoNotHer]

Elizabeth Warren nails it again. Great video. You'll be super charged :-)

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Elizabeth Warren nails it again. Great video. You'll be super charged :-)

I love Elizabeth Warren. She rocks.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Elizabeth Warren nails it again. Great video. You'll be super charged :-)

great vid! and very enlightening, thank you. i'm so engrossed in food issues i'm not up on the specifics of the financial legislation issues.