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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

It strikes me as a 'more radical than thou' pose. A piece of rhetorical radical chic that doesn't actually do anything, doesn't change anything and isn't really *meant* to change anything. It's more mantra than anything else. Sort of like when the Right talks about 'family values'. It's an empty phrase that I find annoying. If people *meant* it, if it were more than a pose, that would at least have the virtue of being interesting.

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.

I don't believe this. I think that people who talk about the 'petty bourgeois' *do* believe it. I think that the writer of the POC Organize blog post about the petit bourgeois absolutely believes it which is why they wrote it. I think that we can build a society where there is substantial upward mobility. Unlike the Right, I don't think we can or should indulge the fantasy that all of us will one day be millionaires; we won't. I do, however, think that we can expand the ranks of the 'petit bourgeois' so that a *lot* more people can be middle-class. I remember, dimly, an America where a guy with only a high school education could start working at a GM plant at 18 and by his thirties own a house. This wasn't a perfect America by any means but it was an America with a huge middle class. That is what I would like to see us return to. If you work, you make enough to live on. If you continue to work, you will continue to make more money. I think that this is an achievable goal and one that benefits everyone.

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

Yes, precisely.

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.

Socialized medicine doesn't scare me. But I do not see--because I have yet to see a single historical example of it--how one has a *socialist* economy (as opposed to a democratic socialist one) without having to have a huge, imposing and very powerful state to enforce it. I think that we should bite the bullet and do what every other industrialized nation has done and go to a single-payer health care system. I would *love* to see us do what most of the Western European nations do and provide free education through college for any citizen who passes the entrance exams. I would like to see us put in a *real* floor below which no citizen falls if they don't absolutely want to. I think we can do all of that without going the route of socialism.

I'm not in love with capitalism just as I'm not in love with democracy. I do not think capitalism is the best system for organizing economic activity, I think it is the least *bad* system provided that it is regulated and that the regulations are meaningfully enforced. I am particularly fond of the European social democracy model because it strikes me as hitting the optimum balance between allowing the market to do those things which markets do well (providing luxury goods and choices of goods and services) while taking out of the hands of the market social infrastructure that is necessary to maintain a stable society. The irony is that the Western European democracies adopted the Marshall plan and have thrived on an economic model we exported to Europe after the Second World War in order to provide a stable social base. It has worked remarkably well. I would like to see us eat our own dog food (as we say at my work) and actually use the model we exported to Europe here since we *know* it works. Does that mean Europe is a utopia? No. But Europe does not have the extreme income disparity or grinding poverty that America does. There are no Mississippi's in Germany or France or England.

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.

I hope that it stays a reform movement. Twenty years ago, when I was a Trotskyist, we spoke of revolution quite a bit. Then I met someone who had actually fled to the US after a revolution in her home country and that really took the scales from my eyes.

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.

Oh, I'm sure that on paper everyone is welcome. That doesn't mean everyone is welcome. Just as several writers have written pieces saying that this or that language being used is off-putting for people of color, certain other language being used is off-putting for people of color who happen to also be middle-class and trying to expand that class instead of seeing it contract. I do think that the movement is going to have to bring in the broadest cross-section of the American public in order to succeed (or the powers-that-be are going to have to be grindingly stupid like they were in Oakland). My concern is that they won't.

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.

The other day I read something (I forget where) that has made me ponder whether or not we on the Left aren't hamstringing ourselves in some ways. Part of the problem I see us having in our nation is that, unlike a number of other nations I can name, the rich here do not feel any particular tie to the United States. German companies try to keep a certain percentage of jobs in Germany. Japanese companies behave the same way. As do the French and the British and the South Koreans and the Spanish and the Russians. Not the Americans. Now, is there anyone here who would say that Volkswagen, Audi, BMW or Mercedes-Benz aren't real companies? Would anyone say that they put out products no one wants or products that are inferior? Would anyone say that Sony or Toshiba aren't real companies? Does anyone think that the people who sit at the apex of any of the above aren't rich beyond the dreams of avarice?

Without diving into an orgy of protectionism I would like to see a bit more economic nationalism on the part of American corporations. I would like to see our tax code restructured in order to make it clear that we value job creation *here* not in Singapore. I'm sure the Singaporeans are a noble people with a distinguished history and given a choice between my next door neighbor getting a job building, say, solar panels in Portland and someone in Singapore getting that same job, for the same company, but being paid a fraction of the salary with the profits not being repatriated to the United States, I'll take my neighbor getting the job, thank you very much. I think we can restructure the business tax code to embody that ethic. Imagine, for instance, the definition of a US company (and thus domestic products) being something like this:

An American company is defined as any LLC or LLP or other chartered business which has its corporate headquarters in the United States of America and that employs 80% of its workforce domestically. There is a tax rate for American companies and then there's a tax rate for foreign companies. If My Widgets, Inc. moves its headquarters to the Cayman Islands because of the loose banking laws, they are no longer an American company. Their products are now imports not domestic products. They are taxed at the higher rate for foreign companies and their goods have whatever kind of import or excise taxes that foreign goods have. This would make the widgets from MWI far *less* competitive.

Now, has the government told the owners of MWI where they have to put their factory or their HQ? Nope. They are free to move their business anywhere they wish. They are also free to pay the consequences for doing so.

The Right loves to talk a lot about personal responsibility and 'moral hazard' but that is always and forever a one-way street. If we have long-term unemployment benefits that creates a moral hazard. If we have a welfare system at all that denies personal responsibility. But for some reason, the moment we are talking about businesses there's no more responsibility and there's no more moral hazard. Suddenly businesses will always do the right thing in all circumstances regardless of what their actions actually are. How do we know those are the right things, because businesses do them.

If personal responsibility is good enough to cudgel the high school dropout with then I think it's good enough to cudgel the MBA from the Wharton school who gets it into his head that it would be a great idea to buy up company X, strip it to the bone, move the HQ to someplace where they won't have to pay taxes, move whatever is left of the manufacturing operations to some other nation where they can pay workers $2 a week, and in the process completely obliterate the economy of an American city. If we can say that unemployment benefits should be limited lest they be abused, then we can equally say that the tax code shouldn't be an invitation to ship good, middle-class jobs overseas lest business people be tempted to do what we've told them, through the medium of our laws, is perfectly acceptable. I don't see how we can do that without appealing to a sense of 'you take care of your countrymen first' across the board.

Cheers
Aj

[Julie]

[Ebon]

Originally Posted by Julie

The cops should really be on our side. I understand the higher rank officers that get the kickbacks from the people that we are fighting against but the guys on the ground really need to get their shit together. Also I wonder who the guys in suits were.

[Ebon]

Oh yeah and this is happening. Wallstreet gets funds to setup cameras to watch citizens in Manhattan. I believe half is tax funded the other half paid by Goldman Sachs.



Love TYT!

[SoNotHer]

I heard through a friend that this was a mess.

Troublesome, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Julie

[Cin]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The other day I read something (I forget where) that has made me ponder whether or not we on the Left aren't hamstringing ourselves in some ways. Part of the problem I see us having in our nation is that, unlike a number of other nations I can name, the rich here do not feel any particular tie to the United States. German companies try to keep a certain percentage of jobs in Germany. Japanese companies behave the same way. As do the French and the British and the South Koreans and the Spanish and the Russians. Not the Americans. Now, is there anyone here who would say that Volkswagen, Audi, BMW or Mercedes-Benz aren't real companies? Would anyone say that they put out products no one wants or products that are inferior? Would anyone say that Sony or Toshiba aren't real companies? Does anyone think that the people who sit at the apex of any of the above aren't rich beyond the dreams of avarice?

Without diving into an orgy of protectionism I would like to see a bit more economic nationalism on the part of American corporations. I would like to see our tax code restructured in order to make it clear that we value job creation *here* not in Singapore. I'm sure the Singaporeans are a noble people with a distinguished history and given a choice between my next door neighbor getting a job building, say, solar panels in Portland and someone in Singapore getting that same job, for the same company, but being paid a fraction of the salary with the profits not being repatriated to the United States, I'll take my neighbor getting the job, thank you very much. I think we can restructure the business tax code to embody that ethic. Imagine, for instance, the definition of a US company (and thus domestic products) being something like this:

An American company is defined as any LLC or LLP or other chartered business which has its corporate headquarters in the United States of America and that employs 80% of its workforce domestically. There is a tax rate for American companies and then there's a tax rate for foreign companies. If My Widgets, Inc. moves its headquarters to the Cayman Islands because of the loose banking laws, they are no longer an American company. Their products are now imports not domestic products. They are taxed at the higher rate for foreign companies and their goods have whatever kind of import or excise taxes that foreign goods have. This would make the widgets from MWI far *less* competitive.

Now, has the government told the owners of MWI where they have to put their factory or their HQ? Nope. They are free to move their business anywhere they wish. They are also free to pay the consequences for doing so.

The Right loves to talk a lot about personal responsibility and 'moral hazard' but that is always and forever a one-way street. If we have long-term unemployment benefits that creates a moral hazard. If we have a welfare system at all that denies personal responsibility. But for some reason, the moment we are talking about businesses there's no more responsibility and there's no more moral hazard. Suddenly businesses will always do the right thing in all circumstances regardless of what their actions actually are. How do we know those are the right things, because businesses do them.

If personal responsibility is good enough to cudgel the high school dropout with then I think it's good enough to cudgel the MBA from the Wharton school who gets it into his head that it would be a great idea to buy up company X, strip it to the bone, move the HQ to someplace where they won't have to pay taxes, move whatever is left of the manufacturing operations to some other nation where they can pay workers $2 a week, and in the process completely obliterate the economy of an American city. If we can say that unemployment benefits should be limited lest they be abused, then we can equally say that the tax code shouldn't be an invitation to ship good, middle-class jobs overseas lest business people be tempted to do what we've told them, through the medium of our laws, is perfectly acceptable. I don't see how we can do that without appealing to a sense of 'you take care of your countrymen first' across the board.

I do agree with economic nationalism. I hope we can force corporations to accept more accountability for what is happening here at home. Guilt tripping, moral accountability and responsibility are useful and a call to nationalism is fine. Finest of all will be some well placed taxes and incentives to make them take responsibility for their country. Will it happen? I sure hope so. However, I can’t help but believe that we are not the only people who understand what a logical step these laws are if anyone is interested in economic recovery. So if they know it, but are refusing to do it, then we are left with the realization that we will have to make them. However, something will have to change dramatically for the 99% to get the power to effect change anything like what we are talking about.

So nationalism is good and necessary. However, that said, I believe the kind of financial terrorism we are seeing perpetrated by the banking cartel will not be fixed so easily. This is where I see a united global response being needed. There is and will continue to be a financial globalization and in order to counter balance this there will need to be a more united global response. I don’t know what this will look like and I’m certainly not advocating no borders or world citizenship or anything even remotely in that vicinity. I am talking more about a united philosophical ideology concerning the rights and dignity of human beings. A kind of global philosophical revolution. I understand that any kind of united global resistance is a long way off. We are seeing significant global unrest but this is just the beginning. I am not advocating taking jobs away from Americans and giving them to people in other countries. I agree that we need to focus on our own economic recovery. I am saying that because of the way the world works at this time we will ultimately need to come up with a global response to the things that are effecting everyone world wide. We need to understand that the struggle of one is the struggle of all, freedom for all or freedom for none. This does not mean I am against economic nationalism.

[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