OCCUPY WALL STREET

[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.