Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Catawba · Nov 24, 2011

Freedom From al said:

Two presenters at a workshop does not a movement goal make.

In Oakland they marched under a banner saying "Death to Capitalism" as seen in the link below
http://www.radarproductions.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2.jpg

That is a small anarchist faction within the OWS movement and does not represent the goals of the OWS group.

Noam Chomsky is not shy about denouncing Capitalism. Yet OWS protesters cheered him on when giving a speech do just that, denouncing Capitalism.

You confuse denouncing unregulated capitalism with denouncing capitalism.

The video below is touted as hitting the point by OWS.

#OWS Protester Nails It! Federal Reserve : Fractional Banking : FIAT Currency : Wars - YouTube

Where was the anti-capitalism part????

Micheal Moore was applauded very loudly at Occupy Oakland in his speech that was nothing but Anti-Capitalists.

this link below is a speech from Slavoj Zizek at OWS

Today Liberty Plaza had a visit from Slavoj Zizek | OccupyWallSt.org

This is what you call anti-capitalism? Like it was in the 90's???

"We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.

The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy. You want more money for healthcare: they tell you impossible, this means a totalitarian state. There is something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for health care. Maybe that ??? set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standards of living. We want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of what is privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this and only for this we should fight."

"Zizek's got it" You can keep your head in the sand or whatever it is that you assume that you are gaining by denying the obvious, it doesnt really matter to me. But it is a proven fact that OWS = anti-Capitalism, I can go on and get you much more links and quotes if you wish.....

You should save yourself some time and learn the difference between the US in the 90's and anti-capitalism first, because nothing you've presented so far shows the OWS goal is anti-capitalism.

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 24, 2011

Catawba said:
Two presenters at a workshop does not a movement goal make.

That is a small anarchist faction within the OWS movement and does not represent the goals of the OWS group.

You confuse denouncing unregulated capitalism with denouncing capitalism.

Where was the anti-capitalism part????

This is what you call anti-capitalism? Like it was in the 90's???

"We can see that for a long time we allowed our political engagement also to be outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists. If communism means the system which collapsed in 1990, remember that today those communists are the most efficient ruthless capitalists. In China today we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize capitalism, don’t allow yourselves to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over.

The change is possible. So, what do we consider today possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand in technology and sexuality everything seems to be possible. You can travel to the moon. You can become immortal by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals or whatever. But look at the fields of society and economy. There almost everything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little bit for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible, we lose competitivitiy. You want more money for healthcare: they tell you impossible, this means a totalitarian state. There is something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal but cannot spend a little bit more for health care. Maybe that ??? set our priorities straight here. We don’t want higher standards of living. We want better standards of living. The only sense in which we are communists is that we care for the commons. The commons of nature. The commons of what is privatized by intellectual property. The commons of biogenetics. For this and only for this we should fight."

You should save yourself some time and learn the difference between the US in the 90's and anti-capitalism first, because nothing you've presented so far shows the OWS goal is anti-capitalism.

I knew in the end you would deny everything, but tell since you seem to know exactly what OWs stands for, what exactly it is that OWS officially stands for. Tell me who exactly is OWS? Who do I contact to ask them what they represent? Also explain to me why, the internet sites set up by the actual occupations are full of anti-Capitalist propaganda? Also explain to me why OWS was started by Anarchists and is ran under Anarchist structure how come you think it is not Anarchy of some form? Tell me why the General Assemblies (all of the occupy movements General Assemblies that is) use the hand signals developed and used by Anarchists? Tell me why the internet is full of signs that say "death to Capitalism" and "End Capitalism" Etc. and they are at Occupy protests?

Show me the proof that the Anarchists are a fringe element of OWS. Why is it that you require me to prove my assertions yet you provide no proof just your word? Why is it so hard for you to accept what is so easily provable?

Also tell me why for all appearance OWS looks like a Socialist Revolution? DO you know what is meant by the Occupy signs that read "Capitalism has come to its end!" or "Capitalism does not work" or "Capitalism is crisis" or "Capitalism cannot be reformed"? Why are these signs prevalent at all large Occupy protests?

And it is bad form for you to try yet again to put words in my mouth. I asserted that OWS is Anti Capitalist I did not state that it was their ultimate goal. Anti Capitalism is just a part of the equation. You cannot just dismiss the proof that I have shown just because you seem to not want to accept it.

Slavoj Zizek was a featured speaker provided by OWS. As was Micheal Moore.

Statement on the Occupation of the former Traveler’s Aid Society at 520 16th Street | BayofRage

All across the US thousands upon thousands of commercial and residential spaces sit empty while more and more people are forced to sleep in the streets, or driven deep into poverty while trying to pay their rent despite unemployment or poverty wages. We understand that capitalism is a system that has no care for human needs.

If the Occupy movement is not Anti Capitalist, than how come I can find Anti Capitalist rhetoric at all of the Occupy sites?

TurtleDude · Nov 24, 2011

Catawba said:
For the last 30 years it has been the unregulated greed of Reaganomics. Not surprising, the Gop is only offering more of the same. The 99% aren't buying it!

you don't speak for the 99%

many of those in the top 1% today were in the 99% yesterday. You only speak for those who have conceded they don't have what it takes to be successful

alexa · Nov 24, 2011

TurtleDude said:
. You only speak for those who have conceded they don't have what it takes to be successful

What is being successful?

Edit: If we stop talking about whether people believe that they are being spoken for within the slogans which are being used and get back to their argument

The Occupy movement is born of the simple belief that humanity could meet our common needs if not for the predation and greed of the very few. Nowhere is this disparity of wealth and power more evident than in the struggle to secure the human right to housing.

In a nation that puts the right to housing at the center of its founding dream, millions of people have lost their homes or fear that they soon will because of the foreclosure crisis. Wall Street created this crisis with lies and greed. And Washington, instead of investigating Wall Street and banks, is cutting back room deals to let bankers escape justice for their crimes.

Wall Street turned a fundamental human need into a badly rigged casino game with fraudulent lending practices and corrupt securitization. They destroyed our economy, kicked tens of thousands of people illegally out of their homes, and are now using a small fraction of the money they stole to buy off politicians and settle for far less than they owe.

December 6: Occupy Wall Street

Would you agree that they have a point?

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 24, 2011

alexa said:
What is being successful?

Edit: If we stop talking about whether people believe that they are being spoken for within the slogans which are being used and get back to their argument

December 6: Occupy Wall Street

Would you agree that they have a point?

It is hard to determine their argument. As my exchange with Catawba illustrates there is a large disagreement among supporters of the Occupy movement and OWS. The NYC General Assembly assumes control over the movement. The Good neighbor policy expresses their authority is the final word. Good Neighbor Policy | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Plaza;
Zero tolerance for violence or verbal abuse towards anyone;
Zero tolerance for abuse of personal or public property.
OWS will limit drumming on the site to 2 hours per day, between the hours of 11am and 5pm only.
OWS encourages all participants to respect health and sanitary regulations, and will direct all participants to respectfully utilize appropriate off-site sanitary facilities.
OWS will display signage and have community relations and security monitors in Liberty Plaza, in order to ensure awareness of and respect for our guidelines and Good Neighbor Policy.
OWS will at all times have a community relations representative on-site, to monitor and respond to community concerns and complaints.
Occupy Wall Street
October 13, 2011

The above is not the 99% speaking it is a group that assumes it can tell their fellow protesters what to do and how to behave. Who gave them that authority? And since they claim to be speaking for the 99% they believe that they can tell us what to do as well. In the park, in the streets and our homes they dictate to us on how we can behave. They have a zero tolerance? What will they do if a protester the 99% breaks their Zero tolerance policy? Oust the 99% from their movement? This shows a authoritarian element already has roots in their movement.

I believe that there is a large Liberal support that does not understand the workings of NYC General Assembly and have the misunderstanding that OWS is actually ran by the people. NYC General Assembly believe that they are a new model of society and Government that will be the replacement of our Government. In fact they believe that they have already started the replacement Government. I really doubt that most Liberals would actually sign on to that premise knowingly.

NYC general Assembly believe that the OWS protesters are backing them that is why they put so much effort into the General Assemblies. They are engaged in a Revolution they have no desire to pursue reform.

What you asking us to do is to ignore that reality and just talk about the issues instead.

Logically the alternative for Liberals is to distance themselves from OWS and start their own movement completely on their with a definite set of goals and demands. Liberals are only marring their own ideology by trying to Co-Opt the OWS movement. But I doubt Liberals will see it that way. They will just continue up until the radicals get pissed and oust them.

Notice that Obama has distanced himself and his campaign from OWS? Notice that protesters showed up to protest Obama at a speech? OWS has never came out and said "vote Democratic" neither have they expressed any desire to vote on anything in the American system. The will not call themselves a political party. The reason is that they are not a party, they believe that they are the new American Government.

I am sure many of you will doubt what I am saying. If you actually research the OWS movement you will find the same things that I have, that OWS is not an Liberal movement at all.

Catawba · Nov 25, 2011

Freedom From al said:
what exactly it is that OWS officially stands for.

Economic justice

Tell me who exactly is OWS?

They are Democracy in action, what we are supposedly trying to promote in Muslim countries

Who do I contact to ask them what they represent?

Have you bothered to read their Mission Statement:

"As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known."
Read more here: Occupy Wall St. releases their mission statement… « The Devout Infidel

Also explain to me why, the internet sites set up by the actual occupations are full of anti-Capitalist propaganda?

You have demonstrated you do not know what anti-capitalism is. That explains it for me.

Also explain to me why OWS was started by Anarchists and is ran under Anarchist structure how come you think it is not Anarchy of some form?

Our country was started by criminals and slave owners........................

Tell me why the General Assemblies (all of the occupy movements General Assemblies that is) use the hand signals developed and used by Anarchists? Tell me why the internet is full of signs that say "death to Capitalism" and "End Capitalism" Etc. and they are at Occupy protests?

We've already been over this and I've documented the General Assembly process has roots in many historic organizations including the Native Americans, the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam war protesters.

Also tell me why for all appearance OWS looks like a Socialist Revolution?

It appears a socialistic revolution to you because are not old enough to have seen (and have not taken the time to learn about) what our other great protest movements were like in history.

DO you know what is meant by the Occupy signs that read "Capitalism has come to its end!" or "Capitalism does not work" or "Capitalism is crisis" or "Capitalism cannot be reformed"? Why are these signs prevalent at all large Occupy protests?

They aren't, there are very few of them. You are just paranoid.

And it is bad form for you to try yet again to put words in my mouth. I asserted that OWS is Anti Capitalist I did not state that it was their ultimate goal. Anti Capitalism is just a part of the equation. You cannot just dismiss the proof that I have shown just because you seem to not want to accept it.

All you have provided is examples of your distorted understanding of anti-capitalism.

Slavoj Zizek was a featured speaker provided by OWS. As was Micheal Moore.

Exactly, neither are anti-capitalism.

Catawba · Nov 25, 2011

TurtleDude said:
you don't speak for the 99%

many of those in the top 1% today were in the 99% yesterday. You only speak for those who have conceded they don't have what it takes to be successful

I absolutely speak for the 99%. Just as you speak for the 1%, (well at least the more greedy amongst them judging by your posts).

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 25, 2011

Catawba said:
It appears a socialistic revolution to you because are not old enough to have seen (and have not taken the time to learn about) what our other great protest movements were like in history. You are just paranoid. All you have provided is examples of your distorted understanding of anti-capitalism.

Your argument is weak. Just plain pathetic actually. Like I said I do not care what you believe.
My age has nothing to do with this debate. Hell as far as I know I may be older than you (not that it matters).
My education is not up for debate. In fact your opinions of myself are meaningless drivel. And frankly ruin any argument that you thought you had.

Why is it that most Occupy supporters know nothing about civil discourse? They tend like most Leftists to assume that they know more than everyone else does not know what they are talking about. I think it might have to do with collective mentality being opposed to individual thought processes. Much like Tom and Jerry must perform their ritual cat and mouse game.

Answer this question: Is the Occupy movement a Liberal movement in your opinion or? And spare me the non-partisan non ideological its just the people line. Logically OWS is dishonest, hence the noncommittal stance that they have taken. They assume like children that if they just pretend to not have an ideological leftist goal that no one will notice. Just stick with the story that all they are after is "Economic justice". Oops except everyone knows just where that concept came from and exactly what it means.

Objectively economic justice limits liberty and an outright impossibility. To create an system that is equal to all within that system has to rob form one section to equal out the entire system. Theoretically the group being robbed can be the 1% or it also can be the 99% or some percentage in between. There will always be some group being robbed from in some shape or form in a system that is universally equal. Economic justice ends up taking by force the means to provide to to the recipients.

take a close look at just what OWS really is after:

Principles of Solidarity | Docs | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
• direct, participatory, and transparent democracy and the will of the people to govern;
• a consensus based decision making process;
• valuing people before profits and eliminating the exploitation of labor;
• personal or collective responsibility, as applicable, regarding our actions;
• ending the commercialization of culture and science;
• eliminating all debt and recognizing it as a form of bondage;

We are daring to imagine a new sociopolitical and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. Our success will depend on our solidarity with one another in this occupation and with all other non-violent occupations, active participation in local communities, fairness in our approach to direct democracy, and the maintenance of a nonhierarchical structure, where each of us is empowered to lead, but where no one one person is the leader or voice of the occupation and greater movement.

We are, today, in the midst of an important time in history. We seek enhanced, genuine, and radical democratization. We will amplify each other’s voices! We will be heard! We are revolution!

We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow. Principles of Solidarity | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Yes they do not use the word Capitalism per se, But as I showed you OWS has a committee addressing an alternative economic system. Everyone knows that our American economic system is in fact Capitalism. Ows is seeking an alternative to Capitalism, and you cannot deny that as fact anymore because there it is in black and white on the site of the NYC General Assembly that started and is running the Occupy movement.

BTW you offered a link to another site rather than NYC General assembly (the people that wrote it and posted it) And you made a mistake, it is not called the "mission statement" it is called the "Declaration" Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Our country was started by criminals and slave owners........................

Well that isnt accurate at all. You should have said some of the framers were...
BTW you were attempting yet again another fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

The General Assembly as used by the Occupy movement is what it is, earlier models are different and on their own terms separate from the occupy movement. What you are trying to claim is that same as claiming that America is the same as Rome since Rome had a Senate.

It appears a socialistic revolution to you because are not old enough to have seen (and have not taken the time to learn about) what our other great protest movements were like in history.

Appeal to authority. It is well documented that your other great protest movements were full of Leftist Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists. Thank you for proving my point.

In the end we can still assert that The Occupy movement does not represent the 99% but the Leftist element from historical protests. Because the old guys said so.

alexa · Nov 25, 2011

Freedom From al said:
It is hard to determine their argument.

I tried to make it simpler by referring to one key element.

Freedom From al said:
As my exchange with Catawba illustrates there is a large disagreement among supporters of the Occupy movement and OWS. The NYC General Assembly assumes control over the movement. The Good neighbor policy expresses their authority is the final word. Good Neighbor Policy | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

I noticed Edinburgh Occupy had similar set of rules - why? They are living together. You simply cannot live together without some basic rules.

Freedom From al said:
The above is not the 99% speaking it is a group that assumes it can tell their fellow protesters what to do and how to behave. Who gave them that authority?

Maybe they had a meeting and voted on it.

Freedom From al said:
And since they claim to be speaking for the 99% they believe that they can tell us what to do as well. In the park, in the streets and our homes they dictate to us on how we can behave. They have a zero tolerance? What will they do if a protester the 99% breaks their Zero tolerance policy? Oust the 99% from their movement? This shows a authoritarian element already has roots in their movement.

This I so don't understand. Do you believe that just because some people state their view and say their focus is the position of 99% of the population, that you need to agree with everything they say? That certainly is a totalitarian belief. You should never feel that about any group, person or organisation you become involved in. You always have the right to agree with some things and disagree with others.

The things however you have given are not about political views but about living together harmoniously in a difficult situation. You would prefer chaos and insanitary conditions? That would certainly set people against them.

Freedom From al said:
I believe that there is a large Liberal support that does not understand the workings of NYC General Assembly and have the misunderstanding that OWS is actually ran by the people. NYC General Assembly believe that they are a new model of society and Government that will be the replacement of our Government. In fact they believe that they have already started the replacement Government. I really doubt that most Liberals would actually sign on to that premise knowingly.

I admit I do not know about the NYC General Assembly and will take time to find out when I can. However occupy movements are worldwide now and nowhere have any power. It can only be a 'government of ideas'.

I see the occupy movement as starting a conversation. They will evolve and they look like they will effect society but it is a conversation. Edinburgh Council has given it's support to Occupy Edinburgh/Scotland and indeed to the whole occupy movement while both noting their belief that policy change is best dealt with through the usual route of elected officials and recognising the frustration felt because those elected are allowing the situation which got us into the mess we are in now to continue.

"I think there is a huge dissatisfaction with the way that some political parties and big business have been happy to see gains privatised and I think people are now just sick and tired of seeing losses socialised. We're all bearing the brunt of the mistakes that were made, and there doesn't seem to be any solution or any attempt to make sure this doesn't happen again.

"We're in a desperate rush to get back to the same old model with no new ideas. I think these people are just calling us to take a better, wider look at things."

During the meeting Labour Councillor Gordon Munro spoke passionately in favour of the Occupy Edinburgh group, backing one of the causes championed by the movement - a Robin Hood Tax.

Speaking after the debate he said: "I think the Occupy voice has not been heard within the city chambers, and I think it's up to us as elected politicians to provide a vehicle for them to come in and say who we are and what we're about so that they can counter the deliberately misconcieved perceptions that are put through the received media for this group."

Occupy Edinburgh gains backing from Edinburgh Council | Edinburgh News | STV Local

Here the elected body is beginning to be in conversation with the Occupy movement.

Freedom From al said:
NYC general Assembly believe that the OWS protesters are backing them that is why they put so much effort into the General Assemblies. They are engaged in a Revolution they have no desire to pursue reform.

What you asking us to do is to ignore that reality and just talk about the issues instead.

I am not asking you to do anything. I believe profoundly in allowing each person to come to their own informed decisions. Indeed I find it childish to assume I would be wanting to act like a parent towards you and tell you what to think/say - I took the time to make sure my daughter learned to think for herself.

However - I believe that change is needed. Both the US and the UK have become far more unequal countries in the past 30 years and we are now seeing the result of allowing greed is good to continue. We have lost our social conscience. Our well being now seems to be dependent on 0.1% of the population who have no regard except to make ridiculous sums of money and the power which that gives them to control. We are heading towards greater and greater inequality. We do not offer equality of opportunity. Social mobility has ended and indeed is going in the wrong direction. In the UK in the last 30 years CEO's pay has increased 4000% and they are now paid on average 157 times more than the average worker. In the US it is even worse. They are paid at around 500 times the average worker. All this has been done without conscience and the people who are paying for it are not the people who created it.....so I want change. I want change so that my grandchildren can grow up in a world which offers equal opportunity and is just and has social responsibility. I judge a person having a conscience as more successful than a person having billions earned through ruthlessness.

But I do not see the occupy movement as anything other than a movement. I believe they are a much needed movement. Apart from them, all we are hearing about in the UK is the cutting of jobs, making harsher laws, cutting benefits to the disabled, throwing people out of their homes and the removal of human rights. Yes I believe something is needed and the Occupy people are providing that.

But that is a conversation. Edinburgh council have opened the conversation by acknowledging them and that they are talking about genuine issues which need addressing and which are not being addressed.

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

Honest question ... if some officials decided they wanted to have a sit-down and talk with OWS, who do they address? The mob? Or is there an officially recognized council?

alexa · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
Honest question ... if some officials decided they wanted to have a sit-down and talk with OWS, who do they address? The mob? Or is there an officially recognized council?

Well I imagine they would simply arrange it as these tea partiers did

Pope and fellow Occupy Memphis protester Tristan Tran had a lively, sometimes strained and confrontational, but mostly civil discussion with members of the Mid-South Tea Party at a municipal meeting hall outside Memphis.

The factions saw eye-to-eye on some issues and clashed on others. And, while the young speakers didn't change many minds, they did earn praise from the tea party members for their passion, honesty and courage.

The 21-year-old University of Memphis students had been invited by the tea party group to talk about the goals of the Occupy movement. The invitation was extended after a discussion between members of both groups on the tea party's website, meeting organizer Jim Tomasik said.

The Associated Press: Occupy Memphis, tea party members meet

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

alexa said:
Well I imagine they would simply arrange it as these tea partiers did

The Associated Press: Occupy Memphis, tea party members meet

Still just questioning.. I see that they invited a couple students to the meeting, which is cool on both sides because the students showed up to discuss. However, we are regularly told that we can't hold OWS to any specific item because they are grass roots. So, if they called a few of the more intelligent and eloquent members up to discuss, would they really be addressing OWS as a whole?

hazlnut · Nov 25, 2011

Again, I hate when the real answer is not a choice.

How about F) - Yes and No.

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

hazlnut said:
Again, I hate when the real answer is not a choice.

How about F) - Yes and No.

It's a point of discussion, not meant as a debate tactic. If you don't like my phrasing, feel free to correct it, but please expound on your statement.

alexa · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
It's a point of discussion, not meant as a debate tactic. If you don't like my phrasing, feel free to correct it, but please expound on your statement.

Well I probably should not have answered them. I am curious and interested and think they are serving a good and needed purpose but I am in no way an active member. If I wanted to know more myself, I would take the trouble to visit them and find out more. I do not understand your issue believing you would be faced with a 'MOB' if you wished to speak to them...but if that is what you want to discuss, I will leave you to it.

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

Bah, it's a large crowd of largely disorganized people. That is a mob. I would have been willing to rephrase it to crowd if I knew it was somehow off-putting. The main point was that addressing such a large crowd doesn't typically make for good dialogue.

And I have been to the two largest encampments in my area, but I didn't learn much. Both are tiny and either had a few people giving speeches or no one around at the time. I'm not going to travel to NY to ask a simple question. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask people who sympathize with them on a discussion board.

Look, I'm not trying to make some huge point here. There is no need to argue. I wondered if there was an answer. If you don't feel like you can speak for them or you don't have an answer for me, that is acceptable, too.

alexa · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
Bah, it's a large crowd of largely disorganized people. That is a mob.

This illustrates that you are flaiming or baiting, not genuinely wanting to know anything which was pretty obvious from your first question on this. I should have gone with my intuition and ignored you.

Keridan said:
I would have been willing to rephrase it to crowd if I knew it was somehow off-putting.

I think you presented your opinion quite accurately

Keridan said:
The main point was that addressing such a large crowd doesn't typically make for good dialogue.

and what would make you think that you would have anything to say which they would wish on mass to stop and listen to? When they are interested however they have developed a way of responding so that their feelings and position can be understood in a very un mob manner

General Assembly Guide | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

Keridan said:
And I have been to the two largest encampments in my area, but I didn't learn much. Both are tiny and either had a few people giving speeches or no one around at the time.

You have already been to visit them? Why was that? What did you hope to learn and failed to learn?

Keridan said:
I'm not going to travel to NY to ask a simple question. It seems perfectly reasonable to ask people who sympathize with them on a discussion board.

You wanted to know how it was possible for an official to meet them. I told you, just arrange. That wasn't what you were wanting though, was it.

Keridan said:
Look, I'm not trying to make some huge point here. There is no need to argue.

Your point was that it would be impossible for any 'official' to speak to them because they are a 'mob'

Keridan said:
I wondered if there was an answer. If you don't feel like you can speak for them or you don't have an answer for me, that is acceptable, too.

It has been answered. If you want to know their opinions then they are freely available on their websites. Look under resources here and you can find them

OK, done I think.

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

alexa said:
This illustrates that you are flaiming or baiting, not genuinely wanting to know anything which was pretty obvious from your first question on this. I should have gone with my intuition and ignored you.

I think you presented your opinion quite accurately

It illustrates that the word was correctly used. mob - definition of mob by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

alexa said:
and what would make you think that you would have anything to say which they would wish on mass to stop and listen to? When they are interested however they have developed a way of responding so that their feelings and position can be understood in a very un mob manner

General Assembly Guide | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

I'm checking and not finding where I said I think they want to listen to me. I was asking (as you said later in your own post) how would an official address them.

alexa said:
You have already been to visit them? Why was that? What did you hope to learn and failed to learn?

I was at a couple of the downtown areas where they get together and thought I would stop and see first-hand what was going on. Turns out I'm not narrow-minded as you would like to paint me. I didn't learn much for the reasons I already stated, but that is hardly a strike against them.

alexa said:
You wanted to know how it was possible for an official to meet them. I told you, just arrange. That wasn't what you were wanting though, was it.

Actually, it was, but you are the one who got upset here. I furthered the question because it had relevance. Somehow, I don't think that's trolling.

alexa said:
Your point was that it would be impossible for any 'official' to speak to them because they are a 'mob'

My point was to ask how they would get past being a mob so they could be addressed when taken seriously by an official. I didn't say it was impossible, nor do I think it.

alexa said:
It has been answered. If you want to know their opinions then they are freely available on their websites. Look under resources here and you can find them

OK, done I think.

Okay, I actually did find that guide somewhat helpful, in that they have found a less vocal way to speak as a group. I see an address there for sending stuff to them. I still honestly don't see a way for someone to have a sit-down, back and forth with a grass-roots movement spread across the country.

I get that you are defensive. OWS has been the subject of much debate and it's not a secret that I don't support them. However, putting words in my mouth and getting upset at me accomplishes nothing. This is not an attack. It's a simple question that I would think OWS, as a group, would like to answer. I do see an issue, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, so I was looking for more information. That is not a crime.

alexa · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
It illustrates that the word was correctly used. mob - definition of mob by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Maybe depending on your choice. The way in which you used it made me believe you were deliberately using it in one of it's denigrating forms

Keridan said:
I'm checking and not finding where I said I think they want to listen to me. I was asking (as you said later in your own post) how would an official address them.

then I may have misunderstood you.

Keridan said:
I was at a couple of the downtown areas where they get together and thought I would stop and see first-hand what was going on. Turns out I'm not narrow-minded as you would like to paint me. I didn't learn much for the reasons I already stated, but that is hardly a strike against them.

You being confrontational is what gives me the opinion I have created of you. You have still not said what you wanted to learn and what you failed to learn.

Keridan said:
Actually, it was, but you are the one who got upset here.

Then why was my example not acceptable to you

Keridan said:
I furthered the question because it had relevance. Somehow, I don't think that's trolling.

On one hand I accept this. Somehow I took your reply to someone else so replied to that, thinking it was to me, rather than the one which was to me. Here is the reply you gave

Keridan said:
Still just questioning.. I see that they invited a couple students to the meeting, which is cool on both sides because the students showed up to discuss. However, we are regularly told that we can't hold OWS to any specific item because they are grass roots. So, if they called a few of the more intelligent and eloquent members up to discuss, would they really be addressing OWS as a whole?

I still see this as patronising and simply being argumentative. You are not going to find any group of any people who share 100%\ the same ideas.

Keridan said:
My point was to ask how they would get past being a mob so they could be addressed when taken seriously by an official. I didn't say it was impossible, nor do I think it.

You have made a strong value ridden collective judgement on these people. They are 'a mob'.

Keridan said:
Okay, I actually did find that guide somewhat helpful, in that they have found a less vocal way to speak as a group. I see an address there for sending stuff to them.

and now you are beginning to find out about them and can see they have found a way of communicating which presents their view even when in intensive meetings of people.

Keridan said:
I still honestly don't see a way for someone to have a sit-down, back and forth with a grass-roots movement spread across the country.

I think you need to come out directly with what you are wanting to discuss and who you are wanting to discuss it. The internet allows for the sharing of information in ways previously unheard of.

Keridan said:
I get that you are defensive.

I have nothing to be defensive about. Irritated maybe. I just tire of getting involved in posts which are just....tiring, draining. You have however been aggressive as you just now are being.

Keridan said:
OWS has been the subject of much debate and it's not a secret that I don't support them.

and guess what? This is the first time I have met you or read any of your posts and what you now say is obvious. But what has the rest of this post been about. Your attempt to suggest you are open when now you are admitting that my judgement of you was correct.

Keridan said:
However, putting words in my mouth and getting upset at me accomplishes nothing. This is not an attack. It's a simple question that I would think OWS, as a group, would like to answer. I do see an issue, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer, so I was looking for more information. That is not a crime.

and what now are you talking about????? Of course this is yet another attack. My irritation is that I am trying to keep out of these posts which are about absolutely nothing except to flame.

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

alexa said:
Maybe depending on your choice. The way in which you used it made me believe you were deliberately using it in one of it's denigrating forms

then I may have misunderstood you.

You being confrontational is what gives me the opinion I have created of you. You have still not said what you wanted to learn and what you failed to learn.

Then why was my example not acceptable to you

On one hand I accept this. Somehow I took your reply to someone else so replied to that, thinking it was to me, rather than the one which was to me. Here is the reply you gave

I still see this as patronising and simply being argumentative. You are not going to find any group of any people who share 100%\ the same ideas.

You have made a strong value ridden collective judgement on these people. They are 'a mob'.

and now you are beginning to find out about them and can see they have found a way of communicating which presents their view even when in intensive meetings of people.

I think you need to come out directly with what you are wanting to discuss and who you are wanting to discuss it. The internet allows for the sharing of information in ways previously unheard of.

I have nothing to be defensive about. Irritated maybe. I just tire of getting involved in posts which are just....tiring, draining. You have however been aggressive as you just now are being.

and guess what? This is the first time I have met you or read any of your posts and what you now say is obvious. But what has the rest of this post been about. Your attempt to suggest you are open when now you are admitting that my judgement of you was correct.

and what now are you talking about????? Of course this is yet another attack. My irritation is that I am trying to keep out of these posts which are about absolutely nothing except to flame.

Could you please demonstrate where I have been aggressive, confrontational, made an attack, patronizing, and argumentative? I'm finding it harder not to be when you post things like this. I have asked and answered a few questions.

I demonstrated that my use of mob was in keeping with its definition. I'm willing to use crowd from here out if we could get back to discussion. Your harsh judgment is not justified by the fact that I don't support OWS, by the way. I've also stated in other posts that I support the right to assemble and that they have made changes in the public discussion. Disagreeing is not judgmental.

Back on topic: I stated that I wanted to learn more about them. I didn't show up with a list of questions or an agenda, I wanted to see what the gathering was like without soundbites and outside opinions. I didn't find much because of the size of the local chapter. I only really mentioned this because you suggested going down and seeing for myself.

Regarding my topic of discussion, it was really looking for an answer to my question. There has been discussion that they want to affect congressional policy and want to provoke change. I mentally followed the process of how that might get done and came across this question, so I thought I would ask for input from people who support the movement.

I appreciate your link to the general assembly pamphlet and the discussion with the Tea Party, but I'm still wondering about the practicalities of it. The question isn't about a crowd yelling out answers over each other, it's about the disagreement of those answers. If someone addressed a gathering of 100 people and asked a question and 25 people give the gesture for no, 25 people give the gesture for yes, etc, what do you take as the group's answer? Normally, I would say something like what you posted about the meeting, but it has been a regular statement that grass-roots movements can't take individual responses and apply them to the whole.

I'm honestly curious how you get past this problem. I'm not assuming there is no answer, but I haven't found it and I'm wondering if someone has. Is it a matter of popular vote? Does a leader need to come to the forefront? Is it something I haven't touched on yet?

justabubba · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
Honest question ... if some officials decided they wanted to have a sit-down and talk with OWS, who do they address? The mob? Or is there an officially recognized council?

thought the similarity of this might be found somewhat intriguing:

There are no official organizers or leaders at ... . All work, including all management of the work of others, is done by volunteers. Even the gathering council, which makes (a very few) important decisions affecting the whole gathering, does not generally appoint or establish roles at gatherings. There is no centralized management of any of the major operations that keep the gathering functioning. All tasks are handled by individual (self-selected) volunteers or small groups of such volunteers. These smaller groups organize themselves using the same consensus-based decision-making mechanism as the gathering council.

There is no organization behind ..., nor an infrastructure. The system of individual cooperation is sufficient to make it all work. After the gathering is over there is no remaining social or legal entity until the following annual gathering. The closest thing to a permanent entity associated with gatherings it probably this usenet newsgroup ... on which you are reading this message.

There is unanimous resistance to any attempt to organize the gathering by defining official roles, especially roles of representation or leadership, as these would usurp the principle of individual equality, freedom and autonomy that is the organizational basis of the gathering. There is also resistance to defining any organization that would represent the gathering, as this would also violate the most fundamental principles of the gathering.

There is no payment or official reward system for work done at the ... . The main incentive for volunteers is the personal satisfaction of assisting others at the gathering. In addition there is no funding apart from donations collected during the gathering, and all of the funds are spent by the end of the gathering.

There is no official belief system or political ideology (apart from populism) common to participants at the ... .

Rap on Rainbow Disorganization

if you are familiar with the rainbow gathering of tribes, then you probably are aware how difficult it is for government to control their activities
without a formal organization or officers, there is no person or entity to bring before the court and/or prosecute
that amorphous nature of both the occupy and rainbow activities appears to serve them well

Keridan · Nov 25, 2011

justabubba said:
thought the similarity of this might be found somewhat intriguing:

Rap on Rainbow Disorganization

if you are familiar with the rainbow gathering of tribes, then you probably are aware how difficult it is for government to control their activities
without a formal organization or officers, there is no person or entity to bring before the court and/or prosecute
that amorphous nature of both the occupy and rainbow activities appears to serve them well

I find that interesting and it does touch on what I'm asking, but it's more the other side of the issue. I'm interested in how they further their goals when they are trying to influence an existing system than how they avoid control or prosecution.

Lethargic Aptitude · Nov 25, 2011

alexa said:
I tried to make it simpler by referring to one key element.

I noticed Edinburgh Occupy had similar set of rules - why? They are living together. You simply cannot live together without some basic rules.

Maybe they had a meeting and voted on it.

This I so don't understand. Do you believe that just because some people state their view and say their focus is the position of 99% of the population, that you need to agree with everything they say? That certainly is a totalitarian belief. You should never feel that about any group, person or organisation you become involved in. You always have the right to agree with some things and disagree with others.

The things however you have given are not about political views but about living together harmoniously in a difficult situation. You would prefer chaos and insanitary conditions? That would certainly set people against them.

I admit I do not know about the NYC General Assembly and will take time to find out when I can. However occupy movements are worldwide now and nowhere have any power. It can only be a 'government of ideas'.

I see the occupy movement as starting a conversation. They will evolve and they look like they will effect society but it is a conversation. Edinburgh Council has given it's support to Occupy Edinburgh/Scotland and indeed to the whole occupy movement while both noting their belief that policy change is best dealt with through the usual route of elected officials and recognising the frustration felt because those elected are allowing the situation which got us into the mess we are in now to continue.

Occupy Edinburgh gains backing from Edinburgh Council | Edinburgh News | STV Local

Here the elected body is beginning to be in conversation with the Occupy movement.

I am not asking you to do anything. I believe profoundly in allowing each person to come to their own informed decisions. Indeed I find it childish to assume I would be wanting to act like a parent towards you and tell you what to think/say - I took the time to make sure my daughter learned to think for herself.

However - I believe that change is needed. Both the US and the UK have become far more unequal countries in the past 30 years and we are now seeing the result of allowing greed is good to continue. We have lost our social conscience. Our well being now seems to be dependent on 0.1% of the population who have no regard except to make ridiculous sums of money and the power which that gives them to control. We are heading towards greater and greater inequality. We do not offer equality of opportunity. Social mobility has ended and indeed is going in the wrong direction. In the UK in the last 30 years CEO's pay has increased 4000% and they are now paid on average 157 times more than the average worker. In the US it is even worse. They are paid at around 500 times the average worker. All this has been done without conscience and the people who are paying for it are not the people who created it.....so I want change. I want change so that my grandchildren can grow up in a world which offers equal opportunity and is just and has social responsibility. I judge a person having a conscience as more successful than a person having billions earned through ruthlessness.

But I do not see the occupy movement as anything other than a movement. I believe they are a much needed movement. Apart from them, all we are hearing about in the UK is the cutting of jobs, making harsher laws, cutting benefits to the disabled, throwing people out of their homes and the removal of human rights. Yes I believe something is needed and the Occupy people are providing that.

But that is a conversation. Edinburgh council have opened the conversation by acknowledging them and that they are talking about genuine issues which need addressing and which are not being addressed.

You have not investigated the people that started the occupy movement?
That is why you believe OWS to be nothing more than a movement. You simply have not done your homework and are fielding uneducated guesses.

Yes the groups of protesters are living together. We all are living together. That is why our law enforcement is enforcing the laws in those protest sites. The protesters believe that they only answer to themselves and have no social responsibility to obey societies laws. Our laws were not determined out of the blue, we the people have a part in making those decisions.

The occupiers believe that they have a better way of co-existing. It is not just about economics to the occupiers. They are fighting for changing social and economics structure of this country and the world. Maybe not everyone in the occupy movement feels that way, indeed. But NYC General Assembly assumes the anchoring roll as the founders and Propagator of the occupy movement. It can be argued that the NYC General Assembly are the Representative body of the occupy movement. All occupations report to the NYC General Assembly. Yes the NYCGA is powerless to stop anyone anywhere from doing what they want (Black blocs and Red blocs refuse to answer to anyone much less the NYCGA) but holds a certain amount of respect among the movement that is why all of the occupations are designed in the image of the NYCGA. Socially the NYCGA has the power to influence other occupations and if the NYCGA disproves of an action or suggests something then that attitude is mimicked and followed by the other occupations.

OWS has zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol anywhere in Liberty Plaza;

This rule caused great harm to the occupation movement across the country. It divided and caused splintering of occupations to develop. Those groups are fighting each other for the public recognition as the real occupiers. The dividing line in most cases being that the occupation organizers do not process the authority to dictate to the protesters on what they can and cannot do. They deny any authority to impose zero tolerances policies pertaining to the actions and behavior of the 99%. Remember the claim is that the protesters are the 99%, that it is us not them speaking for the 99% but it is the 99% speaking against the 1%.

That is why this poll that asks Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%? is wrong. The occupiers claim to be the 99% of this country united. The occupations are not representatives of the 99% at all, the occupiers claim to be the entire population united against the 1%. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not united against any individual economic group. Culturally Americans refuse to single out and attack other Americans. Those that do are called bigots. There is no rational excuse to be a bigot.

Freedom is guaranteed as long as it does not infringe on someone elses freedom. The Constitution and our laws are designed to address the 1%. The occupations method does not in any way shape or form involve going after the alleged perpetrators in a legal sense. They occupiers have assumed that all 1%'ers are guilty and have not offered any chance for them as individuals to defend themselves in any court of law. The occupiers are tired of the obvious corrupted influence in our Government and have decided that a certain group of people are guilty. When asked for proof the occupiers point to numbers on a chart as their proof.

the occupy movement cannot work without the majority on their side. The occupy movement is a propagandist tool and nothing more. The conversation that the movement is wanting is for the public to hate rich people. It is the exact same tactic that Karl Marx devised. And that is why on September 22 in Liberty plaza there was a teach in on the Communist Manifesto. The teach ins are organized by the NYCGA by consensus.

Please spend much time researching the NYCGA.

Catawba · Nov 25, 2011

Freedom From al said:
Answer this question: Is the Occupy movement a Liberal movement in your opinion or?

From all indications the tens of thousand of OWS protesters around the country are progressives, from many sectors of society, including some anarchists, some seniors, some vets, and some celebrities to name a few.

Catawba · Nov 25, 2011

Keridan said:
I'm interested in how they further their goals when they are trying to influence an existing system than how they avoid control or prosecution.

Their goal is to increase public awareness and debate about the economic injustice in this country. They are succeeding in that goal without the need of a head honcho.
They are not trying to avoid prosecution, they are embracing it and using the arrests for non-violent civil disobedience as a means to increase public awareness and debate.

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Does the Occupy Wall Street movement represent the 99%?

Yes, they very much represent their complaints & agenda.

They represent some of their complaints & agenda, but also have their own unique/radical ideas.

Not really, their ideas are more represent the complaints & goals of the poor and radicals.

Not at all! They only speak for a radical fringe!!

Disappointed Evolutionist

Political Parties = Corruption

warrior of the wetlands

Political Parties = Corruption

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Political Parties = Corruption

long standing member

Political Parties = Corruption

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist